- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Come on Ed.
When WIT pointed out that the bible was wrong and unreliable you said, “But you have done neither, though you are welcome to keep trying!”
You can't really believe that you can cure leprosy by killing a couple of birds and a lamb and smearing some of their blood on the right ear, right thumb and right big toe of the leper, do you?
That is how the bible teaches to cure it.See Leviticus 14:1-57
TimQuote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 13 2012,07:21)
does keeping the law glorify God?
Hi BD,If you mean by “The Law” the 10 Commandments; YOU BET!
B'shem
YHVHQuote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 13 2012,07:27) Come on Ed. When WIT pointed out that the bible was wrong and unreliable you said, “But you have done neither, though you are welcome to keep trying!”
You can't really believe that you can cure leprosy by killing a couple of birds and a lamb and smearing some of their blood on the right ear, right thumb and right big toe of the leper, do you?
That is how the bible teaches to cure it.See Leviticus 14:1-57
Tim
Hi Tim,It is the obedience to JEHOVAH GOD that yields the results.
Look at the story of Joshua walking around Jericho for seven days,
before using a sonic type of a weapon with “The ark”(63) of “YHVH”(63).
Or the story of God speaking to Balaam through his donkey to stop his foolishness.It's obedience that YHVH is after.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 12 2012,11:05) Quote Chemical micelles, which form spontaneously, can do something that looks very much like a form of cell division. Do they actually reproduce themselves,
There is no controlling mechanism of the effect that looks like reproduction, obviously.Quote making MORE of them than there were before?
Yes.Quote And from what do they form spontaneously? Inanimate matter?
Yes. You can make them yourself in the kitchen sink using a soap solution as a proxy for other similar naturally-occuring organic molecules. Seeing them is a bit difficult, but they are there.By the way, what would “animate matter” be? What would you say the difference is between that and “inanimate matter”?
Quote (And since you have told me that living beings were “CREATIONS”, my claim about things “creating themselves” is accurate and valid in that context, and therefore NOT entitled to any apology.
I asked you to link to where I had said that, and you haven’t, so an apology from you is in order, as a matter of your integrity. Otherwise how could you ever hope to have the respect of posters here when it comes to you waving your “Mod” stick?Quote Also, I didn't say I KNEW Princess was having her period. I suggested that MAYBE that was the reason she lambasted me out of the blue. Actually, my words were, “I think I'll chalk your whole post up to 'that time of the month'.” And only after she kept spouting conspiracy theorist nonsense did I say, “If I were you, I'd refrain from posting until your flow is gone and your hormones are back in check; because right now, you are making a complete fool of yourself.” So who are you to tell me that YOU can think first of horses, as opposed to zebras, but I can't think first of a menstrual cycle, as opposed to condemning her as seriously mentally deranged?
You really do have a penchant for shooting yourself in the foot, don’t you. I think if you hadn’t mentioned it this time we might have forgotten all about it.Basically, you didn’t know anything about princess’s hormone levels, you have not established that there is any relevant pattern, and so your unsubstantiated generalisation is sexist. It would be just as bad to call anyone mentally deranged. I’ve never done that even though there is a prima facie case to suggest that people who keep Imaginary Celestial Friends that don’t appear to actually be there are indeed deranged. I don’t think it is that simple though.
But you appear to think that menstruation has a causal link with what is posted here, even though you did not establish what part of the menstrual cycle you think is relevant, or what part of the menstrual cycle was happening at the time, or whether there is any effect that happens in women that does not also happen in men who also have varying levels of various hormones, or whether there are individual differences since we are talking not about all the women who post here but one that you singled out.
Your lack of comprehension of science is plain to see in these mistakes you are making. You really owe an apology to princess ahead of me. All you have done in regards to me is lie about what I have written in the past; that is merely a matter of libel; you have made a personal comment of a sexist nature about her. Your apology to her would be an apology to all women who post here.
Quote Stu, stick to either addressing my points or avoiding them. Keep your cute, “I'm wittier than you” comments to yourself. Because were I to sink to your level, and fight fire with fire, you'd lose by a landslide.)
I asked if you had the chemistry or biochemistry for the next part of the current speculation about abiogenesis.You never answered.
Anyway, bring it on, Mr Fire.
Stuart
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 13 2012,08:02) Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 13 2012,07:27) Come on Ed. When WIT pointed out that the bible was wrong and unreliable you said, “But you have done neither, though you are welcome to keep trying!”
You can't really believe that you can cure leprosy by killing a couple of birds and a lamb and smearing some of their blood on the right ear, right thumb and right big toe of the leper, do you?
That is how the bible teaches to cure it.See Leviticus 14:1-57
Tim
Hi Tim,It is the obedience to JEHOVAH GOD that yields the results.
Look at the story of Joshua walking around Jericho for seven days,
before using a sonic type of a weapon with “The ark”(63) of “YHVH”(63).
Or the story of God speaking to Balaam through his donkey to stop his foolishness.It's obedience that YHVH is after.
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
While I agree with your point that miracles occur I think that to say that there is no errors in the Bible is simply not accepting a fact because even the Bible says that the scribes write in vain.Darby translation
1.Jeremiah 8:8
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us? Behold, certainly the lying pen of the scribes hath made it falsehood.contradictions are part of life figure this:
Titus 1:12
King James Version (KJV)
12One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
If a Cretian prophet says that all cretians are liars is he telling the truth being that he is a cretian and should be lying?
Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 13 2012,02:27) Come on Ed. When WIT pointed out that the bible was wrong and unreliable you said, “But you have done neither, though you are welcome to keep trying!”
When pushed on the firmament issue, Ed played the “It's a bad translation!” card, but when I asked him to give the proper translation, he changed the subject, claiming that the bible isn't really concerned with the details of the cosmos.Ed has demonstrated that he's not really interested in reality as much as he is interested in maintaining his beliefs. It's a normal human defense mechanism, so I can't fault him too much. But, it really is pointless trying to explain anything to him that doesn't already fit into his belief system.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 13 2012,09:11) Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 13 2012,02:27) Come on Ed. When WIT pointed out that the bible was wrong and unreliable you said, “But you have done neither, though you are welcome to keep trying!”
(1)When pushed on the firmament issue, Ed played the “It's a bad translation!” card, but when I asked him to give the proper translation, he changed the subject, claiming that the bible isn't really concerned with the details of the cosmos.(2)Ed has demonstrated that he's not really interested in reality as much as he is interested in maintaining his beliefs. It's a normal human defense mechanism, so I can't fault him too much. But, it really is pointless trying to explain anything to him that doesn't already fit into his belief system.
Hi WIT,1) I did NOT say it was a bad translation, what I said was
it was written in the understanding of those it was written to.
As in: they would see the lights in the firmament, which they do!
If you were to look at Earth from space, the firmament has a blue glow.2) Wow, you seem to be explaining the atheist bias you hold dear pretty good!
And no amount of evidence I present to you will be accepted; this is true, is it not?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Jan. 13 2012,04:27) WhatIsTrue,Jan. wrote:Hi WIT,
1) I did NOT say it was a bad translation, what I said was
it was written in the understanding of those it was written to.
As in: they would see the lights in the firmament, which they do!
If you were to look at Earth from space, the firmament has a blue glow.2) Wow, you seem to be explaining the atheist bias you hold dear pretty good!
And no amount of evidence I present to you will be accepted; this is true, is it not?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
1) You have a short-term memory Ed.Your words:
Quote Your understanding of Hebrew is lacking severely.
Hebrew doesn't say “in” nor does it say “over”,
those words are inferred here, perhaps
you were never taught this truth!Also, if you were to look at the “firmament” from space, you wouldn't see any water “above” it. Oops!
2) I am not an atheist. I am a former Christian who no longer sees value in any religion. And, not even the Christians on this forum find your “evidence” credible, so forgive me if I too ignore your “magic” numbers.
As you like to say, but keep trying! Actually, don't keep trying, because I am not going to go around in circles with you again.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 12 2012,10:04) I am not against the bible. I am simply pointing out that it is often wrong and unreliable.
I haven't read where you showed me it was “wrong” yet. I've only read where we don't fully understand what was being taught.Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 12 2012,10:04) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 12 2012,06:34) WIT, can you explain to me in laymen's terms how the life that many scientists think spontaneously started itself in the oceans evolved into plants?
Are you unaware that there is abundant plant life in the ocean?Do you see how your questions demonstrate a complete ignorance of basic biology?
And I'm okay with being ignorant on many (perhaps most) subjects. That's what asking questions is for, right? Aren't you able to say, “Mike, there is plant life in the ocean” without the snide put downs?Okay, are you now suggesting that plant life from the ocean started to grow onto land?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 12 2012,10:04) I appreciate your honesty. While you are praying about it, meditate on this. From the Catholic Encyclopedia's Entry on “Firmament”:
Quote The notion that the sky was a vast solid dome seems to have been common among the ancient peoples whose ideas of cosmology have come down to us. That the Hebrews entertained similar ideas appears from numerous biblical passages. In the first account of the creation (Genesis 1) we read that God created a firmament to divide the upper or celestial from the lower or terrestrial waters.
The notion of the solidity of the firmament is moreover expressed in such passages as Job 37:18, where reference is made incidentally to the heavens, “which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass”. The same is implied in the purpose attributed to God in creating the firmament, viz. to serve as a wall of separation between the upper and lower of water, it being conceived as supporting a vast celestial reservoir; and also in the account of the deluge (Genesis 7), where we read that the “flood gates of heaven were opened, and shut up”.
On this point as on many others, the Bible simply reflects the current cosmological ideas and language of the time.
And how do you know this is not the case, WIT? Have our telescopes yet reached to the end of the universe? How do you know that this dome isn't billions of light years in diameter, with the waters of heaven on the other side of it?Now if the Bible taught that the earth was supported on the back of a giant sea turtle, we might have a chance at proving it wrong, provided we were full enough of ourselves to claim with certainty that said sea turtle, if there, MUST BE visible to our eyes and instruments.
WIT, can you tell me with any CERTAINTY that the universe is NOT in a dome or sphere?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 12 2012,10:04) You don't take the creation passage literally, because you know better based on modern science.
You're wrong here, because I don't “know better based on modern science”. I take the scriptures to be the very truth of all matters, despite what men and science today say.Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 12 2012,04:21) Hi Mike,
If you chose to believe what some preacher told you that a parable means instead of what Jesus himself said,
that is your choice.
Hi Tim,I don't go to any church meetings, nor do I have a preacher who tells me things. The Bible is my guide. And if you are not able to see from the scriptures I quoted that Jesus linked spiritual teachings to earthly things so the disciples could understand, then I don't know what to tell you.
Quote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 12 2012,04:21) Obviously when Jesus said what I quoted, he meant something else. He didn't know what he was talking about.
Well that makes two of us then. Because I don't know what you're talking about right now. To which scripture do you refer? And on what is your claim that Jesus didn't know what he was talking about based?Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 13 2012,09:41) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 13 2012,04:27) WhatIsTrue,Jan. wrote:Hi WIT,
1) I did NOT say it was a bad translation, what I said was
it was written in the understanding of those it was written to.
As in: they would see the lights in the firmament, which they do!
If you were to look at Earth from space, the firmament has a blue glow.2) Wow, you seem to be explaining the atheist bias you hold dear pretty good!
And no amount of evidence I present to you will be accepted; this is true, is it not?God bless
Ed J
1) You have a short-term memory Ed.Your words:
Quote Your understanding of Hebrew is lacking severely.
Hebrew doesn't say “in” nor does it say “over”,
those words are inferred here, perhaps
you were never taught this truth!Also, if you were to look at the “firmament” from space, you wouldn't see any water “above” it. Oops!
2) I am not an atheist. I am a former Christian who no longer sees value in any religion. And, not even the Christians on this forum find your “evidence” credible, so forgive me if I too ignore your “magic” numbers.
As you like to say, but keep trying! Actually, don't keep trying, because I am not going to go around in circles with you again.
Hi WIT,1) I didn't say they translated it wrong, I said words like “IN” are implied in Hebrew.
They most certainly did see the lights in the firmament,
Like astronauts see a blue glow in the firmament.Quote if you were to look at the “firmament” from space, you wouldn't see any water “above” it.
Correct.2) Do what you want, you have a free will. But don't say that it's not credible evidence,
because it is even though you refuse to accept it as such, it's PROOF OF GOD'S EXISTENCE.Quote As you like to say, but keep trying! Actually, don't keep trying, because I am not going to go around in circles with you again.
That means your attempt do discredit the bible has been a total failure on your part; correct? If so I agree!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2012,09:45) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 12 2012,10:04) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 12 2012,06:34) WIT, can you explain to me in laymen's terms how the life that many scientists think spontaneously started itself in the oceans evolved into plants?
Are you unaware that there is abundant plant life in the ocean?Do you see how your questions demonstrate a complete ignorance of basic biology?
And I'm okay with being ignorant on many (perhaps most) subjects. That's what asking questions is for, right? Aren't you able to say, “Mike, there is plant life in the ocean” without the snide put downs?Okay, are you now suggesting that plant life from the ocean started to grow onto land?
Hi Mike,Without it the fish would have no reason to crawl out of the water; right?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 13 2012,09:41) Also, if you were to look at the “firmament” from space, you wouldn't see any water “above” it. Oops!
Hi WIT,Although 'comets' do exist “above” the firmament,
I doubt that is what YHVH meant in Genesis 1:6-7.The water that is in the clouds and waters movements is
what is of concern to us, rather than comets containing water.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ Jan. 12 2012,15:10) Yes. You can make them yourself in the kitchen sink using a soap solution as a proxy for other similar naturally-occuring organic molecules. Seeing them is a bit difficult, but they are there.
So these are actual, LIVING beings, that come to life spontaneously by themselves? And there is NO other living thing involved?Quote (Stu @ Jan. 12 2012,15:10) By the way, what would “animate matter” be? What would you say the difference is between that and “inanimate matter”?
Inanimate matter is matter WITHOUT life. Animate matter would be a life form of some kind, IMO. I am not speaking of matter that can be moved by other forces, but matter that can move of its own volition. Perhaps I'm using the wrong terms?Quote (Stu @ Jan. 12 2012,15:10) I asked you to link to where I had said that, and you haven’t, so an apology from you is in order, as a matter of your integrity. Otherwise how could you ever hope to have the respect of posters here when it comes to you waving your “Mod” stick?
It was almost two years ago, Stu. Perhaps you'll remember the conversation: I was telling you about a nature program I watched, and how the narrators always seem to give the quality of reason and rhyme to “nature” or “evolution”. As in, Thankfully, evolution gave the rhino a horn, and other such nonsense.In your response, you mentioned “creatures”. I called you to task for it, and you laughed it off and said you've heard living beings called “creatures” so many times that you unwittingly put that word in your post.
Does that sound vaguely familiar to you?
If not, then tough. I'm not about to spend my time searching for it. Nor do I care whether or not you respect me.
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 12 2012,15:10) Basically, you didn’t know anything about princess’s hormone levels, you have not established that there is any relevant pattern, and so your unsubstantiated generalisation is sexist.
But you have heard horses running before, right? And because you remembered the sound you had heard before, and calculated in your geographical location at the time you heard the hooves in the night, you thought “horses”, right?Now, did you do any scientific research to come to the conclusion that it was horses, and not zebras that you heard? NO? Had you established any pattern before making your unsubstantiated generalization that since it sounded like hoof beats, it must have been horses? NO? But still you heard hoof beats, and thought horses right? Okay then.
I'm quite aware of the results of hormone fluxuation due to menstrual cycles. Did I do any scientific research to reach my conclusion about Princess? No. I took a guess as to why someone who is normally very cool-headed posted what she did in such a heated manner. I took into consideration that she might have been trying to protect her “Prince”. Or that she was maybe having a bad day. Or that perhaps she just doesn't like me. And after taking all these things and more into consideration, I opted to comment about menstrual cycles. I noticed the out of the ordinary behavior, and thought menstrual cycle. Just like YOU thought horses based on very little information.
It was MY choice to post what I did, and I made that choice. And Princess never corrected me about my statement, so why in the world are YOU trying to correct me about it? Keep your politically correct misguided valiance to yourself, okay? If PRINCESS has a problem with what I said, then PRINCESS can address it with me. As I see it, it is really NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS in the first place, is it?
Let it go, smart guy. I said what I said, and there's really nothing in the world you can do about it except to keep crying about it. So let it go, because your tears don't move me.
Hi Mike,
How would Stuart know what is right and what is wrong anyway,
when right and wrong is not biased on anything firm?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Jan. 12 2012,17:03) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2012,09:45) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 12 2012,10:04)
Are you unaware that there is abundant plant life in the ocean?
Okay, are you now suggesting that plant life from the ocean started to grow onto land?
Hi Mike,Without it the fish would have no reason to crawl out of the water; right?
Reason? These guys keep telling me there is no rhyme or reason with evolution or natural selection. Growing legs and overtaking the earth was just a fluke of evolution, I guess.
I want to see the fossil of the fish that grew wheels instead of legs. Or the one who grew wings equipped to fly in the air, while he was still living in the ocean.
Ed, that is only two of TRILLIONS of different possible random mutations.
Your point is interesting in that it shows living beings WANTING something. Which makes me wonder why all these flukes of nature all WANT to survive? What do they care? Why would a survival instinct evolve from a non-intelligent source that doesn't care whether or not things survive?
Hi Mike, Good point!
And also why would they want to explore,
as in reach beyond themselves if they have no drive?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2012,10:36) So these are actual, LIVING beings,
No.Quote that come to life spontaneously by themselves?
Not to life, no, but spontaneously yes.Quote And there is NO other living thing involved?
Correct.It looks from those responses like you don’t have the chemistry or biochemistry to proceed any further with current speculation on mechanisms for abiogenesis. In that case, I shan’t bother you with it.
Stuu: By the way, what would “animate matter” be? What would you say the difference is between that and “inanimate matter”?
Quote Inanimate matter is matter WITHOUT life. Animate matter would be a life form of some kind, IMO. I am not speaking of matter that can be moved by other forces, but matter that can move of its own volition. Perhaps I'm using the wrong terms?
Yes, the terms you are using were finally discredited in 1828 by Wohler. The fact is that the ascorbic acid made in a chemical laboratory and used as a preservative in foodstuffs is identical to the ascorbic acid found in fruit that prevents scurvy. This same principle applies to all chemical substances: in principle you could replace any chemical in your body with an entirely synthetic version and there would be no difference to how you work or think.Which really brings us to the question of what you mean by life, and whether that word actually means anything important when considered from a chemical point of view. Indeed the definition of the word life is not as straightforward as it might seem.
Quote It was almost two years ago, Stu. Perhaps you'll remember the conversation: I was telling you about a nature program I watched, and how the narrators always seem to give the quality of reason and rhyme to “nature” or “evolution”. As in, Thankfully, evolution gave the rhino a horn, and other such nonsense. In your response, you mentioned “creatures”. I called you to task for it, and you laughed it off and said you've heard living beings called “creatures” so many times that you unwittingly put that word in your post.
Does that sound vaguely familiar to you?
If not, then tough. I'm not about to spend my time searching for it. Nor do I care whether or not you respect me.
It matters nothing what I think of you, what matters is whether you can say you have integrity, especially as you claim to be a Mod here, with some kind of powers of control over others and their posts. We have now long since reached the point at which I would have dropped the claim for lack of evidence if it was me trying it on like you are.However, as it turns out, I do remember that earlier conversation. But my memory of it is that we were discussing the use by biologists in the media of the term “designed”, as in the possible example “The cartilage in the knee joint is designed to absorb the shock of impacts on the knee”. Of course no biologist means that there was a design plan that was implemented, the example just shows how easily humans fall into their tendency to see the world in terms of designs, regardless of the actual origins of the particular item in question. So if you are referring to me calling something a design, then it would have been a slip of the keyboard, so to speak. I am usually conscious of that kind of thing and doubt very much if I really did write that something biological was designed.
Then, as you suggest, there is the word “creature”, strictly meaning something that was created. I prefer plant, or animal, or species just because I don’t know whether the word “evolute” actually exists. Maybe it does now I have used it.
Quote But you have heard horses running before, right? And because you remembered the sound you had heard before, and calculated in your geographical location at the time you heard the hooves in the night, you thought “horses”, right?
Yes. Whereas religious people metaphorically think of zebras first.Quote Now, did you do any scientific research to come to the conclusion that it was horses, and not zebras that you heard? NO? Had you established any pattern before making your unsubstantiated generalization that since it sounded like hoof beats, it must have been horses? NO? But still you heard hoof beats, and thought horses right? Okay then.
This is a metaphor, not meant to be discussed in the literal sense. It may as well say that when you see lights in the night sky you think of little green men first, and not the navigation lights of a commercial jet.So I now expect you will reply with some sort point about UFOs.
Quote I'm quite aware of the results of hormone fluxuation due to menstrual cycles. Did I do any scientific research to reach my conclusion about Princess? No. I took a guess as to why someone who is normally very cool-headed posted what she did in such a heated manner. I took into consideration that she might have been trying to protect her “Prince”. Or that she was maybe having a bad day. Or that perhaps she just doesn't like me. And after taking all these things and more into consideration, I opted to comment about menstrual cycles. I noticed the out of the ordinary behavior, and thought menstrual cycle. Just like YOU thought horses based on very little information.
So you made a sexist retort based on very little information. Couldn’t call that very wise, could we?On the other hand, my metaphor can be stated without mention of zebras or horses, if necessary.
Quote It was MY choice to post what I did, and I made that choice.
And you are still choosing to post about it, and you still look sexist.Quote Let it go, smart guy. I said what I said, and there's really nothing in the world you can do about it except to keep crying about it. So let it go, because your tears don't move me.
It’s not me who keeps bringing it up!S
tuartQuote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2012,04:45) Okay, are you now suggesting that plant life from the ocean started to grow onto land?
Yes.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2012,04:45) WIT, can you tell me with any CERTAINTY that the universe is NOT in a dome or sphere?
I can tell you with certainty that the bible's cosmology is wrong.Quote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 13 2012,04:45) You're wrong here, because I don't “know better based on modern science”. I take the scriptures to be the very truth of all matters, despite what men and science today say. Based my interactions with you, I believe you when you say that you put the bible ahead of science.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
