- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 06 2010,19:48) Kejonn, So glad you joined in, Now please don't run away because it is time for you to be educated.
You are right. Stu does give me much information.
Quote Whales should not be like fish although they are really big fish despite classifications to the contrary. Whales should be like whales because that is what they are but your disrespect for their design is astonishing. However if in-fact you consider whales not completely evolved in what way is their evolution incomplete?
Because they are sea creatures who cannot take advantage of gills, like most other sea creatures similar to them.I think I'll have to read more of Stu's posts, yours do not educate me. All they show me is that you are a typical Abrahamic theist who denies reality.
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,13:09) Are you Absolutely certain that whales walked the earth?
Can you be certain they didn't?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 06 2010,20:14) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,13:09) Are you Absolutely certain that whales walked the earth?
Can you be certain they didn't?Stuart
I feel certain some obscure Koran passage will be useful in this. Get ready for the verbal gymnastics.Oh wait, this isn't Afadly. Maybe not hen.
Here is the reaction to BD in a thread he started over at RichardDawkins.net (his OP for which you will also see him boast about a few pages back in this thread):
Quote How is new information added to DNA?/ Game Over No new genetic material can be added to DNA. Trait changes result in re-arranging(recombination) the genetic code that is already present. We do observe mutations, but they are a loss of information or a defective copy of information that damages the species. Complex organisms have more information not less. recombination does not add new information. However even if such loss of information or defective copy were to occur there are duplicate genes that reinforces(backs up) the previous data Ladies and Gentlemen it appears the game has ended. Unless the UCA genome got information to change into other genomes and those genomes got information to change in to other genomes all with specific sets of NEW INSTRUCTIONS it couldn't have happened New information added to DNA has never been observed in science.
He received many biologically astute responses which he failed to comprehend, but the other reactions to him concerning his methods of arguing, from several different forum members, are the ones that might ring bells here too:
I'll wait for you to get back to us after trawling AIG.
Bodhi's still messing about with God v6.0 when everyone else has already upgraded to God v7.0.
In the post before that I asked you to elaborate on the question because the term “information” is ambiguous and multi faceted. Nice that your selective amnesia skipped over that one.
Again, you are repeating a line of reasoning from supersport, that was completely demolished. I'll not go through all of it again. Get an education you poor fool.
More nucleotides = additional information. This is adding. This answers your question. If you have an additional question, start another thread.
Your ignorance is grossly apparent Bodhi.
Can't you just admit that you are wrong this time, Bodhi? Are you so blinded by your own arrogance that you just can't admit that you were mistaken on this count?
Do you understand anything at all of what we are saying?
Now, why don't you do us all a favour and sod off and try to “destroy” the theory of gravity instead?
Your statement of what mutations can and can't produce has no basis in fact and no evidence to back it up. Just because you keep on saying it doesn't make it true. That trick might work with religion, but not here.
Bodhitharta, you're dishonesty is really incredible. That you accuse other posters of dishonesty is ironic in the extreme.
Every time someone gives you an example of new information you say it doesn't count. But how about we all pretend you're not just trolling, and you define exactly what you mean by “new” and “information”…
Answer this question please. Why do genes duplicate? now after you answer that question look at your post again and repost honestly.
Face it. You've lost this one.
Here is a handy article for you, since you don't seem to know what a mutation is.
Bodhi, you truly are … the most dishonest poster I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.
If you don't understand, then I suggest you go read a book about the subject. Don't come back until you understand the subject matter that you are trying to dispute.
Is English actually a proficient language for you. If not, go and take a language course and come back when you understand English.
No, that would just be you twisting words.
'round and 'round in circles we go…
Is that what this is all about for you? Is this all a game? This approach smashes out any chance of learning anything from others. The best way any of us can learn from each other, is to be willing to learn from each other. Free exchange of ideas cultivates the global landscape. Why some people approach this as a game, a fight, or a battle, is beyond me.
Anyway the main point is that Bodhi's citing of the 2003 paper does not support his argument it only shows his willingness to misunderstand and misinterpret scientific data to suit his own agenda.
By the way Bodhi, if you are so anti-science why do you try to use science to disprove science? Or is it only cases where science casts doubt on your particular worldview that you have a problem with?
(Ignore the answers that have just proved you wrong) “here is a new question” “I win, you are getting desperate” and go back and dishonestly edit the title of the thread and the first post – see the “non-horse” thread for an example of this.
This kind of example is great, but I think it's going to go over Bodhi's head.
when you were young did you bring a ball to school then, during games, declare anything you liked as the rules of the game since its your ball? What you seem to think is that if you ask a question, you get to decide wether the answer is valid. You also seem to operate under the very common delusion that simply because you can ask a particular question, that that question must have an answer. (Note the vagueness of your question and your continuous redefinition of the question to nullify answers given.)
This exemplifies the very problem with creationist arguments. You are presenting a question as evidence. If you are capable of understanding the answer, then you have enough scientific training to get off your lazy arse and go and do the research. If you are not that committed, then you will have to wait for the answer from someone who is. Maybe you could contribute by praying for them!
http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=3011
And that was just one thread. And I excluded all the really abusive remarks! To get the full picture of BD’s responses you would need to read all the biology they posted for him. However, his techniques appear to be the same the world around.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,13:14) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,13:05) The pakicetus skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises, and crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then there is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree of life. (In fact their similarity indicates common design-not common descent.)
the famous Russian whale expert G. A. Mchedlidze, too, does not support the description of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans, and similar four-legged creatures as “possible ancestors of the whale,” and describes them instead as a completely isolated group
Was this the first link that Google gave you?:http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_15.html
Their only argument appears to be an appeal to incredulity.
Why would you believe that one over this one?
http://tursiops.org/dolfin/guide/dolphinevo.html
Or this?
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms….25.html
From The Washington Post: Tokyo – Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of hind legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land… Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared.
Did you perhaps choose your source based on your prejudice? Are you a promoter of truth or your own cult mythology?
Stuart
Are you Absolutely certain that whales walked the earth?Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,14:41) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,13:14) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,13:05) The pakicetus skeleton turned out to be a four-footed structure, similar to that of common wolves. It was found in a region full of iron ore, and containing fossils of such terrestrial creatures as snails, tortoises, and crocodiles. In other words, it was part of a land stratum, not an aquatic one. If the marsupial Tasmanian wolf and the common placental wolf had both been extinct for a long time, then there is no doubt that evolutionists would picture them in the same taxon and define them as very close relatives. However, we know that these two different animals, although strikingly similar in their anatomy, are very far from each other in the supposed evolutionary tree of life. (In fact their similarity indicates common design-not common descent.)
the famous Russian whale expert G. A. Mchedlidze, too, does not support the description of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus natans, and similar four-legged creatures as “possible ancestors of the whale,” and describes them instead as a completely isolated group
Was this the first link that Google gave you?:http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_15.html
Their only argument appears to be an appeal to incredulity.
Why would you believe that one over this one?
http://tursiops.org/dolfin/guide/dolphinevo.html
Or this?
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms….25.html
From The Washington Post: Tokyo – Japanese researchers said Sunday that a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of hind legs, a discovery that may provide further evidence that ocean-dwelling mammals once lived on land… Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals about 50 million years ago and share the same common ancestor as hippos and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle and their hind limbs disappeared.
Did you perhaps choose your source based on your prejudice? Are you a promoter of truth or your own cult mythology?
Stuart
Are you Absolutely certain that whales walked the earth?
What makes you doubt it? Evidence?Stuart
In other threads BD uses the accusation that the other party has some kind of disease. His most recent attempt was this:
Quote but don't bother with the facts after all you do have a sickness. I have not seen this tactic of his anywhere else.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,15:38) In other threads BD uses the accusation that the other party has some kind of disease. His most recent attempt was this: Quote but don't bother with the facts after all you do have a sickness. I have not seen this tactic of his anywhere else.
Stuart
I told you the Atheism Disease was recently discovered by me in the not too distant past.I first identified it on the “All about atheism” site.
At that point I had realized that The Atheist will deny evidence any evidence even if they use that same evidence for a point they want to make will discard that same evidence if it is used to pertain to God.
For instance on one hand you will say that Muhammad has violated a moral law(Which he hasn't) but on the other hand you say Morality is not Absolute.
Consider a court case where one is asks the juruy if killing an innocent person is morally wrong and reminds them that it is a court of law and not of facts so they need not state the obvious that an innocent person was killed but they must decide the law, they must decide is it immoral to kill an innocent person.
I would say it is an Absolute certainty that killing an innocent person is Absolutely immoral,
What would you say?
What would Kejonn say?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,19:08) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,15:38) In other threads BD uses the accusation that the other party has some kind of disease. His most recent attempt was this: Quote but don't bother with the facts after all you do have a sickness. I have not seen this tactic of his anywhere else.
Stuart
I told you the Atheism Disease was recently discovered by me in the not too distant past.I first identified it on the “All about atheism” site.
At that point I had realized that The Atheist will deny evidence any evidence even if they use that same evidence for a point they want to make will discard that same evidence if it is used to pertain to God.
For instance on one hand you will say that Muhammad has violated a moral law(Which he hasn't) but on the other hand you say Morality is not Absolute.
Consider a court case where one is asks the juruy if killing an innocent person is morally wrong and reminds them that it is a court of law and not of facts so they need not state the obvious that an innocent person was killed but they must decide the law, they must decide is it immoral to kill an innocent person.
I would say it is an Absolute certainty that killing an innocent person is Absolutely immoral,
What would you say?
What would Kejonn say?
I don't know about kejonn, but I would say that the use of the word 'certainty' is a category error as used in that sentence.Or, in the words of an interlocutor of yours at RD.net,
Is English actually a proficient language for you? If not, go and take a language course and come back when you understand English.
Stuart
For those in discussion with BD, here is the list of logical fallacies at Wikipedia, for reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Stuart
This:
For instance on one hand you will say that Muhammad has violated a moral law(Which he hasn't) but on the other hand you say Morality is not Absolute.
Is a logical fallacy because the ethical judgment in question is not contingent on whether morals are absolute or not.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,20:20) Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 07 2010,19:08) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 07 2010,15:38) In other threads BD uses the accusation that the other party has some kind of disease. His most recent attempt was this: Quote but don't bother with the facts after all you do have a sickness. I have not seen this tactic of his anywhere else.
Stuart
I told you the Atheism Disease was recently discovered by me in the not too distant past.I first identified it on the “All about atheism” site.
At that point I had realized that The Atheist will deny evidence any evidence even if they use that same evidence for a point they want to make will discard that same evidence if it is used to pertain to God.
For instance on one hand you will say that Muhammad has violated a moral law(Which he hasn't) but on the other hand you say Morality is not Absolute.
Consider a court case where one is asks the juruy if killing an innocent person is morally wrong and reminds them that it is a court of law and not of facts so they need not state the obvious that an innocent person was killed but they must decide the law, they must decide is it immoral to kill an innocent person.
I would say it is an Absolute certainty that killing an innocent person is Absolutely immoral,
What would you say?
What would Kejonn say?
I don't know about kejonn, but I would say that the use of the word 'certainty' is a category error as used in that sentence.Or, in the words of an interlocutor of yours at RD.net,
Is English actually a proficient language for you? If not, go and take a language course and come back when you understand English.
Stuart
Actually I admire your strategy but are you Absolutely sure it will work?Bodhitharta has been enshrined at Fundies Say the Darndest Things:
(I have reproduced the page here because of the nature of the search function on their site)
Quote# 27668
[So stoning children who curse at their parents is completely moral, right?]
This term “curse” does not mean using profanity as it does today it means to actually place a curse on your parents by evil means. So yes, if someones child seeks to put an actual evil curse on their parents they should be stoned.
Bodhitharta, Christian Forums 34 Comments [7/28/2007 10:13:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 1Quote# 18009
[0.2% of the US prison population is atheist. Thats around 150 people.]
I'm afraid you are not understanding the reality of what atheism essentially is. Atheism is non-belief, you can primarily tell what someone believes by what they practice. There is a large percentage of people who call themselves Christians, Muslims and Jews and yet they are equivalent to being atheist by what they practice. The prison population is full of Atheist by way of hypocrisy. Hypocrites and Atheist are spiritual equivalents.
Bodhitharta, RichardDawkins.net Forum 42 Comments [12/10/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 1Quote# 17967
No Atheist is truly happy. Some will pretend but deep down they are simply miserable disbelief has effectively ended their sense of wonder and joy. The men are often impotent and the women frigid
Bodhitharta, Richard Dawkins Website 61 Comments [12/9/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 0Here he boasts about the cult he has tried to start:
Quote# 15047… when God allowed me to heal all sorts of things from insects to animals to people I didn't jump to the conclusion it was God right away at first I thought my body was going through some sort of weird electromagnetism (Im talking green mile kinda stuff) Then I have experienced absolutely mind blowing communion where God was communicating with me as if I had one of those ear piece cell phone hook-ups you know where it looks like the person is talking to themselves but their on the phone.
the fact is I had to force myself to internalize my responces now I know that the reason God chose to reveal himself to me so strogly is because he does know that an experience like that can make someone feel crazy.
But, I'm a scientist at heart and I'm a hardcore sceptic so I wasn't backing down or running away and on the other hand I wasn't leaping forward either so God just kept proving Himself to me over and over again.
When I finished the book it was July 28, 2005 I have given it free to anyone who asks because I know that's what I'm supposed to do.Bodhitharta, Infidel Guy Forums 21 Comments [9/17/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: MoogQuote# 12309
No, God is 100% Real. I was saying from a statistical view you would have to agree that you would even as an atheist give the odds at 50/50. There is only one Real God and the Most beautiful Names Belong to Him. There can only be one God because the word God does not mean “a” supreme being but “The” Supreme being, therefore The sovereign God is the Possessor of the Highest Rank.
Bodhitharta, infidelguy 32 Comments [6/12/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 1Quote# 11504
Atheism requires the same delusional mode thinking as does the 200% of nothing math magicians false swirling snake brought forth by bankrupt pseudo intellectuals, whereas real 100% math swallows up false inflated egos that foist dishonesty to gain unearned advantages
Bodhitharta, Infidel Guy Forums 38 Comments [5/8/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 1Quote# 10865
[Desperately misunderstanding the phrase “more than the sum of its parts”]
Objects are real so tell me how can you give me 7/5 of an object? Then after you miraculously do that then give me 200% of that object without giving me another object. By the way you mentioned the word “rational” which is also dirivative of a ration or ratio: Ratio \a”ti*o\\, n. [L., fr. reri, ratus, to reckon, believe, think, judge. See Reason.]
Ir rational is to then not to reckon, not to believe and not to judge. It is rational for God to be a rational outcome of reason.
Bodhitharta, WhyDoesn'tGodHealAmputees 10 Comments [4/14/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Just Rick
Quote# 10858[in response against his claim that god has already decided who goes to heaven and who goes to hell – it was pointed out that if he is not on god's list then his rightous life is a waste of time]
My determination to remain righteous will determine the outcome that God has determined for those who are determined to remain righteous and likewise those who have the determination to remain unrighteous are determined to have the outcome that God has determined for those who are unrighteous.
Determination is the effect of the freedom of choice.
Bodhitharta, WhyDoesn'tGodHealAmputees 24 Comments [4/14/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Just RickQuote# 10825
['What's the probobility of god existing', someone responds “0 or 1”]
Exactly! Subsequently 1 is at once both the highest number and the lowest number for you can have only one part on the low end even if minutely small or one whole on the high end even if immensely large.
So, with that being said the probability of 100% of everything coming from 0 is absolutely 0 and Likewise the probability of 100% of everything coming from 1 is absolutely 1.
There you have it, proof that God exist!
Bodhitharta, WhyDoesGodHateAmputees 22 Comments [4/13/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Just Rick
1Stuart
He has made 129 appearances at http://www.whyislam.org/
Couldn’t see him in any other muslim forums.
I think he thinks he is running an islamic cult, so would not expect to see him discussing islam with muslims. I came across this at
I and all Asanas pray 7 times a day to condition the mind to stay humble and receptive to the guidance of God. We believe in Progressive Revelation as revealed in the book “Witness The Real”.
That is “Witness the Real” written by Bodhitharta. Not sure what mohammad would have to say about that.
A poster at booktalk.com suggested this:
Asana is a troll bent on making waves at atheist forums.
I would add some christian forums too. Seems he wants to convert non-muslims to his Asana cult. Bizarre.
Stuart
http://www.booktalk.org/post10579.html was the url that failed to materialise in that last post.
Stuart
Move over mo, here's more of the Asana cult:
Oh! Asana (Bodhitharta) Remember when you had received the Joy and Kindness of The Most High. you wept at the beauty that was placed in your heart. Remember when you wrote the book (Witness The Real) and was given the choice of going forward with Us or staying behind with Our permission. You decided to go forward and that was best. Remember when We expanded your inheritance with 2 excellent companions. 1 brother(Asana Payzarr) and 1 wife(Asana Alicia) and We made them brother and sister on the path of righteousness. Although they were not the first ones We gave you to guide. They are the first ones that We gave you to teach to guide others. This is the instruction for all Asanas.
Sing The Name of God YHWH in a long drawn out manner Ye-Hu-WaH or just the heart of The Name Hu or the name of the Christ Ye-sHu-WaH or the name A-sa-na.
http://bodhitharta.tripod.com/
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 16 2010,20:15) Move over mo, here's more of the Asana cult: Oh! Asana (Bodhitharta) Remember when you had received the Joy and Kindness of The Most High. you wept at the beauty that was placed in your heart. Remember when you wrote the book (Witness The Real) and was given the choice of going forward with Us or staying behind with Our permission. You decided to go forward and that was best. Remember when We expanded your inheritance with 2 excellent companions. 1 brother(Asana Payzarr) and 1 wife(Asana Alicia) and We made them brother and sister on the path of righteousness. Although they were not the first ones We gave you to guide. They are the first ones that We gave you to teach to guide others. This is the instruction for all Asanas.
Sing The Name of God YHWH in a long drawn out manner Ye-Hu-WaH or just the heart of The Name Hu or the name of the Christ Ye-sHu-WaH or the name A-sa-na.
http://bodhitharta.tripod.com/
Stuart
I love it, keep up the good work
Mo problem BD. Makes you a bit of a hypocrite though that you claim you are receiving the latest divine revelations when you claimed that islam should be heading for unity: here you are splitting off another little cult.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 16 2010,21:49) Mo problem BD. Makes you a bit of a hypocrite though that you claim you are receiving the latest divine revelations when you claimed that islam should be heading for unity: here you are splitting off another little cult. Stuart
Islam is submission to God, there is no splitting off I'm sure you read that in one of the posts you provided it's a layer not a division.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
