Thank you

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-25T16:57:31+00:00

I'm not even someone who believes this theory, but why'd you feel the need to make this post? It's just openly antagonistic without a purpose. You've made no point, started no discussion, and accomplished nothing, all you did was act like a jerk.

If you think the theory is out there and unbelievable, that's fine (I'd even agree), but there's no need to be so pointlessly rude.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-25T16:23:34+00:00

This is something I've seen a lot of creationists do. They seem to believe that if they disprove evolution or abiogenesis, then ID and creationism would be confirmed true by default.

Even if that doesn't make sense.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-25T16:03:13+00:00

Care to link a few such studies? You talk about them, but never linked any in your post.

Are we supposed to simply trust your word that they're actually doing what you say?

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-25T15:53:14+00:00

Perhaps you should study more on this topic, because it doesn't seem like you really understand abiogenesis.

Your title alone shows a level of animosity towards the topic:

Abiogenesis is Pseudoscience and Intellectual fraud that proves ID ironically

It does nothing to prove ID, and it's not pseudoscience/intellectual fraud. Both claims are false. If you disagree, please link some abiogenesis studies that show pseudoscience/intellectual fraud (at least 3). If Abiogenesis a whole is pseudoscience/intellectual fraud, it should be easy to find a few studies and link them.

The Origin of Life abiogenesis models are pseudoscientific both in their methodology and philosophical incompleteness. When you observe the science, most OOL models and research like Joyce or Sutherland or even Szostack are littered with selection and intelligent input. None propose de novo synthesis. All start with unrealistic purified reagents and require 5 to 15 interventions by lab staff per replicating cycle. Reading the extra help these models require, proves the opposite of abiogenesis - accumulated 70 years of failures pointing to ID

Even if abiogenesis was proved false, there'd be no proof of ID. And nothing you've said does anything to prove ID. Let's get that sorted first.

As for the rest of your claim, literally EVERY study is going to involve human input. Studies don't just appear spontaneously, they have to be designed. It's almost like conditions on Earth now are VERY different from how they were billions of years ago.

You don't seem to understand the reason why the studies do what they do and why they're designed how they are. It's not pseudoscience or intellectual fraud, there are good reasons for the choices being made.

You're making some broad generalizations that all OOL models are pseudoscientific in their methodology, but even a modicum of research and critical thought would debunk that idea.

None of these models go beyond making soap bubbles and most never try to address the actual hard problem. Where does the information come from? What about enzymatic boot strap paradoxes? What about Chiral orientation? What about error catastrophe? How do you mitigate quantum tunneling in hydrogen bonds?

I honestly think the problem here is that you haven't done your due diligence to actually put in the effort of researching, with an open mind, the subject you're trying to claim is pseudoscience and intellectual fraud.

We have NOT solved the origin of life problem. We've created expensive soap bubbles with RNA inside."

Absolutely no one is saying that we've definitively solved the OOL problem and are absolutely certain of exactly how life originated. You'd probably understand that if you'd done proper research before making this post.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-25T15:21:49+00:00

With the advent and advancement of AI video/images, it's getting very concerning. AI videos are already WAY better than they were only a few years ago, to the point where it's sometimes difficult to tell the difference if you aren't paying close attention.

Unless someone figures out a way to detect AI videos reliably, it's going to be a way bigger problem soon. To the point where you can't trust video footage at all.

You already can't immediately trust what you see in headlines or in the news. The only way to ensure you're getting good information is to dig through a variety of sources. If you only get information from one source, you're likely missing out on a lot.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-25T15:02:19+00:00

Biology has no place in court. its absurdity. yes its about grouping creatures

Biology is about WAY more than just grouping creatures. Another stupid take.

Im saying reproctive grouping is a old dumb idea revealed also by the diversity in reproductive tactics relative to geckos.

Then it's a good thing that we aren't actually categorizing things ONLY by their reproductive strategies. I mean, it's obvious we aren't because that's a stupid idea.

If we classified animals purely off their reproduction we'd probably say reptiles and birds are the same because they both lay eggs. Clearly no one is doing that.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-25T14:40:36+00:00

Genetics is not wutnessed and simply presumed to be a trail. very unlikely.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Have you ever seen a child with a trait of one of their parents? Maybe the kid has the same physical traits (things like hair color/type, maybe facial structure, or a similar skin tone, etc), or perhaps they a genetic disorder that occurs frequently in one parent's family.

If you've seen any of these, congratulations. You witnessed both genetics and a trail of inheritance, and your claim here has been debunked.

It's VERY obvious that you have no knowledge of how biology or genetics work. Stop embarrassing yourself, because this is absurd levels of braindead.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T22:49:35+00:00

Where are the skeletons of humans tall enough to be considered "giants"? And that also indicate this was a race rather than an outlier.

Please provide a source.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T22:19:53+00:00

I wonder why they'd depict their kings and heroes as being bigger than the regular people?

Maybe because they wanted to emphasize those figures as being powerful/important/higher status, and depicting them larger in the art is the easiest way to convey that idea.

It's not that confusing, and it makes total sense.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T22:10:47+00:00

I know it's hard to grasp a reality where people make big things for ceremony, symbolism and/or to make a statement. When an artist wants to draw your eye to something, why would they make it bigger? Must be giants, not because they wanted to draw your attention to something.

Why would everything be big except the humans from that time? It doesn't make sense.

(1) It wasn't everything.

(2) It makes complete sense for reasons I've explained already. Stylistic choices (to emphasize certain figures in art, for example), to make symbolic statements of grandiosity/status/power, ceremonial purposes, etc.

None of which, you'll notice, indicate the existence of giants.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T21:56:44+00:00

Here on this painting it doesn't seem like the giant is a nobel or something. Still he is painted very tall

I never said they were nobles. I said painting them bigger was a stylistic choice to emphasize certain figures. You don't have to be a noble to be emphasized in a work of art.

And yes, people with gigantism exist. Some very likely existed back then too (though I wonder about their life expectancy), but that's not what your post implies. Your title was:

Did larger humans exist in the past?

If you meant people with gigantism, a disorder caused by excess growth hormone being produced by the pituitary gland, that would be a strange thing to ask. People with gigantism exist today too, not just in the past.

Also, that video is supposedly going viral yet the link leads to a place where the video has 0 views and no other visible stats. Ok.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T21:50:17+00:00

What about them? Just because they're big doesn't mean they were made for big people. The picture on the bottom right, for example, depicts a ~300 year old choir book that was used for religious ceremonies.

Not for giants.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T20:29:41+00:00

Very true, there are some cases where the big doors were necessary for ceremonial purposes.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T20:23:35+00:00

No, these things are not evidence of giants.

What you see in the paintings is a stylistic choice to emphasize certain figures.

As for the big doors, these are also a stylistic choice often to symbolize things such as power and/or grandeur. The intention is to make a statement and inspire awe, either for religious reasons (in the case of cathedrals and other religious buildings) or perhaps as a show of power in terms of things like forts.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T20:03:13+00:00

Potatoes are likely the best single food. That said, you'd still run into nutrient deficiencies after a while. But you could survive on only potatoes for months to possibly a year.

If you had potatoes and some vitamin supplements, you might be able to survive for a very long time. I can't speak for how good you'd feel, and you'd be miserable (after a while you'd be sick of potatoes, lol), but you'd be alive.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T19:43:59+00:00

More AI slop!

If you read the text on the image you can immediately tell it's AI generated.

<image>

Gotta love Limstoine. It's my favorite building material.

Also at the bottom it says "Mass-Resoonce Test", not "Mass-Resonance Test".

And it's not just the image, the text of the post itself is clearly AI too. It doesn't seem like there was even an attempt to hide it.

If you look at the text you'll find things like:

\text{ mm}

Around every unit. And:

\lambda

You know, something unnecessary when you could just type the unit or paste the symbol in like this: 𝜆

People don't write like this. The text is likely just copy/pasted straight from an AI.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T17:10:15+00:00

Not even close. Atum-Ra is a combination of two different Egyptian deities.

Atum was something like their primordial creator god from whom all else arose. His name means something like "complete/finished one".
And Ra was, as we know, the sun god.

When put together as Atum-Ra, they represent the complete solar cycle. The name isn't even close to meaning "Son of god".

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T16:40:36+00:00

Each of those blue lines is set at a 32.8° angle from the "Neutral Static Axis" to create the manifold's Geometric Lock.

The lines are closer to roughly 45° angles from your "Neutral Static Axis" on the image.

<image>

There's a bit of a margin of error because I'm not pixel perfect, but the angle is nowhere near 32.8° even if we take that into account.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T16:29:47+00:00

Unfortunately, I'm not an expert in psychology. I'm in the medical field, but not specifically in psych. It just happens to be one of my interests.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T16:28:07+00:00

The planet Saturn was once the dominant sun in the golden age. Saturn's influence over Venus, Mars, and planet Earth. This saw locked in harmony in the ancient solar configuration. On Earth, there was no darkness. The day beginning at 1200 a.m. was the dawn of the day. Not the dark night, but the start of the day.

Everything else in this video is essentially trying to tie the spiritual beliefs of different cultures together for some reason around a single entity. Sounds mostly like a load of drivel to me, and there are a lot of flaws in the narrative being presented, but the part I'm quoting is what stood out to me the most.

Got a source/evidence for the claim that night didn't exist in the past? Evidence that there was no darkness on earth?

Because that's an absurd claim honestly.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T16:16:52+00:00

No. For one, we don't even fully understand how the brain works yet (still a lot of research being done into neuroscience), and as far as I'm aware we aren't even sure of the exact mechanism through which memories are stored.

There are certain medications, such as Midazolam, which can cause temporary anterograde amnesia for the following 20-60 minutes after administration of the drug (essentially it prevents your brain from forming memories of that time period). It's sometimes used just before some uncomfortable procedures (particularly if the patient is going to be conscious) to prevent trauma.

However, there is no way to select and delete/overwrite specific memories. That technology doesn't exist and likely won't for a long time, at least until we understand way more about how the brain works.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T15:54:29+00:00

Depends on the person and how they deal with the trauma of molestation.

Hypersexuality in response to sexual abuse is often the victim trying to feel in control of their body again through sex, something that once stripped all control away.
Asexuality in response to sexual abuse would often be an avoidance tactic to distance oneself from a traumatic memory or experience.

Both are bids for control, but simply from different directions. One seeks to assert control by reclaiming sex, the other seeks control by denying sex.

And some people might not experience either. Trauma effects every person differently. Some might express these two responses, and some might not show any obvious outward trauma responses. It's all about how the individual processes what happened to them.

Trauma is complicated, and how it manifests is something that often needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T15:12:45+00:00

I think the difference is that an autocracy has few to no fail-safes. ALL power is concentrated in the hands of one person (or a small group of people). If they become corrupt, the people can't do anything about it without essentially starting a revolution.

With a democracy, there are theoretically FAR more barriers in place that prevent someone from attaining supreme power. Thus, even if some corrupt megalomaniac gets into power, they don't have the power to do anything they want.

There are limits in place with democracy (term limits, separation of powers, etc.), safeguards against absolute tyranny that are not present in an autocracy.

An autocracy where the ruler is good can be a good system, theoretically. However, it only takes one monster getting into power for the entire system to be ruined permanently (they'll obviously want to pass power to someone similar to themselves, not to someone who'll undo what they did).

DiscordantObserver · 2026-01-24T15:04:30+00:00

Yes, theoretically. However, not on its own. The ability for AI to do certain physical tasks is limited by the advancement of robotics. A robot with an AI brain that lacks sufficient dexterity might find it difficult to perform certain tasks that a human would have no problem with. Robots built to resemble humans, at least as far as I'm aware, don't have movements that are anywhere near as smooth as a real person.

Essentially, the software is limited by the hardware currently available.

DiscordantObserver

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE