- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 10 2011,16:35) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 10 2011,01:42) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 09 2011,21:43) What is a YHVH? Stuart
Hi Stuart,
(26)יהוה = God(26)YHVH is (יהוה) God's Name transliterated directly into English.
The “Divine”=63 “Deity”=63 of “The Bible”=63 is “YHVH”=63.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
What is a god?Stuart
Hi Stuart,“God” (יהוה), known as “YHVH”, is The Creator of this matrix. (Ex.34:14, 34:19)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Stu @ Mar. 10 2011,20:15) What is a matrix? Stuart
Hi Stuart,Physical reality. (1Cor.1:27-29)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 10 2011,23:08) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 10 2011,20:15) What is a matrix? Stuart
Hi Stuart,Physical reality. (1Cor.1:27-29)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
So physical reality is created by a god that is in the habit of confounding people.Interesting.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 11 2011,14:32) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 10 2011,23:08) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 10 2011,20:15) What is a matrix? Stuart
Hi Stuart,Physical reality. (1Cor.1:27-29)
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
So physical reality is created by a god that is in the habit of confounding people.Interesting.
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Why would you say he's in the habit of confounding people?
Hi Stuart,
“God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty”
That means: God confounds the 'know it alls', not those who want to learn “The Truth”!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Mar. 11 2011,17:54) Hi Stuart, “God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty”
That means: God confounds the 'know it alls', not those who want to learn “The Truth”!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
So I was right.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 11 2011,18:12) Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 11 2011,17:54) Hi Stuart, “God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty”
That means: God confounds the 'know it alls', not those who want to learn “The Truth”!
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
So I was right.Stuart
Hi Stuart,Do you believe yourself to be a 'know it all'?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgThe sum of all mans knowledge is calculated at 295 exabytes, and yet “human DNA in one single body can store around 300 times more information than we store in all our technological devices”.
And some men who profess to be wise proudly state that there is no God.
Is that not arrogance in the highest degree?
As it is written, pride comes before a fall.
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 11 2011,18:12) So I was right. Stuart
Yes you are right if you said that God confounds the know it all proud ones who confess to be wise.It is written that he turns their wisdom into foolishness and look at the evidence.
They say we are apes. There is no God. And they keep adjusting their truths so that text books need to constantly be updated, yet every one of them thinks they are right in their own eyes at any given moment.
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 09 2011,17:46) I'd hate to disappoint you t8, so I'll remind you that I also concentrate on your “ape origins” too. And the fact that you and I ARE both apes by definition.
No Stu, by the definition of those who desire to be apes.Given that logic we are also part daffodil as we have 40 something percent of DNA in common. We have in common something like half our genes with a banana.
Other research suggests that there is between 1 to 4 percent different from a chimpanzee.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news….es.html and we have much in common with mice.Most DNA is involved in production of proteins, enzymes etc and much less is involved in the way we look.
Saying we are apes Stu is like a pilot saying we are only 1 to 4 percent off on our flight plan so we'll land here.
Back to the drawing board Stu.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 15 2011,17:03) Quote and yet, your explanation of the universe and all that it contains comes from something with the IQ of zero.
Not sure Stephen Hawking would take kindly to being called a “something”, or a something with an IQ of zero. I think you might find that is factually incorrect.
Stu do you think that when I make this statement that I am talking about you or Hawking?Sorry, but no, I am talking about your cause or the thing that predates everything by which all owes it's beginning.
You see, there had to be something first and your take is that this something had the IQ of zero because you have eliminated an intelligent creator as being the source as do all atheists.
I am simply pointing out what a foolish thing to believe that anything with the IQ of zero could produce a universe made up of galaxies, suns, planets, moons, atoms, quarks, and life.
And here was me thinking you understood what I was talking about. I guess I will have to adjust my language a bit to make it intelligible for you. Apologies, I will try to keep it more simple for you next time.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 11 2011,18:51) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 11 2011,18:12) So I was right. Stuart
Yes you are right if you said that God confounds the know it all proud ones who confess to be wise.It is written that he turns their wisdom into foolishness and look at the evidence.
They say we are apes. There is no God. And they keep adjusting their truths so that text books need to constantly be updated, yet every one of them thinks they are right in their own eyes at any given moment.
So in your opinion you are not one of those your god is said to confound.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 11 2011,18:40) The sum of all mans knowledge is calculated at 295 exabytes, and yet “human DNA in one single body can store around 300 times more information than we store in all our technological devices”. And some men who profess to be wise proudly state that there is no God.
Is that not arrogance in the highest degree?
As it is written, pride comes before a fall.
And good points come before platitudes in response.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 11 2011,18:52) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 09 2011,17:46) I'd hate to disappoint you t8, so I'll remind you that I also concentrate on your “ape origins” too. And the fact that you and I ARE both apes by definition.
No Stu, by the definition of those who desire to be apes.Given that logic we are also part daffodil as we have 40 something percent of DNA in common. We have in common something like half our genes with a banana.
Other research suggests that there is between 1 to 4 percent different from a chimpanzee.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news….es.html and we have much in common with mice.Most DNA is involved in production of proteins, enzymes etc and much less is involved in the way we look.
Saying we are apes Stu is like a pilot saying we are only 1 to 4 percent off on our flight plan so we'll land here.
Back to the drawing board Stu.
Why does this fact of your biological classification cause you so much angst? Does your god require you to believe lies? Can it not follow the rules it set down for you in stone, in particular the ninth commandment, or did Jesus make lying about your heredity OK?Stuart
Stu, I simply point out that there is very little difference in DNA among living things. Granted the closest the structure is to another the more common code they possess. That is completely logical.
But your view sees the code as increasing and improving and adapting to the external environment. Whereas my view is that there is a code base among all living things and as you move up the stack, you can clip groups of code (libraries) to give a program it's unigue function and purpose. These libraries contain subroutines, classes, values and other specifications.The end result is a contained program or code that contains instructions within the inherited environment that fulfills a particular purpose.
Away from creative logic on our level and back to biological logic.
Conclusion, your view suggests that we evolved from the common ancestor between us and a banana to a common ape ancestor. Sure there is more to it, but simplistically speaking that statement is pretty much the essence of what you think is going on.
My view is that the programmer/creator takes different code from the code base when creating species and like any programmer does, he obviously doesn't reinvent the wheel each time, but reuses code perhaps even libraries.
Look at the things that men make. Take a Ford Falcon. You have different models yes, and you have much technology and structure in common.
Now did the 2010 Ford Falcon evolve into the 2011 Ford Falcon or were both created by the same manufacturer using common technology with differences which makes them unique?
I know that you are not a very logical person Stu, and that you maybe think that by magic things come to be in the biological world. But you have to understand that there is someone behind the curtain.
This website for example is a bunch of binary (think quantum) code that represents more sophisticated languages such as ASCII which in turn is written in such a way that it talks the native language of HTML, Perl, and JavaScript to produce this website. Yes there is a person behind the curtain. It didn't come to be as the result of cyber-evolution.
Your view of the universe is absurd as believing that his website evolved from another one that has 96% of the code in common. But I can assure you Stu that there is a lot more going on than your simple view of the universe.
You just haven't thought things through very deeply and just sort of assume that everything came from nothing or from something with an IQ of zero. That assumption is non-scientific and illogical, and absurd.
But I have to burst your bubble. Your view is nothing but wishful thinking and is completely divorced from reality.
Hopefully I haven't spoken beyond that which you can understand. If so, let me know, and I will keep it simple for you.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 11 2011,19:11) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 15 2011,17:03) Quote and yet, your explanation of the universe and all that it contains comes from something with the IQ of zero.
Not sure Stephen Hawking would take kindly to being called a “something”, or a something with an IQ of zero. I think you might find that is factually incorrect.
Stu do you think that when I make this statement that I am talking about you or Hawking?Sorry, but no, I am talking about your cause or the thing that predates everything by which all owes it's beginning.
You see, there had to be something first and your take is that this something had the IQ of zero because you have eliminated an intelligent creator as being the source as do all atheists.
I am simply pointing out what a foolish thing to believe that anything with the IQ of zero could produce a universe made up of galaxies, suns, planets, moons, atoms, quarks, and life.
And here was me thinking you understood what I was talking about. I guess I will have to adjust my language a bit to make it intelligible for you. Apologies, I will try to keep it more simple for you next time.
Basically, all you need is gravity. That's what Hawking was saying.You appear to be saying that there is something in addition to gravity needed, but you also don't seem to be able to articulate what it is, and especially not in the way Hawking can describe how gravity is the fundamental requirement.
I know which appears to be foolishness to me.
Stuart
Oh great we have found your God.
I already knew that Hawking was one of your prophets.But now we have your God.
So let the questions begin.
Q: Is gravity eternal/infinite.
(Has it always existed)?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
