Animals, the Great Beyond, and Creation

FishFace · Mar 5, 2007

dad said:
A very sensitive topic was raised, and exageratted by Frumy, namely, sex in the great beyond. Normally a thread is simply killed. That one was hidden as well!

Oh, that's what happened, is it? Well, some people are sensitive about what occurs naturally between a man and a woman...

Or miss the fingerprints of God under their nose.

Funny, though. The "fingerprints of God" aren't quite like the fingerprints of humans - in other words, they're not unique. If I pray for my cancer to be cured, then did God cure it, or did the chemotherapy I was undertaking at the same time cure it? A Christian, I am certain, would thank God for curing their cancer if that happened. But what if they died from it? Would everyone be perturbed that God didn't answer the prayer? No, of course not - it was just God's appointed time.
While I was still a Christian, my minister died from cancer. We'd all been praying for him to get better. If it were to be the fingerprints of God were he cured, then it must be the fingerprints of God when he died. You can't have it both ways.

How would it know HOW it was done? It is out of their depth. I told you how it may have been done. It is child's play for people of the book, and an impenetratable high wall, for people of the bowl!

Well, normally, a scientific paper states the methodology of the procedures undertaken. A computer does not generate random numbers, it generates pseudo-random numbers. That this article makes such an elementary mistake certainly throws into question their knowledge elsewhere.

Hey, do your own homework, I simply googled up an example for y'all to chaw on.

So did I, but the paper doesn't mention any methodology - that's the point. If it doesn't say these things, you're asking us to take on faith the claim that these people did everything by the book. That's not how it works in science. Without methodology, the most logical conclusion is that experimental bias made the experimenters think the robot spent more time with/away from the chicken/rabbit.

Well, I thought it was interesting

That's nice. But you can't draw valid conclusions from it, since it's not rigorous enough.

just as all the talk of waves from the future and past, that are beyond your ability to grab hold of as well.

Don't start arguments about who can understand what, please. Remember circular logic?

I disagree. I nailed er.

You made elementary logical errors at every turn. You did not even understand what was being debated. Just because the thread is hidden, you cannot lie to the lurkers.

The whole package of science is a little bit, compared to the great beyond, and past and future of eternity! Every time any science is mentioned, it is a 'bit'. That moots and neuters the point you try to make.

Wrong. You cannot throw out science willy-nilly. You have to have a reason for it, if there ever can be one. If you're going to accept the fundamental tenets of science (Oh wait, you don't...) then you have to find a valid reason for later making an exception.
That you don't like a certain conclusion is not a valid reason.

Upisoft · Mar 5, 2007

dad said:
If you can't see that, I guess we should stick to baby talk.

Is that the way how you prove things? I guess I should anwer to that with accuisition of senile talk. Is this the way to you like to make arguments? If this is your way, I'm not interested.

dad said:
Solomon could have asked for personal gain, but, as God said, he didn't. Then, his prayer was answered wonderfully. The connection is clear.

Yes, I could interpret 'lack of greed' by myself. However you said:

Of course. I call my first witness.... -God Himself.

And I'm sure that your interpretation of words of God are not words of God themselves.

Anyway, even if you were appointed as official interpreter of the word of God, I wonder how you managed to interpret anything from your quote as 'random'. Also there is no evidence for any connection between your interpretation of 'greed' and your missing interpretation of 'random'.

You somehow managed to argue on the subject till now without mentioning those two words, except in your original claim. I know that it is the 'Creationists way' to prove something by talking for something different, but that does not make much sense, does it?

lemmings · Mar 5, 2007

AirPo said:
You're not familiar with the HI Theroy, are you?

A quick Wikipedia and Google search turned up nothing, can you provide a link to HI theory?

us38 · Mar 5, 2007

lemmings said:
A quick Wikipedia and Google search turned up nothing, can you provide a link to HI theory?

HI theory entails the ability of the :wave:

to successfully explain any given phenomena.

Verwirrung

-- D

lemmings · Mar 5, 2007

us38 said:
HI theory entails the ability of the to successfully explain any given phenomena.

Verwirrung

-- D

Sounds like it is too New Agey for me. But I guess it improves human interaction and our hand-eye cordination.

dad · Mar 5, 2007

FishFace said:
Oh, that's what happened, is it? Well, some people are sensitive about what occurs naturally between a man and a woman...

That's their problem.

Funny, though. The "fingerprints of God" aren't quite like the fingerprints of humans - in other words, they're not unique. If I pray for my cancer to be cured, then did God cure it, or did the chemotherapy I was undertaking at the same time cure it?

According to your faith be it done unto you. For those with no faith, they will see nothing, as all they see is the physical.

A Christian, I am certain, would thank God for curing their cancer if that happened. But what if they died from it? Would everyone be perturbed that God didn't answer the prayer? No, of course not - it was just God's appointed time.

Sometimes the answer is 'no'. It is still an answer.

While I was still a Christian, my minister died from cancer. We'd all been praying for him to get better. If it were to be the fingerprints of God were he cured, then it must be the fingerprints of God when he died. You can't have it both ways.

Maybe he got a more receptive flock in heaven?

Well, normally, a scientific paper states the methodology of the procedures undertaken. A computer does not generate random numbers, it generates pseudo-random numbers. That this article makes such an elementary mistake certainly throws into question their knowledge elsewhere.

I think, the fact that the behaviour of the 'machines' changed, is more the point. Not harping on how random the program was. They did say it was checked.

So did I, but the paper doesn't mention any methodology - that's the point. If it doesn't say these things, you're asking us to take on faith the claim that these people did everything by the book. That's not how it works in science. Without methodology, the most logical conclusion is that experimental bias made the experimenters think the robot spent more time with/away from the chicken/rabbit.

Well, they may not have used your book.

That's nice. But you can't draw valid conclusions from it, since it's not rigorous enough.

You said that "the paper doesn't mention any methodology " so how do you know it wasn't rigorous? Your assuming it wasn't isn't that rigorous. Work on that.

Don't start arguments about who can understand what, please. Remember circular logic?

Oh, right, you didn't seem to understand that, if I recall.

You made elementary logical errors at every turn. You did not even understand what was being debated. Just because the thread is hidden, you cannot lie to the lurkers.

I guess it is easier for you to pretend, and kid yourself, when the evidence is hidden.

Wrong. You cannot throw out science willy-nilly.

No need to, I simply stuff it willy nily in it's little fishbowl.

You have to have a reason for it, if there ever can be one. If you're going to accept the fundamental tenets of science (Oh wait, you don't...) then you have to find a valid reason for later making an exception.

No need to make any exceptions inside the little fishbowl where it applies!

That you don't like a certain conclusion is not a valid reason.

That you only reach that conclusion by a myth is.

dad · Mar 5, 2007

Upisoft said:
Is that the way how you prove things? I guess I should anwer to that with accuisition of senile talk. Is this the way to you like to make arguments? If this is your way, I'm not interested.

No need to prove anything, I simply quoted God. If that didn't clear it up for you, I don't know how to pacify you!

Yes, I could interpret 'lack of greed' by myself. However you said:
And I'm sure that your interpretation of words of God are not words of God themselves.

So, I take it you disagree with the bible I quoted. You no likey?

Anyway, even if you were appointed as official interpreter of the word of God, I wonder how you managed to interpret anything from your quote as 'random'. Also there is no evidence for any connection between your interpretation of 'greed' and your missing interpretation of 'random'.

It is no longer random when God steps in! The money and greed thing should be obvious to a two year old. How could it be you still miss it???

You somehow managed to argue on the subject till now without mentioning those two words, except in your original claim. I know that it is the 'Creationists way' to prove something by talking for something different, but that does not make much sense, does it?

The creationist way is to be born again, but, then, they start growing up. I think the two words you want mentioned, for some reason are random, and greed, right?
Well, let's not get off track too much here. Animals, the past and future, and creation are the topic.

dad · Mar 5, 2007

lemmings said:
A quick Wikipedia and Google search turned up nothing, can you provide a link to HI theory?

Perhaps he has a Hi thread.

Sleeker · Mar 5, 2007

dad said:
That's their problem.

You don't like the F-word used on this forum? That's your problem. (See, bad logic.)

But anyways, do you actually have evidence against evolution and for creationism?

dad · Mar 5, 2007

FishFace said:
But saying that the word of some peasant is the same as the word of God is.

I would no more do that, than take the word of some peasant, that the bible was not the word of God.

Of course! There was no mention of randomness in the passage, and by that very token, randomness was implicitly included!
Sorry, dad, but your logic is just not sound. There is no connection mentioned in that passage.

It brought out that Solomon was rewarded for not being greedy. The heavenly rewards were anything but random.

It's a pity he never does it when it would actually be impossible for anything but divine intervention to produce a result. For example, no amputee has ever had their limb replaced due to prayer. God never seems to answer a prayer that would require him to actually exist for the prayer to be answered - prayer is only "answered" when it might have been, anyway.

One guy had his ear cut off, and Jesus stuck in back on, good as new. Dead were raised, blind had their eyes opened, and the lame walked. Can you prove to us that none of those lame grew a new limb? Or that no leper that was healed who may have lost one, didn't grow one? No. You can't. Can you?!!!! Ha ha ha. That is a piece of cake. God can do anything.

Amusingly, it is almost the same phenomenon that reinforces believer's belief in prayer that lead to the conclusions of telepathy in the paper you cited. If you pray and your wish is granted, you mark it down mentally. But if it is not, you just forget. You only ever reinforce your dogma - you fit your observations to your beliefs, not the other way around.

Amusingly animals display abilities beyond the natural you are bound to! Amusingly waves traveling from the past and future are a part of mainstream quantum ideas! Amusingly, your same past myth can't be proven! Amusingly, you have NOTHING to say against the bible!

dad · Mar 5, 2007

Sleeker said:
You don't like the F-word used on this forum? That's your problem. (See, bad logic.)

But anyways, do you actually have evidence against evolution and for creationism?

I believe in evolution. So I don't need evidence against it! The part of evolution that is not supported is the claim of a common single ancestor. That needs no proof against it, as it is a pipsqueak claim that is baseless! My feeling, on the whole issue is this. The past and the future are a different state than the present. That is why those that assume that the present is the key to the past and future are SO far off.

Upisoft · Mar 5, 2007

dad said:
No need to prove anything, I simply quoted God. If that didn't clear it up for you, I don't know how to pacify you!

No, you didn't quote God. You quoted an old english translation of even older book. It really doesn't matter if God dictated it himself.

dad said:
So, I take it you disagree with the bible I quoted.

I disagree with your interpretation.

dad said:
It is no longer random when God steps in!

At last something about randomness. However I don't have so much imagination and still can't figure out how you deduced that from your quote.

dad said:
The money and greed thing should be obvious to a two year old. How could it be you still miss it???

Greed, money, power. "I want to be king". The guy just skipped the "money" part and jumed to the "power" part. What does that prove?

dad said:
The creationist way is to be born again, but, then, they start growing up. I think the two words you want mentioned, for some reason are random, and greed, right?
Well, let's not get off track too much here. Animals, the past and future, and creation are the topic.

Indeed, they are. Debating your claims also is on topic.

dad · Mar 5, 2007

Upisoft said:
No, you didn't quote God. You quoted an old english translation of even older book. It really doesn't matter if God dictated it himself.

Do you believe in God?? If not, how would you know??? I mean really? What proof can you offer that the bible is not His word? After all, millions knnow it works, must be something to it.

I disagree with your interpretation.

That's allowed. But of course, you seem also to disagree with the bible itself, which counts you out as a serious interpreter.

At last something about randomness. However I don't have so much imagination and still can't figure out how you deduced that from your quote.

If God did not interfere, and direct reality to fulfill the prayer, who knows how it would have turned out? There are any number of random options there.

Greed, money, power. "I want to be king". The guy just skipped the "money" part and jumed to the "power" part. What does that prove?

If his motives were not pure God would not have answered. He is not that easy to fool! Like a baby that cries for it's momma, He hears, and answers.

Indeed, they are. Debating your claims also is on topic.

OK. Keep us posted and updated as things progress here, what is topical, will you?

aerophagicbricolage · Mar 5, 2007

dad said:
I believe in evolution. So I don't need evidence against it! The part of evolution that is not supported is the claim of a common single ancestor. That needs no proof against it, as it is a pipsqueak claim that is baseless! My feeling, on the whole issue is this. The past and the future are a different state than the present. That is why those that assume that the present is the key to the past and future are SO far off.

Our DNA is 98% similar to chimpanzee DNA, our vitamin C gene is damaged in exactly the same way as the other apes, and our second chromosome is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes. There really is no question as to whether we descended from common anscestry.

Upisoft · Mar 5, 2007

dad said:
Do you believe in God?? If not, how would you know??? I mean really? What proof can you offer that the bible is not His word? After all, millions knnow it works, must be something to it.

How that is relevant with what I said? It doesn't matter what I believe, what you believe or who wrote the original of the Bible. The fact is that you quoted an old english translation of that book in the best case.

dad said:
That's allowed. But of course, you seem also to disagree with the bible itself, which counts you out as a serious interpreter.

Agreed. But what counts you in?
Say, how on first place one can start to believe in the Bible?

dad said:
If God did not interfere, and direct reality to fulfill the prayer, who knows how it would have turned out? There are any number of random options there.

Correct question. Who knows? I guess not you neither me.
Anyway, the randomness is still in your imagination. You think there must be random options, but I see no proof of that.

dad said:
If his motives were not pure God would not have answered. He is not that easy to fool! Like a baby that cries for it's momma, He hears, and answers.

Then that was the first and the last human with pure motives. I'm sure the Bible say how corrupt people are.

dad said:
OK. Keep us posted and updated as things progress here, what is topical, will you?

Of course, I will. New topic: dad is nagging, when he has nothing useful to say.

us38 · Mar 5, 2007

dad said:
I would no more do that, than take the word of some peasant, that the bible was not the word of God.

So if some peasant gave you a book and told you it was the word of god, you'd be more likely to believe him than to believe he's lying? Ok... :scratch:

One guy had his ear cut off, and Jesus stuck in back on, good as new. Dead were raised, blind had their eyes opened, and the lame walked. Can you prove to us that none of those lame grew a new limb? Or that no leper that was healed who may have lost one, didn't grow one? No. You can't. Can you?!!!! Ha ha ha. That is a piece of cake. God can do anything.

And how do you know that? Oh, that's right, using a book that has never been proven to be credible.

dad said:
Do you believe in God?? If not, how would you know??? I mean really? What proof can you offer that the bible is not His word? After all, millions knnow it works, must be something to it.

Wow. Argument from ignorance and appeal to population. Good job.

That's allowed. But of course, you seem also to disagree with the bible itself, which counts you out as a serious interpreter.

The only interpretationm of the bible that has any likely-hood of being correct is that of grossly incorrect.

Verwirrung

-- D

dad · Mar 5, 2007

aerophagicbricolage said:
aerophagicbricolage said:

Our DNA is 98% similar to chimpanzee DNA,

Click to expand...

So? What are you insinuating?

our vitamin C gene is damaged in exactly the same way as the other apes,

Click to expand...

What caused the deficiency?

and our second chromosome is a fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes.

Click to expand...

You are certain of that, I suppose?

There really is no question as to whether we descended from common anscestry.

Click to expand...

I know. We didn't. But it sure seems the different past convinced some! Pitiful.

dad · Mar 5, 2007

Upisoft said:
How that is relevant with what I said? It doesn't matter what I believe, what you believe or who wrote the original of the Bible. The fact is that you quoted an old english translation of that book in the best case.

Before that it was old Greek, or Hebrew, etc. What is your point, if any? Should it be in a language no one understands, or do you have some kind of a grudge on with english?? Be honest.

Agreed. But what counts you in?
Say, how on first place one can start to believe in the Bible?

If not being a believer in the bible discounts your interpretive efforts, what do you think counts mine in? Hint: the opposite of what took you out.

Correct question. Who knows? I guess not you neither me.
Anyway, the randomness is still in your imagination. You think there must be random options, but I see no proof of that.

I know! Solomon would not have been the richest and wisest man of his time. Whether he would have been a drunken suicide case, I couldn't say. There are so many alternate endings to the story, it is like a random pick. Know what I mean?

Then that was the first and the last human with pure motives. I'm sure the Bible say how corrupt people are.

Doesn't mean we don't have our moments. Only Jesus was without sin.

Of course, I will. New topic: dad is nagging, when he has nothing useful to say.

Nice try. Overruled, I always have something useful to say. Give a guy a little power, and it goes right to his head, it seems. Better stick to trying to say something intelligent. At least give it your best shot. We'll understand.

lemmings · Mar 5, 2007

So? What are you insinuating?

To deny that we are not related to the other great apes is comparable to denying that Africa and South America where not connected millions of years ago.

dad · Mar 5, 2007

us38 said:
So if some peasant gave you a book and told you it was the word of god, you'd be more likely to believe him than to believe he's lying? Ok...

I recognize the bible, even if the unwashed delivered one. So?

And how do you know that? Oh, that's right, using a book that has never been proven to be credible.

It is well proven to be credible. Being a worldwide best seller for generations is not an accident. And credence is not defined by the limits of only the physical scope of natural man's 'wisdom'. This is news?

Wow. Argument from ignorance and appeal to population. Good job.

Your OPINION that it is ignorant to not deny God, and recognize that untold millions have felt His proofs pulse through their lives time immemorial is noted. As weak as it may be.

The only interpretationm of the bible that has any likely-hood of being correct is that of grossly incorrect.

In your mind, perhaps. Many know better.

Verwirrung

Whooosh

Animals, the Great Beyond, and Creation

Senior Veteran

CEO of a waterfal

Veteran

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities

Veteran

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

DON'T PANIC

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

CEO of a waterfal

Undefeated!

Active Member

CEO of a waterfal

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Veteran

Undefeated!

Similar threads