The Jellyfish in the brains of science deeply insult mankind.

[dad]

Not with you. You've demonstrated time and time again that you do not understand the issue enough to have a meaningful discussion about it, and you've also shown that you have no desire to actually learn about the issue to be able to have a meaningful discussion.

And Iv'e got better things to do than waste my time writing an explanation for you that you don't want and will ignore.

And I've got better things to do that read incessantly whiny and pretentious empty spam posts that display an appealing lack of respect for the topic and civilized debate.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Hmmm ... let's see.

That's a tough question.

Oh, I got it!

Because you weren't there.

No ... wait ... there's a better answer.

Because science is myopic.

So no answer then, Got it!

Ahem ... um ... [clears throat again] ... uh ... you know ... Jesus Christ?

No, no I don't - isn't that what we're discussing? So I guess no answer there too...

Because they starve to death while their miracle cows roam the streets right in front of them?

Because they are racked with disease because they was in their Miracle Ganges while their miracle cows urinate upstream?

Because their caste system is so oppressive they left Hinduism in droves at one time, just for relief?

Argument from Consequence fallacy? That's not an argument. I could bring up slavery again, all the genocide condoned in the Bible, infanticide, etc Then there are the crusades, the Inquisition, etc.- are these brutal remnants of tyrrany, the consequences of believing the Bible making your religion as false as Hinduism now?

Because Western academia embraces it, and even dares compare it to Christianity.

There's another argument from consequence - Still not an argument!

Uh ... huh.

Name me one Hindu prior to 1850.

Brahma.

So you're saying there is evidence for Christianity?

Nope, I'm saying there are Claims for Christianity, and that the substantive evidence is the same for all religions - i.e. None!

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

LOL, Nice "sorting the wheat from the chaff" almost got the quote right, "Wheat from the tares" , but I digress.

ummm, no? I had it right: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/separate-wheat-from-chaff

It is true that SOME people are gullible and some are deceived into thinking falsehoods are truths and truths are falsehoods, that is why it is so very very important to carefully evaluate things in the most unbiased view as possible.

Well, I would agree with you on this. What method do you suggest we use to come about the truth? and Again, why isn't my position (that there isn't enough evidence to bring any particular religion forward over any other) not the correct position to take?

Even the scientific method has it faults because bias creeps in, and pre-determined JUNK Science when the results are anticipated / expected by the group doing the funding of said research. But unless and until those scientists actually apply the scientific method to find if their theory is correct or not, they do NOT get ANY results, it is only AFTER moving forward and putting effort towards their end goals that they figure out if their theory holds water or not. They move forward WITHOUT KNOWING and that is Faith, faith is things that are unseen but there is a hope.

Well, this still doesn't take away from the fact that the Scientific Method is by far the single best method for coming about the truth of something. the Peer review system then goes on to weed out any faulty findings or lies that go against the reality we all share. Now granted, it isn't perfect, but it is by far the best method we have.

 

[Kylie]

And I've got better things to do that read incessantly whiny and pretentious empty spam posts that display an appealing lack of respect for the topic and civilized debate.

So far, it seems that the entirety of your argument has been, "You can't prove I'm wrong, so I must be right!"

And then you ignore every single counter argument and/or just declare it to be wrong, basing your position on a complete misunderstanding of the actual science.

 

[cfyahoo08]

ummm, no? I had it right: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/separate-wheat-from-chaff

Well, I would agree with you on this. What method do you suggest we use to come about the truth? and Again, why isn't my position (that there isn't enough evidence to bring any particular religion forward over any other) not the correct position to take?

Well, this still doesn't take away from the fact that the Scientific Method is by far the single best method for coming about the truth of something. the Peer review system then goes on to weed out any faulty findings or lies that go against the reality we all share. Now granted, it isn't perfect, but it is by far the best method we have.

Semantics:

Chaff is the part of the wheat that is cast off / away as useless and the tares is an all together different plant that looks like wheat.
(Not really reliant to our discussion ) just an interesting side note.

Peer review, can be a good thing for certain but I think science is FINALLY getting to a better point with CS Science its a wonderful new branch of science that will garner much better results because of less political, financial and social biases being involved with the final results.

I would imagine that one of your main issues / problem with "Religion" is how people act when they try and convince you of the rightness of their position and disregard YOU in the process of that convincing i.e. sometimes people are well intended and go about trying to do "the right thing" in the WRONG way. Sometimes it is NOT what people say but how they say it, and on behalf of all "Christian-dom" those that have acted NOT Christlike towards you I offer my apology, Just because we might disagree does NOT mean we need to be disagreeable.

To come to any TRUTH an objective approach needs taken , and whatever evidence is being presented or is available evaluate it on a case by case basis using the best tools at your disposal. Either Spiritual or Scientific discuss your findings with those that you can relate to and you can have some open dialogue and discussions with those that you basically can have mutual respect and understanding with.

As far as not enough evidence there are a LOT of Scientific Theories being moved about some with a preponderance of evidence and some without, but the theory only becomes valid / TRUTH after it is tested and proven TRUE if you are unwilling to test it then you will never know if it is true or not. There are a lot of things Science does not have the answers to yet, but perhaps one day they will. Is "Religion" or God "falsifiable" well depends on who you ask and what "evidence / tools" you use.

Just know that for now those that are "trying to" "Help" you see the light are "trying" to do what they believe is right and they don't mean to insult " Forgive them, for they know, NOT what they do" .

Matthew 13:24-30 King James Version (KJV)

24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

 

[dad]

So far, it seems that the entirety of your argument has been, "You can't prove I'm wrong, so I must be right!"

I actually just asked you to defend your religion.

And then you ignore every single counter argument and/or just declare it to be wrong,

So called counter arguments that sound more like rehashed off topic irrelevant rants and fables offered as matter of fact absolutes.

basing your position on a complete misunderstanding of the actual science.

The science you can't post or discuss. A discussion is not a spam post of conflated claims that cannot be discussed or defended or even shown to be mildly on topic.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Research?

"Mucus is able to protect us from infection thanks to ancient genes that have been conserved throughout 350 million years of evolution -- dating back to our days as a jellyfish."

What research? The fables from science come at us fast and hard and are presented as true stories. If they dared put the reasons why in there, well, maybe they would get laughed at...or at least enable someone to refute them. Instead they run at the mouth religiously.

Dude! You linked to it in your OP! Why haven't you refuted it yet! Just in case your research-fu is broken, try this linked article for a better run-down:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41522-018-0057-2​

I enjoy water and fresh air and wind, and the sun and moon and animals. They did not bring any of that. They brought WOMD, sex change operations, lobotomies etc etc.

WOMD kept you and your country safe during the cold war, sex change operations allow people to live the life your God bestowed upon them, and lobotomies, while admittedly barbaric, was rightfully discarded despite its sometimes beneficial outcome and has since been replaced by improved "Lobectomies", which do benefit greatly:

"lobectomy, however, is on the rise. That's because it's actually an excellent way to treat extreme cases of epilepsy, as well as other seizure disorders. Over time, epileptic seizures can cause irreparable brain damage, so it's often considered better to disconnected the two hemispheres of the brain so that grand mal seizures simply can't happen.

This is what lobectomies usually are, and 10 years ago an article in the New England Journal of Medicine reported a that a randomized, controlled trial of epilepsy patients getting the surgery revealed that indeed it is probably the best treatment we have in these difficult cases."​

https://www.wired.com/2011/03/lobotomy-history/

Ironic that you beguile medical progress when your religion professes curing leprocy using blood magic and performing abortions on adulterous wives using potions derived from dirt and bitter water by the local priest...

For the tree to be of use we need to be able to determine ancestors. They can't do that for the most part. They slap together fragmented pieces of a puzzle they don't have 10% of the pieces for in a religious frenzy of methodical ungodly fanaticism.

What Poppycock! Do you have ***ANY*** understanding of the subject matter?? Wait, your answer to the following will clear this up - Would a Genetics Lab need to know who your parents are to determine if & how you are related to your siblings or cousins from your collective DNA profiles?

(Hint: No.)

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

He's trying.

Wait! Are you trying to tell me that the almighty creator of this Universe, with its trillions upon trillions of galaxies, each with billions upon billions of stars and planets spread over 90+ Billion light years across in every direction, doesn't know how to make an impression on me??

I don't doubt the demons spoke/affected/did things. That is another reason we need God...to protect us from evil spirits.

Hang on, Hinduism predates all the abrahamic religions, so why isn't it that they have it right and you're the one being affected by evil spirits?

Not really. Now if you were a thing that manifested..that might be true. However spirits are under certain rules and cannot do anything without permission from God. They have limits. There will come a day when God comes down and is revealed to all. Right now, we need to believe. Blessed is he that believes, having not seen.

Doubting Thomas knew enough that he should have believed all the others. Yet he didn't till Jesus appeared to him. He would have had a much better blessing if he had believed.

Well, Doubting Thomas had it right imho. What if he just believed the first religion he came across and became immune to evidence to the contrary (like plenty around here, mind you)? He would've gone on to believe some other religion rather than be swayed by the tangible evidence made available to him. If I did that, I'd be a Muslim today.

Anyway, Who makes the rules around here that they have to have permission to give us evidence for the single most pertinent fact of our existence?

 

[dad]

Dude! You linked to it in your OP! Why haven't you refuted it yet! Just in case your research-fu is broken, try this linked article for a better run-down:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41522-018-0057-2​

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41522-018-0057-2 From the link

" The ability to produce a functional surface mucosa was an important evolutionary step, which evolved first in the Cnidaria, which includes corals, and the Ctenophora. .."

You thought that was research? It is a claim without support.


Then it says

"This allowed the exclusion of non-commensal microbes and the subsequent development of the mucus-lined digestive cavity seen in higher metazoans."

Well since the first claim was nt supported, they are simply making more unsupported claims. etc etc etc.

Fairy tales. No support.​

WOMD kept you and your country safe during the cold war,

That's what you think? Ha.

I think God kept us safe from the powers that had the womd and wanted to use it.

sex change operations allow people to live the life your God bestowed upon them,

No, they have nothing to do with anything God bestowed.

and lobotomies, while admittedly barbaric, was rightfully discarded despite its sometimes beneficial outcome and has since been replaced by improved "Lobectomies", which do benefit greatly:

So I guess if Hitler had evil experiments done, that was justified if something later branched from the knowledge gained there?

​

Ironic that you beguile medical progress when your religion professes curing leprocy using blood magic and performing abortions on adulterous wives using potions derived from dirt and bitter water by the local priest...

It was obeying God that healed. Not washing in a pool...or whatever. Faith in God.

What Poppycock! Do you have ***ANY*** understanding of the subject matter?? Wait, your answer to the following will clear this up - Would a Genetics Lab need to know who your parents are to determine if & how you are related to your siblings or cousins from your collective DNA profiles?

(Hint: No.)

The issue is ancient man and what his body was like. Not recent ancestors in this nature.

 

[dad]

Wait! Are you trying to tell me that the almighty creator of this Universe, with its trillions upon trillions of galaxies, each with billions upon billions of stars and planets spread over 90+ Billion light years across in every direction, doesn't know how to make an impression on me??

It is not just knowing how, but having your permission. He is not One that forces Himself on us.

Hang on, Hinduism predates all the abrahamic religions, so why isn't it that they have it right and you're the one being affected by evil spirits?

Nothing predates Jesus He was there in the garden.


There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. All that ever came before were thieves and liars. The test to what is a good spirit and from God is clear and spelled out in the bible. Every spirit that confesses Jesus came and died and raised again for our salvation is of God. All others are NOT of God.

Well, Doubting Thomas had it right imho. What if he just believed the first religion he came across and became immune to evidence to the contrary (like plenty around here, mind you)? He would've gone on to believe some other religion rather than be swayed by the tangible evidence made available to him. If I did that, I'd be a Muslim today.

His beliefs were Christian. He just had little faith, even when Jesus told them He would rise on the third day, and the grave was empty, and the other apostles had seen and talked to Him.

Anyway, Who makes the rules around here that they have to have permission to give us evidence for the single most pertinent fact of our existence?

God makes the rules for spirits. The evidence God gave us must be believed by faith. There is more than enough of it all through history and available to all who ask. We are not to trust angels or spirits if they appear and say anything different than God's word.

 

[Kylie]

I actually just asked you to defend your religion.

I'm an atheist. I don't have a religion.

I accept science based on evidence.

So called counter arguments that sound more like rehashed off topic irrelevant rants and fables offered as matter of fact absolutes.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about your posts.

The science you can't post or discuss. A discussion is not a spam post of conflated claims that cannot be discussed or defended or even shown to be mildly on topic.

I have posted it. You showed each time that you were incapable of understanding it or responding to it in a manner consistent with intelligent discourse. So I stopped. Like I said, I'm not going to waste my time.

 

[dad]

I'm an atheist. I don't have a religion.

I accept science based on evidence.



Funny, I was going to say the same thing about your posts.



I have posted it. You showed each time that you were incapable of understanding it or responding to it in a manner consistent with intelligent discourse. So I stopped. Like I said, I'm not going to waste my time.

Your idea of intelligent discourse is pretty plain to see here. Avoid the topic, or any real issues, and pretend you said something or know something.

 

[Kylie]

Your idea of intelligent discourse is pretty plain to see here. Avoid the topic, or any real issues, and pretend you said something or know something.

Again, you are speaking of yourself.

 

[dad]

Again, you are speaking of yourself.

Again, we wait for substance.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

From the link

" The ability to produce a functional surface mucosa was an important evolutionary step, which evolved first in the Cnidaria, which includes corals, and the Ctenophora. .."

You thought that was research? It is a claim without support.

Claim without Support?? Except for all the supporting research, right dad? Your click-fu must be broken - Here, let me provide you the research clickables for you...:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022098111003510?via=ihub
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/33/8/1921/2578619​

Then it says

"This allowed the exclusion of non-commensal microbes and the subsequent development of the mucus-lined digestive cavity seen in higher metazoans."

Well since the first claim was nt supported, they are simply making more unsupported claims. etc etc etc.

Fairy tales. No support.

What do you mean "Fairy Tales. No support."?? You didn't even read the references, let alone address them... this Science thing really isn't your strength now, is it? Perhaps you should try reading further than just the "Abstract" of the research? Just saying...

Further down (I know, you haven't read anything, because that sciency "research paper" thing might have knowledge, or something equally scary in it...), you'd read this:

"The exclusion of non-commensal bacteria may have initiated the evolution of the alimentary canal and therefore the evolution of higher organisms. The water-land transition and terrestrial life also required adaptations to air breathing, resulting in the evolution of respiratory surfaces (originating from the alimentary canal) which faced the problem of providing sufficient gas exchange on the one hand and being exposed to microorganisms and particulate fouling on the other.

An airway epithelium lined with mucus evolved to serve as a particle and pathogen trap, preventing microbes from penetrating and infecting gas-exchanging regions in mammalian lungs. Mucus and trapped particles are cleared from the lungs by cilia- mediated mucus entrainment—essentially the same mechanism used for feeding by corals, filter feeding ascidians and bivalves and ciliary gliding by lower invertebrates.36 Histological studies on lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri and Protopterus aethiopicus), the oldest living ancestors of tetrapod vertebrates, revealed the presence of ciliated cells within the intestine.37 Furthermore, in P. aethiopicus, ciliated cells and mucus secreting cells are present in the anterior parts of the lungs,37 suggesting that during vertebrate evolution, cilia-mediated mucus entrainment might have been lost in the mammalian gut surface mucosa, whereas it developed into a highly efficient particle clearance system in the airways."​

and those reference research papers supporting this "unsupported Fairy tale" that you'll no doubt want to look up are:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00999814
Hassanpour, M. & Joss, J. in The Biology of Lungfishes Vol. 1 (eds. Jorgensen, J. M. & Joss, J.) (CRC Press, 2011).​

That's what you think? Ha.

I think God kept us safe from the powers that had the womd and wanted to use it.

Ahh, MAGIC! Well, your Government didn't have that much confidence...

No, they have nothing to do with anything God bestowed.

so God didn't make them who they are? So your God isn't all-powerful?

So I guess if Hitler had evil experiments done, that was justified if something later branched from the knowledge gained there?

Nope! Not in the Least. Lobotomies were something we found out later that wasn't good for us after all. At the time, the results were thought to be better than the side effects. Now, we simply know better.

How's the Bible, updated to reflect Slavery is Wrong after all?

It was obeying God that healed. Not washing in a pool...or whatever. Faith in God.

Leviticus 14:7 on, is blood magic. Don't tell me sprinkling blood of a dead dove onto a leper with the surviving dove before releasing it does anything of value, unless there's magic going on.

Then Numbers 5:11-31 describe the procedure for the Ordeal of the Bitter Water, which causes a miscarriage.

The issue is ancient man and what his body was like. Not recent ancestors in this nature.

I'll take that as tacit admission you know that every relative in your family tree doesn't have to be identified before your relationship with siblings and cousins could be known using DNA.

@dad < defeated once again.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

It is not just knowing how, but having your permission. He is not One that forces Himself on us.

He *Still* has my permission, so that isn't it...

Nothing predates Jesus He was there in the garden.


There is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. All that ever came before were thieves and liars. The test to what is a good spirit and from God is clear and spelled out in the bible. Every spirit that confesses Jesus came and died and raised again for our salvation is of God. All others are NOT of God.

Well, your "garden" came after the Hindus did then - in fact, it came after pretty much every other religion from the Middle East - You do know all the Pharaohs were the earthly representatives of the polytheistic Gods everyone believed in at the time? The Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt were well established for several millenia before the abrahamic religions were even imagined, they never knew your God existed. Your religion came about around the rebirth of civilisation with Rome and Greece, post Ancient Egypt civilisations.

His beliefs were Christian. He just had little faith, even when Jesus told them He would rise on the third day, and the grave was empty, and the other apostles had seen and talked to Him.

He still did the right thing...

God makes the rules for spirits. The evidence God gave us must be believed by faith. There is more than enough of it all through history and available to all who ask. We are not to trust angels or spirits if they appear and say anything different than God's word.

lol! How does your God fail at knowing what evidence is? Does he need to do Science 101? If your God is as knowledgeable and powerful as you want us to believe he is, then for you to suggest he would give no physical evidence and expect us to use "faith" of all things to discern his existence, is a fools errand. I think there's a joke being played on you, and anyone who seriously presents this as the evidence we should accept for his existence. You don't just assume the Bible is true and discard everything that doesn't agree with it unless you want to become a sycophant to an idea (think Bibolatry or Idolatry of the Literal Bible, a term I heard Tracie Harris coin - and it fits here).

There's nothing one couldn't believe in by faith. Faith is the most unreliable way to come to the truth.

 

[Aman777]

You thought birds were temporary Seems to me they are still here.

That's because God the Trinity CREATED them. Beasts of the field, Birds and Humans were made temporarily by Jesus called Lord God in the OT. The beasts of the field, birds and SOME Humans were created by God the Trinity. Some Humans have decided to reject God's Truth and will be lost.

You do not look to chapter 2 to learn what day anything was made. That was given already in chap 1. I see chap two points out birds came from the ground. So much for your from water claims!

It does little good to tell you anything since, like Trump, you THINK you know it all.

Only you call anything common ancestors, the bible never mentioned any such thing...what agenda you have I don't know.

What is evident is that you don't know the difference between God the Trinity's Eternal kinds and the kinds made temporarily by Jesus. This means that Genesis One is totally confusing to you. Amen?

 

[tas8831]

True. The Almighty Living eternal creator God Personally bestowing life itself on man and making us a living soul is the ultimate dignity and gift.

Glorified dirt.

 

[tas8831]

My response to him was a question that I then answered and your not posting my response to his answer and attempting to take my words out of context, but nice try, thanks for playing.

LOL!

My gosh, the desperation and hypocrisy of these people!

 

[tas8831]

Maybe just yours .. J/K and I liked that you edited your post just before I was able to respond to it, lol. Just curious, I get the possibly wanting "evidence" but why when presented with the possibility of something even slightly credible would you have a knee jerk reaction to it as being incorrect ? Are you so set in your ways that your unable to be objective ?

I am set in my ways regarding evidence, yes. There was little to be objective about regarding this NDE study. By its very nature - basically, asking people that had heart attacks what they experienced before resuscitation - the study was almost entirely subjective. Add to that the fact that despite the hype about its size and scope, the conclusions were basically 'more needs to be done'.
How any of this means we are "rebootable" or that the "soul" is real is not just a mystery, but a joke of one.