*Spinoff* Creationists And Theists... Time To Speak Your Clout
Options
Comments
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »RodrigueZz wrote: »
I call it the argument from instinct. In such it seems that human nature is ingrained with knowledge that there is no afterlife, or that it is not a pleasurable place due to the infinite sadness that occurs after loss of a life. The instinctual sadness contradicts the belief of heaven which is odd.
This is just one argument I thought up randomly, i have a few more penned out in my notebook somewhere. But i think that if one can show the alleged inconsistencies of the bible to be undoubtedly true then the words within it are to become more and more less trustworthy. In this the average human will eventually come to disregard much of what is in religious texts as premature explanations for the way the universe operates and unsubstantiated speculation; nothing more.
My argument is the eternal pain argument. Pain is experienced by having a physical body. If, when we die, we leave our bodies, our soul would no longer experience pain. So how are souls to "suffer" in hell for all eternity?
I like that one. Very well thought out counter argument to the existence of hell. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »The fact that we require oxygen and emit carbon dioxide as waste and trees do the opposite. The fact that we have approximately the same amount of water in our bodies as the water to earth ratio. The fact that the world is ? up because of man destroying the creation by trying to alter and dominate it.
This is not a strong argument either, because we don't know that these things are unlikely to happen. You have nothing to compare it against. You're assuming the laws of the universe, and nothing in the universe may be independent.
so youre saying that the delicate and precise balances i described could unequivocally be nothing but the result of a cosmic accident? what are the odds of that?
Again, you're assuming the laws of the universe. You're assuming that independent happenings exist.
Thats not an answer to what I specifically asked.
Nothing is really an "accident" per se, as every effect has a cause -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »The fact that we require oxygen and emit carbon dioxide as waste and trees do the opposite. The fact that we have approximately the same amount of water in our bodies as the water to earth ratio. The fact that the world is ? up because of man destroying the creation by trying to alter and dominate it.
This is not a strong argument either, because we don't know that these things are unlikely to happen. You have nothing to compare it against. You're assuming the laws of the universe, and nothing in the universe may be independent.
so youre saying that the delicate and precise balances i described could unequivocally be nothing but the result of a cosmic accident? what are the odds of that?
Again, you're assuming the laws of the universe. You're assuming that independent happenings exist.
Thats not an answer to what I specifically asked.
Nothing is really an "accident" per se, as every effect has a cause
where does the cause come from? zero point of causality? -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »thats not what it say in hebrew. if you want to discuss it for real i suggest you reference the strongs concordance and a book called The Hebraic Tongue Restored/Cosmogyny of Moses ( mostly packaged as last chapter) in which there is an interlinear examination of what the text actually says. i cant argue for the bible mistranslation however. so unless we are speaking on the grounds of what the source text says i cant even have this discussion. were not talking about the same thing.
props
just simply looking at the definition of "day" (yom) in hebrew shows a little of what i mean.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3117&t=KJV
gotta cross reference as you can tell strongs misrepresents some stuff to fit christianity but gesenius lexicon and vine expository dictionary fill in certain gaps nicely. i got all that stuff hardback 4 da low..
I'll look em up. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »The fact that we require oxygen and emit carbon dioxide as waste and trees do the opposite. The fact that we have approximately the same amount of water in our bodies as the water to earth ratio. The fact that the world is ? up because of man destroying the creation by trying to alter and dominate it.
This is not a strong argument either, because we don't know that these things are unlikely to happen. You have nothing to compare it against. You're assuming the laws of the universe, and nothing in the universe may be independent.
so youre saying that the delicate and precise balances i described could unequivocally be nothing but the result of a cosmic accident? what are the odds of that?
Again, you're assuming the laws of the universe. You're assuming that independent happenings exist.
Thats not an answer to what I specifically asked.
Nothing is really an "accident" per se, as every effect has a cause
where does the cause come from? zero point of causality?
an infinite chain of cause and effect -
RodrigueZz wrote: »Stupid Spinoff......
LOL...
Ole' let me start a new thread so we can turn the tables.....HEAD ASS ? ......
Creationists ~ 19
Anti-creationist ~ 0
I found out the origins of your RESEARCH SHOWS BLACKS TO HAVE LARGER BRAINS
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about11606.html
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2695640/replies?c=63
This ? has no author and was pulled from the bowels of another online forum.....
I think that Dr. Rushton is responsible for this research.....
You do know that there is no direct correlation to brain size and intelligence, right? Especially considering that studies of (societal ideas of) race (which does not exist but for this thread we will pretend it does) show that negroids score lower on them than mongoloids and caucasoids, having a larger brain means nothing in such an instance.
"It included studies that used the state-of-the-art technique known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which gives a very good image of the human brain. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults. The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44. This is much higher than the 0.20 correlation found in earlier research using simple head size measures (though 0.20 is still significant). The MRI brain size/IQ correlation of 0.44 is as high as the correlation between social class at birth and adult IQ."
Quote from site you quoted first:
"However, another study was conducted, based on the belief that social stigmas play a role on IQ test results. To help demonstrate this tests were carried out on children at the age of 4, with blacks having the highest IQ, then mixed, then white."
"Studies of brains have taught us that people with higher IQs do not have larger brains. Thanks to brain imaging technology, we can now see that the difference may be in the way the brain develops," said NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D."
"Brainy children are not cleverer solely by virtue of having more or less gray matter at any one age," explained Rapoport. "Rather, IQ is related to the dynamics of cortex maturation."
The observed differences are consistent with findings from functional magnetic resonance imaging, showing that levels of activation in prefrontal areas correlates with IQ, note the researchers. They suggest that the prolonged thickening of prefrontal cortex in children with superior IQs might reflect an "extended critical period for development of high-level cognitive circuits."'
Then a quote from the website you initially quoted:
"However, the children reverted to the black lowest and white highter than blacks 'routine' at a later age. "
Size does not dictate intelligence -
Are you referring to the evidence that is being properly deconstructed in the other thread that you ran away from?????
The evidence has been laid out for you and has not been deconstructed by you nor anyone else. It's time to move on IMO, since you will not accept fact. That's not my business. That's something you'll have to sit down and think over in your own time; perhaps take a look at the links whar has given you. From this point, I will not be answering any of your trolling. If you cannot participate in this thread, please leave. If your argument for intelligent design is solid, I would like for you to tell me about it. If not, just say it's not. You've already stated that you are embarrassed by your beliefs. You said the evolution thread was not the proper place for discussion on i.d.. Well, here we are. Nothing but space and opportunity, duke.
-
RodrigueZz wrote: »RodrigueZz wrote: »Stupid Spinoff......
LOL...
Ole' let me start a new thread so we can turn the tables.....HEAD ASS ? ......
Creationists ~ 19
Anti-creationist ~ 0
I found out the origins of your RESEARCH SHOWS BLACKS TO HAVE LARGER BRAINS
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about11606.html
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2695640/replies?c=63
This ? has no author and was pulled from the bowels of another online forum.....
I think that Dr. Rushton is responsible for this research.....
You do know that there is no direct correlation to brain size and intelligence, right? Especially considering that studies of (societal ideas of) race (which does not exist but for this thread we will pretend it does) show that negroids score lower on them than mongoloids and caucasoids, having a larger brain means nothing in such an instance.
"It included studies that used the state-of-the-art technique known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which gives a very good image of the human brain. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults. The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44. This is much higher than the 0.20 correlation found in earlier research using simple head size measures (though 0.20 is still significant). The MRI brain size/IQ correlation of 0.44 is as high as the correlation between social class at birth and adult IQ."
Quote from site you quoted first:
"However, another study was conducted, based on the belief that social stigmas play a role on IQ test results. To help demonstrate this tests were carried out on children at the age of 4, with blacks having the highest IQ, then mixed, then white."
"Studies of brains have taught us that people with higher IQs do not have larger brains. Thanks to brain imaging technology, we can now see that the difference may be in the way the brain develops," said NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D."
"Brainy children are not cleverer solely by virtue of having more or less gray matter at any one age," explained Rapoport. "Rather, IQ is related to the dynamics of cortex maturation."
The observed differences are consistent with findings from functional magnetic resonance imaging, showing that levels of activation in prefrontal areas correlates with IQ, note the researchers. They suggest that the prolonged thickening of prefrontal cortex in children with superior IQs might reflect an "extended critical period for development of high-level cognitive circuits."'
Then a quote from the website you initially quoted:
"However, the children reverted to the black lowest and white highter than blacks 'routine' at a later age. "
Size does not dictate intelligence
Those links were posted to illustrate "evidence" without authorship that was posted by the thread-starter.....
It come from another internet forum and is not scholarly.....
Again....
"It included studies that used the state-of-the-art technique known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which gives a very good image of the human brain. There were eight of these studies with a total sample size of 381 adults. The overall correlation between IQ and brain size measured by MRI is 0.44. This is much higher than the 0.20 correlation found in earlier research using simple head size measures (though 0.20 is still significant). The MRI brain size/IQ correlation of 0.44 is as high as the correlation between social class at birth and adult IQ."Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
Are you referring to the evidence that is being properly deconstructed in the other thread that you ran away from?????
The evidence has been laid out for you and has not been deconstructed by you nor anyone else. It's time to move on IMO, since you will not accept fact. That's not my business. That's something you'll have to sit down and think over in your own time; perhaps take a look at the links whar has given you. From this point, I will not be answering any of your trolling. If you cannot participate in this thread, please leave. If your argument for intelligent design is solid, I would like for you to tell me about it. If not, just say it's not. You've already stated that you are embarrassed by your beliefs. You said the evolution thread was not the proper place for discussion on i.d.. Well, here we are. Nothing but space and opportunity, duke.
It has been deconstructed, hence your spinoff thread.....
? I aint embarrassed about ? ....
Arguing with you about my ? is assinine.......
And ? yo thread ? , I will post as I please.........
[img]http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/? +yo+couch.+Rick+James+? _81c79f_3178674.gif[/img]
-
Intelligent design has been shat on countless times.
-
^^^ There is a thread for that.....
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »The fact that we require oxygen and emit carbon dioxide as waste and trees do the opposite. The fact that we have approximately the same amount of water in our bodies as the water to earth ratio. The fact that the world is ? up because of man destroying the creation by trying to alter and dominate it.
This is not a strong argument either, because we don't know that these things are unlikely to happen. You have nothing to compare it against. You're assuming the laws of the universe, and nothing in the universe may be independent.
so youre saying that the delicate and precise balances i described could unequivocally be nothing but the result of a cosmic accident? what are the odds of that?
Again, you're assuming the laws of the universe. You're assuming that independent happenings exist.
Thats not an answer to what I specifically asked.
Nothing is really an "accident" per se, as every effect has a cause
where does the cause come from? zero point of causality?
an infinite chain of cause and effect
Definition: Infinity is the set of all successors of unity, and unity itself.
ONE- EKHAD
אֶחָד
Transliteration
'echad
Pronunciation
ekh·äd' (Key)
Part of Speech
adjective
Root Word (Etymology)
A numeral from אָחַד (H258)
TWOT Reference
61
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) one (number)
a) one (number)
b) each, every
c) a certain
d) an (indefinite article)
e) only, once, once for all
f) one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one
g) first
h) eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal)
LORD- YHWH
יְהֹוָה
Transliteration
Yĕhovah
Pronunciation
yeh·hō·vä' (Key)
Part of Speech
proper noun with reference to deity
Root Word (Etymology)
From הָיָה (H1961)
TWOT Reference
484a
Outline of Biblical Usage
Jehovah = "the existing One"
1) the proper name of the one true ?
a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136
FROM PARTIAL ROOT TO YHWH COMPOUND WORD/THING (Ill explain word/thing later)
was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee- hayah
(the y- prefix indicates potential for action or future participles but participle in the hebrew thought also encompasses mood and aspect)
Strong's H1961 - hayah
הָיָה
Transliteration
hayah
Pronunciation
hä·yä (Key)
Part of Speech
verb
Root Word (Etymology)
A primitive root [compare הָוָה (H1933)]
TWOT Reference
491
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
a) (Qal)
1)
a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
b) to come about, come to pass
2) to come into being, become
a) to arise, appear, come
b) to become
1) to become
2) to become like
3) to be instituted, be established
3) to be
a) to exist, be in existence
b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
d) to accompany, be with
b) (Niphal)
1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
2) to be done, be finished, be gone
AND SO A CORNERSTONE OF TORAH IS THE SHMA TRANSLATED AS DEUT 6:4
Deu 6:4 Hear 8085, O Israel 3478: The LORD 3068 our ? 430 [is] one 259 LORD 3068:
WHICH AS WE CAN SEE AFTER BREAKING DOWN THE LANGUAGE AND CONTEXT IT SHOULD READ SUMN LIKE:
Hear O Israel The Cause of Causes (Is-Was-Will-Be in aspect when the compound is formed with hawa) our Power is infinite Cause of All Causes (Is-Was-Will-Be)
Tryna tell you cuz..somebody blowing smoke up EVERYBODY ass about what the bible REALLY SAYS. Einstein was a Hebrew language scholar man. Newton too. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »[quote="Jaded
Righteousness;4714765"]Jaded Righteousness wrote: »The fact that we require oxygen and emit carbon dioxide as waste and trees do the opposite. The fact that we have approximately the same amount of water in our bodies as the water to earth ratio. The fact that the world is ? up because of man destroying the creation by trying to alter and dominate it.
This is not a strong argument either, because we don't know that these things are unlikely to happen. You have nothing to compare it against. You're assuming the laws of the universe, and nothing in the universe may be independent.
so youre saying that the delicate and precise balances i described could unequivocally be nothing but the result of a cosmic accident? what are the odds of that?
Again, you're assuming the laws of the universe. You're assuming that independent happenings exist.
Thats not an answer to what I specifically asked.
Nothing is really an "accident" per se, as every effect has a cause
where does the cause come from? zero point of causality?
an infinite chain of cause and effect
Definition: Infinity is the set of all successors of unity, and unity itself.
ONE- EKHAD
אֶחָד
Transliteration
'echad
Pronunciation
ekh·äd' (Key)
Part of Speech
adjective
Root Word (Etymology)
A numeral from אָחַד (H258)
TWOT Reference
61
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) one (number)
a) one (number)
b) each, every
c) a certain
d) an (indefinite article)
e) only, once, once for all
f) one...another, the one...the other, one after another, one by one
g) first
h) eleven (in combination), eleventh (ordinal)
LORD- YHWH
יְהֹוָה
Transliteration
Yĕhovah
Pronunciation
yeh·hō·vä' (Key)
Part of Speech
proper noun with reference to deity
Root Word (Etymology)
From הָיָה (H1961)
TWOT Reference
484a
Outline of Biblical Usage
Jehovah = "the existing One"
1) the proper name of the one true ?
a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of 0136
FROM PARTIAL ROOT TO YHWH COMPOUND WORD/THING (Ill explain word/thing later)
was, come to pass, came, has been, were happened, become, pertained, better for thee- hayah
(the y- prefix indicates potential for action or future participles but participle in the hebrew thought also encompasses mood and aspect)
Strong's H1961 - hayah
הָיָה
Transliteration
hayah
Pronunciation
hä·yä (Key)
Part of Speech
verb
Root Word (Etymology)
A primitive root [compare הָוָה (H1933)]
TWOT Reference
491
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to be, become, come to pass, exist, happen, fall out
a) (Qal)
1)
a) to happen, fall out, occur, take place, come about, come to pass
b) to come about, come to pass
2) to come into being, become
a) to arise, appear, come
b) to become
1) to become
2) to become like
3) to be instituted, be established
3) to be
a) to exist, be in existence
b) to abide, remain, continue (with word of place or time)
c) to stand, lie, be in, be at, be situated (with word of locality)
d) to accompany, be with
b) (Niphal)
1) to occur, come to pass, be done, be brought about
2) to be done, be finished, be gone
AND SO A CORNERSTONE OF TORAH IS THE SHMA TRANSLATED AS DEUT 6:4
Deu 6:4 Hear 8085, O Israel 3478: The LORD 3068 our ? 430 [is] one 259 LORD 3068:
WHICH AS WE CAN SEE AFTER BREAKING DOWN THE LANGUAGE AND CONTEXT IT SHOULD READ SUMN LIKE:
Vt
Hear O Israel The Cause of Causes (Is-Was-Will-Be in aspect when the compound is formed with hawa) our Power is infinite Cause of All Causes (Is-Was-Will-Be)
Tryna tell you cuz..somebody blowing smoke up EVERYBODY ass about what the bible REALLY SAYS. Einstein was a Hebrew language scholar man. Newton too. [/quote]
That is beautiful and powerful, the hebrew tongue have the key, im going to amazon to get that hebaric tongue restored and spend morning time learning how to utilize the strong concordance. now I know why they don't want that hebrew tongue to be learned to read the scripture. Isaiah told us how powerful our native tongue is. Thanks Judahxulu that verse just opened up a whole new box for me -
Creationists and theists ~ 2
Anti-Creationists ~ 0 -
In an infinite chain of cause and effect there is not a first cause, so no "cause of all causes" would exist because there would be a cause that preceded it. @Bambu, of all people should know this, as he is familiar with the Kybalion and its teachings. Theism relies greatly on the law of cause and effect and ultimately has to discard that law when proposing the idea of a first cause or supreme being.
Have you read Spinoza's Ethics? I'm not sure if it is in accordance with the Hebrew Bible's "true" translation, but Einstein agreed with that. -
Simple answer off the top of the dome: The fact that the human body requires all of the minerals found in the earth tho have perfect health complemented by the Hebrew words "Adahm" ( as humanity) and "adamah" (earth) are obviously interelated concepts. The fact that we require oxygen and emit carbon dioxide as waste and trees do the opposite. The fact that we have approximately the same amount of water in our bodies as the water to earth ratio. The fact that the world is ? up because of man destroying the creation by trying to alter and dominate it. The fact that the creation around us itself is IRREDUCABLY COMPLEX. One thing out of place and life would be vastly different or in most cases not exist at all.However a true understanding of the root text to the bible reveals that the bible does not even attempt to address the creation of the earth. It is written in psalms "the foundations of the earth are forever". The bible root text does not say the world was made in 6 24 hour intervals nor does it say dinosaurs did not exist, btw.Stay on topic bruh, this is about ? and creation not evolution.
1. The creation of man and woman aren't special to any bible, each one (most of them at least) says the first man, woman or group of people were made from earth. (or the stars).
2. How does what we breathe and exhale, as with trees, have to do with "intelligent design"?
3. What does water ratio prove?
4. Life is complex and things have changed, these changes resulted in other species going extinct.
5. What is your stance on dinosaurs? What about the fossils?
Also, earth and everything with it wasn't designed for us, we adapted to earth and nature, which is why we can live with it as we do. -
thats not what it say in hebrew. if you want to discuss it for real i suggest you reference the strongs concordance and a book called The Hebraic Tongue Restored/Cosmogyny of Moses ( mostly packaged as last chapter) in which there is an interlinear examination of what the text actually says. i cant argue for the bible mistranslation however. so unless we are speaking on the grounds of what the source text says i cant even have this discussion. were not talking about the same thing.
What exactly does it say about the creation of the universe/earth in Genesis? How exactly does it read? -
Also, earth and everything with it wasn't designed for us, we adapted to earth and nature, which is why we can live with it as we do.
Exactly. We have no independent existence and neither does anything/anyone else in the universe. Our lives depend on the existence other things. -
Can you support the bolded? Because, while some elements are directly minerals, minerals can also be combinations of multiple elements; so there are thousands of minerals on the Earth. And of the elements on the Earth, not all of them are found in the human body.
Simple answer off the top of the dome: The fact that the human body requires all of the minerals found in the earth tho have perfect health complemented by the Hebrew words "Adahm" ( as humanity) and "adamah" (earth) are obviously interelated concepts. The fact that we require oxygen and emit carbon dioxide as waste and trees do the opposite. The fact that we have approximately the same amount of water in our bodies as the water to earth ratio. The fact that the world is ? up because of man destroying the creation by trying to alter and dominate it. The fact that the creation around us itself is IRREDUCABLY COMPLEX. One thing out of place and life would be vastly different or in most cases not exist at all.However a true understanding of the root text to the bible reveals that the bible does not even attempt to address the creation of the earth. It is written in psalms "the foundations of the earth are forever". The bible root text does not say the world was made in 6 24 hour intervals nor does it say dinosaurs did not exist, btw.Stay on topic bruh, this is about ? and creation not evolution.
Can you also support the underlined? Because, while around 70% of the surface of the Earth is covered in water, the Earth is not two-dimensional; so most of its mass (around 99%) is not on the surface. And considering the fact that the Earth is a solid non-icy planet, it would be impossible for it to be mostly water like the human body.
The blue portion is an inconsequential simplification of biological respiration.
Also, the italicized is subjective.
So, the most valid point you listed is the brown portion; which--although some variances could occur--is not contradictory to scientifically-based reasoning. -
Simple answer off the top of the dome: The fact that the human body requires all of the minerals found in the earth tho have perfect health complemented by the Hebrew words "Adahm" ( as humanity) and "adamah" (earth) are obviously interelated concepts. The fact that we require oxygen and emit carbon dioxide as waste and trees do the opposite. The fact that we have approximately the same amount of water in our bodies as the water to earth ratio. The fact that the world is ? up because of man destroying the creation by trying to alter and dominate it. The fact that the creation around us itself is IRREDUCABLY COMPLEX. One thing out of place and life would be vastly different or in most cases not exist at all.However a true understanding of the root text to the bible reveals that the bible does not even attempt to address the creation of the earth. It is written in psalms "the foundations of the earth are forever". The bible root text does not say the world was made in 6 24 hour intervals nor does it say dinosaurs did not exist, btw.Stay on topic bruh, this is about ? and creation not evolution.
2. How does what we breathe and exhale, as with trees, have to do with "intelligent design"?
All that shows is that plants were on earth before humans, as we require them to exist here but they do not require us. My knowledge of evolutionary theory is limited to that of books printed in 1960 so i'm not sure 100% but I am tempted to say that such a fact would sway in favor of ET. -
Here comes Disciplined Insight again, having absolutely nothing to add to the topic but a few button presses
-
And there goes Bambu, catching feelings as usual
-
@Janklow.....
If you are going to act like such a little girl about the "rules".....
Perhaps you should make a thread and sticky the ? so people can see it...... -
See what I mean
-
Man please this ? been deleting and rearranging comments from the jump in the other thread......
and yall ? still aint got ? .... -
Forum Rules wrote: »Room devoted to religious discussion and enlightenment. Share your experiences and your beliefs. Learn about those of others. ZERO TOLERANCE FOR ANTAGONISM
Don't antagonize me, bro
