FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-15-2009, 05:39 PM   #71
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,265
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julio View Post
"GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY - AND HAVE DOMINION OF ALL THE WORLDS”
is not written in Genesis 1:28. “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.”

This commandment will never be fulfilled. This planet is indomitable. We are trying to “replenish” it, but we’ll not succeed: in the end, we’ll be the losers. Now, as to go to other planets to “replenish” them, I find that to be crude science fiction.
'GO FORTH' and 'MULTIPLY' has no other connotation than to go beyond the earth; this is the next step to subdueing this earth. Yesterday's sci-fi is today's old hat reality. There is no choice factors to conquering new worlds - NONE.

We need a Kennedy style Pres who will abandon/reduce the premise of population control and planet cleansing, and devote instead big resources in a challenge to attain the first 5-star settlement on the moon in so many years. This is a screaming Plan B - manifestly encumbent if there are indicators this planet is creaking at the seams by a humanity appearing only very recently in a 5 B year earth. We have to stop blaming humans for being humans and doing what humans do - we have no choice factors here! How long must one keep repairing the same car - instead of buying a new one - a car is not made to last forever either?
IamJoseph is offline  
Old 03-15-2009, 05:50 PM   #72
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,265
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
"proven"? Bullshit. Hawking never makes this claim and neither does anyone else in the field. You've never actually read Hawking have you? The "finite" of his theory refers to the size of the universe while he argues that time is not as he eliminates the BB singularity.
I've read that book - it even has a math chart showing time had a definite beginning.

Quote:
IOW, you are misusing Hawking and falsely claiming that his theory supports your belief that existence is finite when, in fact, it claims the exact opposite. Hawking is arguing that the universe exists eternally just not in the same "time" with which we are familiar.
If time is finite, the universe containing it, cannot be infinite. If anything is finite in the universe, the whole is finite. Try adding $5 to an infinite amount of $.

Quote:
This is like pulling teeth!! Just answer the freaking question!!!

What specific evidence allows you to claim that the Genesis list of ancestors is accurate?

You don't have any, do you? That is why you are avoiding providing a direct answer, isn't it?
I gave you the only means of proving or disproving an ancient writings. Show us the name Eve appearing elsewhere before Genesis - not an unreasonable ask? Name your criteria which is acceptable?

Quote:

No, the former continues to be a physical act while the latter is nothing but a guilty thought that most definitely reinforces the belief system.

Not so. Coveting involves more than secret thoughts - it is akin to stalking, planning, devising and an uncontrolled pursuit and goal, which mostly leads to stealing. One cannot cease stealing when one does not stem an obsession emerging first.
IamJoseph is offline  
Old 03-15-2009, 06:09 PM   #73
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,265
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post

No, there couldn't. A pre-universe necessarily requires that time is something the universe exists in, rather than the other way around. Time loops, parallel univeses, etc., do not pre-exist, they coexist (if they exist at all).
What about particles and heat - would these also be required? Does it mean they existed pre-uni too?

Quote:
Genesis is the simple minded explanation of an ancient desert tribal cult. It does not mention species as we know them in any way, ...which is not surprising.
How would you describe 'species' to an ancient desert people - and also make it undertsandable to all generations? Is the term 'kind' fitting the context of 'species' in genesis - or not? Is it talking about lollypops or different groupings of life forms, describing each by their most blatant traits, and time elevated, in a protocol listing, like Vegetation, water borne, air borne fowl, mammals, land based, humans? Please show us how this is simple minded and one of many desert cult thinking - name just one example elsewhere?


Quote:
Can you cite a source for this claim?
Yes. Time related Adaptation as per ToE; the non-time related host related seed factor as per Genesis.



Quote:
...except that men are singled out as fundamentally different from animals - created independently from them
While there is commonality in all life, the critical trait of differences is what Genesis points to. Are humans possessing a triat which is different from all life forms - or not? Genesis wins here!

Quote:

- fashioned out of clay in "the image" of god. That simply isn't the case biologically, nor are other animals described in such a fashion.
The biological data does not answer the variance breakaway of human traits of all other life forms: speech is not dependent on skeletal or dna frames, nor the time factor, nor adaptation. speech is a recent [not millions of years!]mysterious, transcendent and inexplicable phenomenon on this planet, in contradiction of the biological thread.


Quote:

If you are right in this regard, neither of us is likely to be there to say "I told you so".
The evidence says that only applies if we do NOT follow Genesis advocation. The dif proves the dif.
IamJoseph is offline  
Old 03-15-2009, 10:52 PM   #74
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 5,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julio View Post
"GO FORTH AND MULTIPLY - AND HAVE DOMINION OF ALL THE WORLDS”
is not written in Genesis 1:28. “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.”

This commandment will never be fulfilled. This planet is indomitable. We are trying to “replenish” it, but we’ll not succeed: in the end, we’ll be the losers. Now, as to go to other planets to “replenish” them, I find that to be crude science fiction.
'GO FORTH' and 'MULTIPLY' has no other connotation than to go beyond the earth; this is the next step to subdueing this earth. Yesterday's sci-fi is today's old hat reality. There is no choice factors to conquering new worlds - NONE.

We need a Kennedy style Pres who will abandon/reduce the premise of population control and planet cleansing, and devote instead big resources in a challenge to attain the first 5-star settlement on the moon in so many years. This is a screaming Plan B - manifestly encumbent if there are indicators this planet is creaking at the seams by a humanity appearing only very recently in a 5 B year earth. We have to stop blaming humans for being humans and doing what humans do - we have no choice factors here! How long must one keep repairing the same car - instead of buying a new one - a car is not made to last forever either?
Well, being for a moment the devil’s advocate, I say, no, we will not be able to replenish OTHER cosmic dwellings in the nearby starts, BILLIONS of kilometers away. Forget it! We will not be able to keep food in spacecrafts for that long, nor could we grow it that way!
Sci-fi of the highest quality, to imagine that we’ll do it.
What’s going to happen for sure is our complete annihilation of our species. We are doomed, for sure. No way to escape it! Imponderables by the ton to overcome. We're not that clever...
Julio is offline  
Old 03-16-2009, 12:12 AM   #75
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,265
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julio View Post
Well, being for a moment the devil’s advocate, I say, no, we will not be able to replenish OTHER cosmic dwellings in the nearby starts, BILLIONS of kilometers away. Forget it! We will not be able to keep food in spacecrafts for that long, nor could we grow it that way!
Sci-fi of the highest quality, to imagine that we’ll do it.
What’s going to happen for sure is our complete annihilation of our species. We are doomed, for sure. No way to escape it! Imponderables by the ton to overcome. We're not that clever...
This goes against the grain of adaptation, which makes me wonder if this phenomenon is an internal or external provision. However there is no doubt the universe was created in wisdom, or to put it more secularly, everywhere we look we see supre engineerings at work to keep the wheels turning - nothing in the universe operates without a complicated infrastructure.

If you bought a new car and the seats broke 1 day after sitting on it - it would be seen as poor workmanship. The same applies for a planet inhabited by life. I see humanity existing now because of provisions made for us - and this will sustain the future - ancient humanity never had a clue of science - but elevated nontheless. A nerd can discover something before our noses - and space-time distances will be conquered, as well as different atmospheres, gravities and temps.

The point is, we have no choice but to embrace the future of new worlds. The issue of pollution and over population will be mute factors. I think all obstacles will be overcome when a voluntary decision is made - or enforced upon humanity. I think this is what is being told us by the population and climate prompters. Genesis appears to know what it says.
IamJoseph is offline  
Old 03-16-2009, 05:17 AM   #76
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Johannesburg
Posts: 5,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julio View Post
Well, being for a moment the devil’s advocate, I say, no, we will not be able to replenish OTHER cosmic dwellings in the nearby starts, BILLIONS of kilometers away. Forget it! We will not be able to keep food in spacecrafts for that long, nor could we grow it that way!
Sci-fi of the highest quality, to imagine that we’ll do it.
What’s going to happen for sure is our complete annihilation of our species. We are doomed, for sure. No way to escape it! Imponderables by the ton to overcome. We're not that clever...
This goes against the grain of adaptation, which makes me wonder if this phenomenon is an internal or external provision. However there is no doubt the universe was created in wisdom, or to put it more secularly, everywhere we look we see supre engineerings at work to keep the wheels turning - nothing in the universe operates without a complicated infrastructure.

If you bought a new car and the seats broke 1 day after sitting on it - it would be seen as poor workmanship. The same applies for a planet inhabited by life. I see humanity existing now because of provisions made for us - and this will sustain the future - ancient humanity never had a clue of science - but elevated nontheless. A nerd can discover something before our noses - and space-time distances will be conquered, as well as different atmospheres, gravities and temps.

The point is, we have no choice but to embrace the future of new worlds. The issue of pollution and over population will be mute factors. I think all obstacles will be overcome when a voluntary decision is made - or enforced upon humanity. I think this is what is being told us by the population and climate prompters. Genesis appears to know what it says.
I see your point. Subjective, but valid; rhetorical, too, with many imponderables, naturally.
Yet, it seems to me that we’ll not be able to adapt that much to leave our planet for good. It would be an impossible miracle, I guess. Not as a human species. Therefore, Genesis is right in the sense that we are here condemned to stay until [self] exterminated.
Julio is offline  
Old 03-16-2009, 05:53 AM   #77
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Virtually right here where you are
Posts: 11,138
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lógos Sokratikós View Post

So you believe the big bang banged into... God?? That must have hurt.
I believe if the BBT is considered, it could not have occured without an external impact. An absolute singular entity cannot perform any action - not even an explosion or an expansion. It is one reason why anti-creationists reject the finite premise, or embellish it with qualifications. In a finite realm - there is no aternative to Genesis' mode of Creationism - and none here can argue the point by putting an alternative on the table.


Quote:
And you believe a male suddenly appeared and then a female, just like that?
Correction - that is what you believe. I agree with genesis that both had to appear together and simultainiously, as a duality, then separate [mutate?], imparting both male and female propencity in their offspring.
Correction - I don't believe in any half-baked bullshit uttered by mad prophets and enshrined in old scriptures passed on by gullible people to gullible people.
Lógos Sokratikós is offline  
Old 03-16-2009, 08:25 AM   #78
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
I've read that book - it even has a math chart showing time had a definite beginning.
Read it again and this time pay attention. Ask yourself why Hawking calls it "No Boundary".

Quote:
If time is finite, the universe containing it, cannot be infinite.
The time we perceive is finite. Did you skip all the references to "imaginary time"? Hard to see how since that is fundamental to the theory.

Quote:
I gave you the only means of proving or disproving an ancient writings.
What? Unsupported assertion? Try again.

Quote:
Show us the name Eve appearing elsewhere before Genesis - not an unreasonable ask?
It is quite obviously an "unreasonable ask". You have one source for the names and you assume it is accurate.

Quote:
Name your criteria which is acceptable?
Independent support.

Quote:
Coveting involves more than secret thoughts - it is akin to stalking, planning, devising and an uncontrolled pursuit and goal, which mostly leads to stealing.
If it is no different from stealing then it can still be ignored as redundant but coveting is a thought crime whether you understand it as such or not.

You are truly clueless, amigo, and apparently willfully so. I'm not going to waste anymore time pretending otherwise. :wave:
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 03-16-2009, 10:23 AM   #79
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Middle of an orange grove
Posts: 671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IamJoseph View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster View Post

This is exactly what I mean when I say "educate yourself".
You clearly demonstrate that you have no idea what the Big Bang was. You base your comments on what you have been told it was, what you think it was (with your extremely limited understanding of the topic) and then you go on, based on your incorrect assumptions, to draw incorrect conclusions.

So, once again, I have to say: Educate yourself!
Why do you not want to educate yourself? Why do you want a collection of mythical stories to be real? And why do you refuse to accept the collective work of millions of brilliant minds over the uneducated superstitious minds of the biblical writers?
I understand the BBT does not make definitive claims how it appeared; but it does condone a primary 'EXPANDED/EXPLODED/CHANGED' action. There are only two possibilities here: that action was triggered by either internal or external factors. If internal, then the notion of singular entity becomes violated [it was not a primary or singular entity]; if an external triggering caused the first action - than it means there's some bogey man out there - so why focus on the effect than the cause?

IMHO< we are inside the first entity. Lets see this as a particle [for want of anything else]. The particle expanded. This means, the centroid [sole point centre] expanded - its circumference exanded; there was no space outside the BB point as yet. We are in the centre. I see no other descriptive scenario - and the notion the uni has no centre an error.

Here, I see that no action could have occured unless an external factor impacts, because eventually the primal entity would have to be reduced to an irreducable factor [de-contraction, or an absolute ONE/SINGUALR], namely containing nothing else within but itself. Thus there is no choice to factor in an external impact; this leads to the additional factor that TWO, not ONE entity would have had to be placed on the menu simulatainiously. Else no actions could occur - at least according to all logic, science and math before us.
This is exactly why is asked you to educate yourself. What you are writing here, is basically based upon lack of knowledge and understanding of the scientific areas involved.

When you base your understanding of the topic upon explanations given by other people who also have no understanding of the topic, it becomes painful to read.

Please, for the benefit of us all, use the Internet to educate yourself on the topic from reliable scientific resources available on the net. When you do and have question, ask and I'm sure many people here will help you with answers. I'll certainly do my best when I can answer, but without the frame work in place to understand the issue, it's impossible. So, please, educate yourself.
Wooster is offline  
Old 03-16-2009, 05:54 PM   #80
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 2,265
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julio View Post
Therefore, Genesis is right in the sense that we are here condemned to stay until [self] exterminated.
I see the reverse applying. Genesis shows the way out for humanity's survival. Imagine humans on another planet, wearing Madona-like mics which spits out the correct oxygen mix, boots which control gravity and body temp, and environemantal friendly movements and transporation, and mass harvesting which embraces orgs like Madonalds and KFC. Genesis points to this future - the alternative is death by suffocation on planet earth - thanks to short sighted Greenies.
IamJoseph is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:17 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.