|
The developing world was made to be as they are, so the only thing needed for them is to not make them artificialy retarded. If they would want cryptos it should be their own choice. Too much messing up in their economy not make them any better.
|
|
|
|
|
Probably the support had been reached. I thought it would be way lower as looking at, for example signature campaign the advertisement on bitcoin is lower then it was in 2017.
But bitcoin being still srong without any advertisement needed is a strong sign of a good health of the price.
|
|
|
|
I asked you how do you understand evolution and you tell me the divinations and dream interpretations. Yup evolution is magical thinking because the reality disproven what they say.
Ok, brains size decreases, but it's an adaptation and not devolution. We are actually much smarter now than before when our brains were bigger. Evolution is not just biological, but also cultural. Our knowledge increases. This is the part you can't get a grip on while thinking that all answers are in one Book. Although I knew it from the start, now I give up from this debate because it's pointless to explain evolution to you. Maybe you even know the theory better than me, but your beliefs stop you from accepting it. I don't claim evolution is a sacred truth. It's just the best theory we have at this time. I will gladly abandon it when we reach something better. Yes it is an adaptation - to an evil world true. That does not make you closer to prove the evolution to the slightest. We are not smarter. At least not the majority of the people. I see a lot and alot and a lot on top of not smart people that think they are geniuses. Just because people think they are smart, does not make them smart. To the contrary. Humility is the first step to the wisdom. Our knowledge increase because we are not dependant on our individual knowledge but in the libraries of data. I would say individual human have no idea about anything. People never got their knowledge or insight from that one book. If they would they would not be so much degenerated. Although I knew it from the start, now I give up from this debate because it's pointless to explain evolution to you. You did define your evolution knowledge and all of what you know is just not true and contrary to the fact. You cannot undone it. You will not run away from your dishonesty. I don't claim evolution is a sacred truth. It's just the best theory we have at this time. It is not if some theory is better than the other. It is important if something is factual or not.... You seem to not understand that. It is sad. So what's your theory? God made our brains shrink? Is he making us dumber? ''It is important if something is factual or not'' Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains the fact just like gravity and gravity theory. I still don't see why virtually every science and scientist would support evolution if it was a complete hoax. Im glad you mention the gravity theory. Gravity is a fact. There are complementary gravity theories that are not based on mass but electricity. http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-gravity-in-an-electric-universe/It is the same with adaptation, natural selection, common cause and dna - those are facts. Just like gravitation is a fact. But people argue what was the cause of that fact. If you like it or not it is a valid argument God have done it - unless disproven. It is not important how it was done, it is only important that it was done rapid just like in the evolution. Evolutionist do not care how the life was created as long as it was created - you have said so with your own words. The thing that divide us is that we are argueing it was fast, and you argue it was slow. You argue that living organism gradualy improve, and we say that they gradualy getting worse. It is the theories that are 100% opposite in their casuality and there are more reasons to believe creationism although none of the evidences are enough to make case in any way. It is just a loooooooot more plausible it was a rapid and now degrading process not the other way around. So what's your theory? God made our brains shrink? Is he making us dumber? That fact is suggesting the world will end. The world will have less coherent information and more errors until it would be cut in the half, as it written in the Bible. God will not allow for too much error in the world he will end it in the middle of it. He is pointing you to repent. Why the world will end? Because it was destined so at the fall. Actually I made everything unless disproved. I'm God by the way. I have told you there are ways to prove you are wrong.. You would not like none of them. Do not provoke God to prove you are falacious. You can't prove me wrong even if you tried, I work in mysterious ways that you would not understand, anything you think you know is false. You can play this game. You know I stated things that would prove 100% you would withdraw from your statement. Do not be dishonest not only to yourself but for others as well. If one would try one could disprove that very easily... its just a waste of time. But for the atheists that spends so much time it is clearly not unimportant to prove, that God had not made things. So if one would do that one would be very famous. Proving you are wrong would not make anyone famous, because asylums are full of people claiming the thing you have said and noone is famous proving them they are wrong. |
|
|
|
I asked you how do you understand evolution and you tell me the divinations and dream interpretations. Yup evolution is magical thinking because the reality disproven what they say.
Ok, brains size decreases, but it's an adaptation and not devolution. We are actually much smarter now than before when our brains were bigger. Evolution is not just biological, but also cultural. Our knowledge increases. This is the part you can't get a grip on while thinking that all answers are in one Book. Although I knew it from the start, now I give up from this debate because it's pointless to explain evolution to you. Maybe you even know the theory better than me, but your beliefs stop you from accepting it. I don't claim evolution is a sacred truth. It's just the best theory we have at this time. I will gladly abandon it when we reach something better. Yes it is an adaptation - to an evil world true. That does not make you closer to prove the evolution to the slightest. We are not smarter. At least not the majority of the people. I see a lot and alot and a lot on top of not smart people that think they are geniuses. Just because people think they are smart, does not make them smart. To the contrary. Humility is the first step to the wisdom. Our knowledge increase because we are not dependant on our individual knowledge but in the libraries of data. I would say individual human have no idea about anything. People never got their knowledge or insight from that one book. If they would they would not be so much degenerated. Although I knew it from the start, now I give up from this debate because it's pointless to explain evolution to you. You did define your evolution knowledge and all of what you know is just not true and contrary to the fact. You cannot undone it. You will not run away from your dishonesty. I don't claim evolution is a sacred truth. It's just the best theory we have at this time. It is not if some theory is better than the other. It is important if something is factual or not.... You seem to not understand that. It is sad. So what's your theory? God made our brains shrink? Is he making us dumber? ''It is important if something is factual or not'' Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains the fact just like gravity and gravity theory. I still don't see why virtually every science and scientist would support evolution if it was a complete hoax. Im glad you mention the gravity theory. Gravity is a fact. There are complementary gravity theories that are not based on mass but electricity. http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-gravity-in-an-electric-universe/It is the same with adaptation, natural selection, common cause and dna - those are facts. Just like gravitation is a fact. But people argue what was the cause of that fact. If you like it or not it is a valid argument God have done it - unless disproven. It is not important how it was done, it is only important that it was done rapid just like in the evolution. Evolutionist do not care how the life was created as long as it was created - you have said so with your own words. The thing that divide us is that we are argueing it was fast, and you argue it was slow. You argue that living organism gradualy improve, and we say that they gradualy getting worse. It is the theories that are 100% opposite in their casuality and there are more reasons to believe creationism although none of the evidences are enough to make case in any way. It is just a loooooooot more plausible it was a rapid and now degrading process not the other way around. So what's your theory? God made our brains shrink? Is he making us dumber? That fact is suggesting the world will end. The world will have less coherent information and more errors until it would be cut in the half, as it written in the Bible. God will not allow for too much error in the world he will end it in the middle of it. He is pointing you to repent. Why the world will end? Because it was destined so at the fall. Actually I made everything unless disproved. I'm God by the way. I have told you there are ways to prove you are wrong.. You would not like none of them. Do not provoke God to prove you are falacious. |
|
|
|
I asked you how do you understand evolution and you tell me the divinations and dream interpretations. Yup evolution is magical thinking because the reality disproven what they say.
Ok, brains size decreases, but it's an adaptation and not devolution. We are actually much smarter now than before when our brains were bigger. Evolution is not just biological, but also cultural. Our knowledge increases. This is the part you can't get a grip on while thinking that all answers are in one Book. Although I knew it from the start, now I give up from this debate because it's pointless to explain evolution to you. Maybe you even know the theory better than me, but your beliefs stop you from accepting it. I don't claim evolution is a sacred truth. It's just the best theory we have at this time. I will gladly abandon it when we reach something better. Yes it is an adaptation - to an evil world true. That does not make you closer to prove the evolution to the slightest. We are not smarter. At least not the majority of the people. I see a lot and alot and a lot on top of not smart people that think they are geniuses. Just because people think they are smart, does not make them smart. To the contrary. Humility is the first step to the wisdom. Our knowledge increase because we are not dependant on our individual knowledge but in the libraries of data. I would say individual human have no idea about anything. People never got their knowledge or insight from that one book. If they would they would not be so much degenerated. Although I knew it from the start, now I give up from this debate because it's pointless to explain evolution to you. You did define your evolution knowledge and all of what you know is just not true and contrary to the fact. You cannot undone it. You will not run away from your dishonesty. I don't claim evolution is a sacred truth. It's just the best theory we have at this time. It is not if some theory is better than the other. It is important if something is factual or not.... You seem to not understand that. It is sad. So what's your theory? God made our brains shrink? Is he making us dumber? ''It is important if something is factual or not'' Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains the fact just like gravity and gravity theory. I still don't see why virtually every science and scientist would support evolution if it was a complete hoax. Im glad you mention the gravity theory. Gravity is a fact. There are complementary gravity theories that are not based on mass but electricity. http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-gravity-in-an-electric-universe/It is the same with adaptation, natural selection, common cause and dna - those are facts. Just like gravitation is a fact. But people argue what was the cause of that fact. If you like it or not it is a valid argument God have done it - unless disproven. It is not important how it was done, it is only important that it was done rapid just like in the evolution. Evolutionist do not care how the life was created as long as it was created - you have said so with your own words. The thing that divide us is that we are argueing it was fast, and you argue it was slow. You argue that living organism gradualy improve, and we say that they gradualy getting worse. It is the theories that are 100% opposite in their casuality and there are more reasons to believe creationism although none of the evidences are enough to make case in any way. It is just a loooooooot more plausible it was a rapid and now degrading process not the other way around. So what's your theory? God made our brains shrink? Is he making us dumber? That fact is suggesting the world will end. The world will have less coherent information and more errors until it would be cut in the half, as it written in the Bible. God will not allow for too much error in the world he will end it in the middle of it. He is pointing you to repent. Why the world will end? Because it was destined so at the fall. |
|
|
|
I asked you how do you understand evolution and you tell me the divinations and dream interpretations. Yup evolution is magical thinking because the reality disproven what they say.
Ok, brains size decreases, but it's an adaptation and not devolution. We are actually much smarter now than before when our brains were bigger. Evolution is not just biological, but also cultural. Our knowledge increases. This is the part you can't get a grip on while thinking that all answers are in one Book. Although I knew it from the start, now I give up from this debate because it's pointless to explain evolution to you. Maybe you even know the theory better than me, but your beliefs stop you from accepting it. I don't claim evolution is a sacred truth. It's just the best theory we have at this time. I will gladly abandon it when we reach something better. Yes it is an adaptation - to an evil world true. That does not make you closer to prove the evolution to the slightest. We are not smarter. At least not the majority of the people. I see a lot and alot and a lot on top of not smart people that think they are geniuses. Just because people think they are smart, does not make them smart. To the contrary. Humility is the first step to the wisdom. Our knowledge increase because we are not dependant on our individual knowledge but in the libraries of data. I would say individual human have no idea about anything. People never got their knowledge or insight from that one book. If they would they would not be so much degenerated. Although I knew it from the start, now I give up from this debate because it's pointless to explain evolution to you. You did define your evolution knowledge and all of what you know is just not true and contrary to the fact. You cannot undone it. You will not run away from your dishonesty. I don't claim evolution is a sacred truth. It's just the best theory we have at this time. It is not if some theory is better than the other. It is important if something is factual or not.... You seem to not understand that. It is sad. |
|
|
|
What facts show we devolve? Except for religious fundamentalism. Can you provide a source for brain size claim? It is not hard to find that our brain gradually shrink. Here is the example of 5 seconds search. I have not even rEad the article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-have-our-brains-started-to-shrink/https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-human-brain-size-decreasingIt is not important why. It is a known fact that it is. Defining aspect of evolution, as I see it, is gradual perfecting of lifeforms. Thats adaptation not an evolution. It can be as well biblicly as well as unbiblicly. You choose the latter but that is not how the world looks like. World do not say either way. It could be both ways. One comes after the other, improved. You use vague language. What do you mean by saying improved? Evolution do not use such a term. They use the term better adapted to the enviroment. You call evolution something that is not an evolution, and that what evolutionists call evolution is just an adaptation. Descendants come after their ancestors. And that sentence is actually not saying anything. It is a hot air. However, it isn't always the case that the newer lifeform is more advanced. It is never more advanced. Show me one example of more advanced specie arriving outside of the imagination of idolaters. It was always the other way around - the changes was according the enviroment and it was fully reversible. Do you understand? Wild animals can be domesticated for example and adapt and after a while, it can be the same wild specie as before, using natural selection ofcourse, but the evolution says that the evolution do not go backwards. That is contrary to the facts. Evolution as they call it, and that is simply an adaptions that can go backward. Evolution leads to many blind alleys. You see? You even stated that evolution can lead to blind alleys - meaning - it does not go backward. That is just not true. But it is not an evolution it is simply adaptation. Genetics shows the common origin of all lifeforms. No? The fact that the pig is more similiar to us in genetics than any monkey disprove your notion of genetics having anything to do with any lineage. It is disproven. So its either you do not understand the evolution, or you do not understand that the things you say is disproven by THE REALITY! The difference between you and ISIS fundamentalists is that you are peaceful and educated. Your worldview is very similar to their.
The difference between the TV and your message is none. Yes I know the slandering of christians calling them muslims. Good luck with that on the Judgement Day. Our genome shows our kinship to all lifeforms. It does. And that link that connects us is God the creator. This memory is still embedded in our genes and consciousness. Yeah... some people have memories of rocks... they do not think most of the time.. And the dreams of flying is because we were monkeybats....... Bats that had become monkeys. Nice. I wonder when they would include batman as our missing link. I asked you how do you understand evolution and you tell me the divinations and dream interpretations. Yup evolution is magical thinking because the reality disproven what they say. |
|
|
|
You are my neighbour and I am commanded to love you. Out of love I am saying that you are not my brother. You can do better. Ok? You think that love is to accept everything. No. Love is wanting the best to the other person.
Commanded to love! Do you tell that to your family also? Aren't we a poor type of beings if we have to be "commanded to love"? So you wouldn't love anyone if the Bible didn't say so? Yes, love is acceptance even if (you think) someone is wrong. You would know this if you understood the Gospels. You seem like a well educated person, so I don't see how you ended up with creationism and religious fundamentalism. Yes, I understand evolution and I understand your view of Christianity. It's just that I have a different view on these topics. Creationism is a minor branch in modern Christianity, but I'm baffled with it. It's interesting that it's mostly an American phenomenon. Such a peculiar country. Jesuits are saving Christianity from oblivion, at least in the West, mark my words. While creationists are pushing it into ridicule. Creationism can survive in the third world or in parts of the US, among the ignorance and magical thinking. It has no future because people evolve. Yes I need to be commanded to love the person I would call the wrong doer. The society teaches me that to not love the ones that I might consider my enemies - I am suppose to be better than the society of this flawwed world. I would love - but not my neighbours, only those good to me like pagans do. Love is not an acceptance...... Love is having a warm feeling despite everything. I have warm feelings to you despite I do not agree with you. I do not have to accept your point of view or what you do. For example. You used the parents as example. Lets say that the daughter is a drug addict. Out of love one should accept that she is so? Out of love one would do everything to let her out of that addiction. You seem like a well educated person, so I don't see how you ended up with creationism and religious fundamentalism. There is no such thing as religious fundamentalism. It is a slander term. Either someone love the teachings of Christ or not. Many will say to the Christ in that day - Lord! Lord! and he will say depart from me those who do the workings of inequity. Yes, I understand evolution So what is its main characteristic? The thing that defines it and that cannot be explained otherwise in reality? In other words if you would see some of its aspect in the world - what would that be? Creationism is a minor branch in modern Christianity, I do not believe in creationism. I believe the word of God is true if that implies that there is no evolution - so be it. Creationist is I guess some kind of a slander term as well it would be better to be called non-evolutionist. It is obvious that the world as well as lifeforms had their begining, so there was a creation, so everyone should call themselves a creationists. It is kind of a silly. It's interesting that it's mostly an American phenomenon. Such a peculiar country. I am polish it is rare to think outside of the box here, and the box is that if someone have phd infront of his name everything what he says is true. America is the country of people that once believed biblicly that is why they were running away from Europe. They are less and less biblicly inclined and that is sad. Jesuits are saving Christianity from oblivion, You wanted to say - they are "saving" Christianity from the Bible right? Creationism can survive in the third world or in parts of the US, among the ignorance and magical thinking. Why did you come to think I had any magical thinking? You on the other hand have a problem with too much stereotypical thinking. It has no future because people evolve. Wait... We evolve towards what? All the facts says we devolve - especially our average brain size. |
|
|
|
The Kingdom is among you. That is a subtle detail but important newertheless. The devil is in the detail you know? The term was used as to not be decieved. Do not believe others. It is you who will know not some wise guy over the internet that plays with words. Its amongs you, to emphasize, that its not among them.
If you delete a large part of the Bible for your convenience sake I would not call you brother sadly, because whoever take away from that book let him be cursed.
You are just another type of gnostic. Suit yourself.
Namaste? Its hinduistic term. Everything I believe is the tradition of man? Not if you believe in Christs word. How someone calling themselve a christian can say that is beyond my understanding, not that I would wish to understand why someone is so illogical and self contradictory. Someone just is. Like many other things.
Why would only christian be divine? Because it is proven that all the rest are mere demonical imitations without the proper understanding.
Yes they are all true to some degree. It is like every succesfull lies is true to some degree. Like evolution. It is true that there is a dna, adaptation, change, natural selection etc etc.
Yes the Holy Ghost and The Kingdom of God is not in the book, but whoever keepeth the teaching of that book is to be blessed with both.
Devil is a term invented by the ego to blame someone else for its problems and failures. I'm not a Christian and yes I highly appreciate gnosticism. I'm calling you brother as a fellow human. We are brothers despite every possible difference between us. It's a sad thing that you think that your fellow humans are deceived by the devil and even call it proven. (How would you prove such a thing). Very egoistic belief also. No one is right except us, the chosen people, type of belief. Christianity can do better than that tribal idea. Do you think God would let billions of people be deceived and only give the truth to the chosen Jewish/Christian people? What kind of God would it be? Would you let your children be deceived? Would you favour one over the others? My point is this: God is in/among us and in the whole of nature, growing with it...in its magnificent splendor, evolving through myriad of lifeforms. But you are to fascinated with ancient books to see Him in Nature and fellow humans. Have you heard of a Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin)? Please read his work to see how evolution nicely fits with Christianity. Never stop learning. You are my neighbour and I am commanded to love you. Out of love I am saying that you are not my brother. You can do better. Ok? You think that love is to accept everything. No. Love is wanting the best to the other person. What does God have to do with Belial? How two can walk together unless they are in agreement? Very egoistic belief also. No it is not. It is a belief that values standards and law. No one is right except us, the chosen people, type of belief. Noone is good except God. I am not right... I do things I would not want to do even tho I know they are wrong. That is a process of purification on my part to not want to be vengeful, hating, lustful, covetous etc etc. I have not said other religions are not right. They are. To some degree. Many people have teachings similiar to Christ, but if they are driving them away from the Christ it is not good in my opinion. I was impressed with some Sikh and what he was saying. It is so sad that many non-bible catholic concepts are driving the people away from the Messiah. No religion is right ok? No christian religion is right. It is not that only christianity are the chosen people, a lot of people in the so called christian world deny the Bible ok? So it is the same with every religion, not just so called non-christian. Do you think God would let billions of people be deceived and only give the truth to the chosen Jewish/Christian people? They are all decieving themselves believing the priests. They should be the priests themselves the priests of the High priest Jesus Christ that have the law written in their hearts. Would you let your children be deceived? Would you favour one over the others? No. That is why we have a Messiah and the ORDER and commandment to go and spread. My point is this: God is in/among us and in the whole of nature, growing with it...in its magnificent splendor, evolving through myriad of lifeforms. Yes we see a character of a God, but it is not a God. It is his mere image. We are the mere image of the character of God. We should not bow down to eachother as well. Do not make any image of what is in the earth - and do not bow down before it. Second commandment. Jesuits? Ha... They are the fathers of many idolatries. Why am I not surprised? Guess what? God didn't write the Bible. Some bearded Jews did. And Romans. Some greeks had part in it as well. You do not agree with the concept of being a prophet do you? Well many Jews did not agree as well and they killed their own prophets - that is why the God was and is not happy with them. I wouldn't take their word, especially after some much time has passed and we know much more about the world.
You are not aware how hard it is to falsify the living book ok? Try to falsify the Lord of the Rings for example. You could not do it. People would saw every fraud. How would he explain evolution to some warring desert tribes? How? He would not said "after its own kind" he would not want to misguide them doesnt he. Explaining evolution is simple. For example - your mother is a rock. Or the mother of this group of creature is a mouse for example. And a mother of that creature was a fish. Instead he called us all the sons of Adam and Eve. Ofcourse there is a methaporical serpent there from time to time. But... it has nothing to do with evolution, maybe with the science of the behaviour of animals - ethology . The reptiles are known for their lack of empathy called many times being coldblooded. So if someone is a son of the serpent - he took the characteristic of a serpent - being a psychopath. Ofcourse it have nothing to do with reptilians, rather reptilians story is another story to ridicule the Bible. Just like the evolution. It would be easier for them to just think that "God created everything". For the same reason we don't teach evolutionary biology in kindergarten. Even adults have trouble understanding it Wink If you believe in evolution it does not mean that you understand it do you? I understand it very well as well as Baddecker we have proven that we do many times in this thread. The question is - do you understand it? |
|
|
|
Why do you call my beliefs shallow? You don't know me ok? You ignored my whole post. Why? Should I post it again? You were talking about Nietzsche so I told you - you know nothing about. Now you say that Nietzsche wanted to say what you want to say and not what he wanted to say? You do the same with the Bible. You do the same with me. You caricature everything you talk about to suit you. You are exactly the "last man" that Nietzsche was talking about. And the same men that Bible says: 2 Tim 4:3 "3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" But literal reading cuts you the trouble of thinking for yourself, you can just take things as they are written because of their traditional authority. I choose the way of inquiry, scepticism and knowledge. You choose the way of the itching ears my brother. I choose not the traditions of man. You do. Judaism was a tribal ethnocentric religion and Old Testament reflects that, while New Testament opens the level of a world religion free from many tribal taboos and superstitions (not from all). Are you talking to me or with Nietzsche? You tried to put the words in Nietzsche mouth. Have I said - I am so happy what Izrealites were? No. I was not. But not because of what you say, but because of what Christ said about them. He had said they abandoned Tora(literary meaning) in favour of Talmud (human interpretations and metaphors). So it is not only you are not agreeing with me. You are not agreeing with the Nietzsche, you are not even agreeing with Christ. And you tell me I do something wrong.... well..... Remove the beam of wood from your eye ok? Btw why literal commandments cannot be summarise into one commandment if it leads to one being? Why do they have to be metaphorical to do so? That is silly.... completly. If you take something metaphoricly you make more out of something not less.... I wonder how people think.... really. Itching ears... Christianity came out from His upgrading of the Old Testament. Well... In some sense it was. But Christ took the Old Testament liteally ok? He fulfilled the law ok? He did not disband it. Or maybe you make a metaphor out of it as well... Many things in the Bible are as well metaphorical as well as literal ok? That is the beuty of this book. And some things are purely metaphorical. If you think I take everything literaly you must take me for an idiot ok? But on the other hand if you pick what is metaphorical or you think that everything in the book is metaphorical then the John would say about you that you came from the spirit of the antichrist. If I say you have shallow beliefs, I'm not saying you are shallow. We have to discern people from their beliefs. Failing to do so creates all the trouble in this world. You could believe the craziest thing ever, but I still respect you as a person. Ok, forget about Nietzsche. I used him freely to make a point. It may have been misused. I'm sad to give you the news but everything you believe (and everyone in this world) are the traditions of man. Why would only Judaeo-Christian tradition be divine? Why not Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim? I believe they are all true in various degrees. Religions are human conceptualisations of reality. They are called divine because of the sublime insights they offer. Antichrist and all that magical stuff is missing to point of Christianity in my opinion. The point is, as I see it, that we are all brothers and that "the Kingdom is within you". It's within you, and not in old books. Obviously, we cannot reach an agreement and that's perfectly fine. Namaste, my brother  The Kingdom is among you. That is a subtle detail but important newertheless. The devil is in the detail you know? The term was used as to not be decieved. Do not believe others. It is you who will know not some wise guy over the internet that plays with words. Its amongs you, to emphasize, that its not among them. If you delete a large part of the Bible for your convenience sake I would not call you brother sadly, because whoever take away from that book let him be cursed. You are just another type of gnostic. Suit yourself. Namaste? Its hinduistic term. Everything I believe is the tradition of man? Not if you believe in Christs word. How someone calling themselve a christian can say that is beyond my understanding, not that I would wish to understand why someone is so illogical and self contradictory. Someone just is. Like many other things. Why would only christian be divine? Because it is proven that all the rest are mere demonical imitations without the proper understanding. Yes they are all true to some degree. It is like every succesfull lies is true to some degree. Like evolution. It is true that there is a dna, adaptation, change, natural selection etc etc. Yes the Holy Ghost and The Kingdom of God is not in the book, but whoever keepeth the teaching of that book is to be blessed with both. |
|
|
|
Making up odds isn't a good path to the truth. Evolution is a fact not odds. I don't know why you are against it so much, it's not an ideology, it doesn't hurt anyone, just because it opposes your childish beliefs? All the applications as well like medicine with antibiotic resistance or artificial selection and even computer science, why do you dislike that? Im not against it at all. Or maybe not more than any human made idols. All of the idols are just mere imaginations and are real only in the mind of its believers. Im not one of the believer. Its like cult of the flag. Someone might ask me - why are you against the cult of the flag or any such a thing. You marvel the creature or things that creatures made and not the creator of all. Thats all. I mentioned Nietzsche's saying of the death of God only to illustrate that religious zealots, literal believers and ritualists are kind of similar to modern creationists because they lack deeper understanding of religion. Shallow (literal) understanding kills religion and makes it look ridiculous to most educated people. This is my point and Nietzsche's, if I remember well.
And I wouldn't say Jesus took the Bible so seriously. He violated many Jewish taboos and rules during his life. He summarized 613 Jewish commandments into one Golden rule. After all, Christianity came out from His upgrading of the Old Testament. Judaism was a tribal ethnocentric religion and Old Testament reflects that, while New Testament opens the level of a world religion free from many tribal taboos and superstitions (not from all).
What you call "luke warm" I call "open towards new perspectives". But literal reading cuts you the trouble of thinking for yourself, you can just take things as they are written because of their traditional authority. I choose the way of inquiry, scepticism and knowledge.
Why do you call my beliefs shallow? You don't know me ok? You ignored my whole post. Why? Should I post it again? You were talking about Nietzsche so I told you - you know nothing about. Now you say that Nietzsche wanted to say what you want to say and not what he wanted to say? You do the same with the Bible. You do the same with me. You caricature everything you talk about to suit you. You are exactly the "last man" that Nietzsche was talking about. And the same men that Bible says: 2 Tim 4:3 "3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;" But literal reading cuts you the trouble of thinking for yourself, you can just take things as they are written because of their traditional authority. I choose the way of inquiry, scepticism and knowledge. You choose the way of the itching ears my brother. I choose not the traditions of man. You do. Judaism was a tribal ethnocentric religion and Old Testament reflects that, while New Testament opens the level of a world religion free from many tribal taboos and superstitions (not from all). Are you talking to me or with Nietzsche? You tried to put the words in Nietzsche mouth. Have I said - I am so happy what Izrealites were? No. I was not. But not because of what you say, but because of what Christ said about them. He had said they abandoned Tora(literary meaning) in favour of Talmud (human interpretations and metaphors). So it is not only you are not agreeing with me. You are not agreeing with the Nietzsche, you are not even agreeing with Christ. And you tell me I do something wrong.... well..... Remove the beam of wood from your eye ok? Btw why literal commandments cannot be summarise into one commandment if it leads to one being? Why do they have to be metaphorical to do so? That is silly.... completly. If you take something metaphoricly you make more out of something not less.... I wonder how people think.... really. Itching ears... Christianity came out from His upgrading of the Old Testament. Well... In some sense it was. But Christ took the Old Testament liteally ok? He fulfilled the law ok? He did not disband it. Or maybe you make a metaphor out of it as well... Many things in the Bible are as well metaphorical as well as literal ok? That is the beuty of this book. And some things are purely metaphorical. If you think I take everything literaly you must take me for an idiot ok? But on the other hand if you pick what is metaphorical or you think that everything in the book is metaphorical then the John would say about you that you came from the spirit of the antichrist. And I wouldn't say Jesus took the Bible so seriously. He violated many Jewish taboos and rules during his life. Huh? Like what? He violated the Talmud... The metaphorical rabbinical traditions ok? Are you talking about Sabbath? He told the accusers he was not working - he took pleasure with helping people. That was literal not working ok? Metaphoricly one can wonder if breating is working, and some had that metaphor - so they were not allowed to breath deeply on Sabbath or leave their homes. The taboo you are talking about came from metaphoricasing the word of God. The exact same thing what you do. |
|
|
|
I need to give a remark about the first answer.
It is a syllogism of how you presented it. It would not be the syllogism, and the way you wanted to present, if you would say:
1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution COULD apply (IF TRUE) as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)
Otherwise it is a sylogism and gives the reader wrong impression.
In other words you say - you have no idea how life originated, it could be God, and your evolution might be not true, but you want to believe it.
Actually even if God created life, evolution would still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution. Actually even if God created life, evolution COULD still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution. Here you go. It would defile the Ockham razor and it would be irrational... but hey logically there is such a possibility, and Im open to everything, believe it or not. Right now I would say - it is highly... terribly against the odds to have happened. But hey - people are hugely against the odds to be creationists as well. And to find two of them on the same forum is rare. So things can happen despite the odds. |
|
|
|
|
I need to give a remark about the first answer.
It is a syllogism of how you presented it. It would not be the syllogism, and the way you wanted to present, if you would say:
1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution COULD apply (IF TRUE) as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)
Otherwise it is a sylogism and gives the reader wrong impression.
In other words you say - you have no idea how life originated, it could be God, and your evolution might be not true, but you want to believe it.
|
|
|
|
1. Wow. Life evolved because life exist? Wow... That is deeply religious statement. 2. What is this? No abstract, no conclusion. What is that? They had to hoax the original experiment by finding the missing vials in 2008. Why? Because there were no other ways to cheat the truth - the fraud was needed. 3. Sorry, but... it is probably the same reasoning as in point 1. Am I right? Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible. 4. "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name." 1. Actually, life evolved but we don't know for sure how life originated, is it really that hard to understand? I thought it was quite a self explanatory point. 2. ?? Your book is a hoax made by idiots thousands of years ago. 3. ''Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.'' Tell that to badecker 4. I provided 2 links, do you and badecker only see wikipedia when you read something? 1. It is a sylogism. 2. My point was - your link gives no info for the reader. 3. Ok. He is just a man. Not all of those points are about impossibility, some of them are about improbability. 4. Sorry I thought it was one link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic - geneticists are talking about phenotypes and genotypes. The so called hereditary is more in touch with phenotypes. The answer in the second link: a) Acquired traits mostly are concerned with somatic cells. b) Acquired traits cannot be carry forwarded to next generation as there is no change in the genetic material of the reproductive cells. c) Acquired traits mainly include changes in the behaviour which are due to life style followed by an organism. Is not b) point proving the Baddecker point? And isnt the c) proving phenotype concept? |
|
|
|
1. Wow. Life evolved because life exist? Wow... That is deeply religious statement. 2. What is this? No abstract, no conclusion. What is that? They had to hoax the original experiment by finding the missing vials in 2008. Why? Because there were no other ways to cheat the truth - the fraud was needed. 3. Sorry, but... it is probably the same reasoning as in point 1. Am I right? Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible. 4. "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name." |
|
|
|
Were do you think that tail bone remnant came from, by the way? Did god but it there to test your faith?
No. The remain of a tail is to test evolutionist faith that are tempted to cut it out. That is the same case with the whales and his "legs". It is very very very needed as long as you want to have any control with your sex life and ability to control when you dump and when you do not dump. It is especially useful in women sexual life as those bones are for the Kegel muscles.  It is the muscle attached to the "tail" and pubic bone. Go ahead and cut of all of it.... And that's the point. It's just your opinion. Yes it is opinion versus opinion... About the points that Baddecker had given - you say you have found something that "might have been". Fossils can be made not taking a lot of years - all it need to be is sharply decrease any oxygen like during the flood. Geological dating is circular logic at best. And you said about the planets that "maybe it is possible". So you only answered to 2 and you answered maybe it is possible versus - it was not been found. And you say that what we say is weak... well... Just because there are no life outside of the earth that we know does not point towards creator. Maybe it does not. Ok. You still need some faith, but it points less to evolution ok? |
|
|
|
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530041-200-how-fudged-embryo-illustrations-led-to-drawn-out-lies/Ironically, although Haeckel’s drawings are used only as relics now, modern molecular genetic studies show that his fundamental point – that there are important similarities between different vertebrate embryos – seems less mistaken, even though his diagrams are profoundly wrong. Some similiarities - well yes. I found some. Two legs and two arms and a head. Can I be a molecular genetist now? The picture that you had shown proves absolutely nothing. It is so early at the stage of the developement and is so small some similiarities must be visible. But those embryos even in a veeeeery early stage are not looking like a fish... Im sorry they do not. You just make it up ok? Those lines could be as well the developement of the voice strings that could be very complicated. In my opinion they are just sags of skin or wrinkles for the further developement. Btw - have you noticed that all the sags of skin is pointed opposite to the curvature? That would mean that those are there because the embryo is curved that way you make wrinkles. That is just wrinkled skin imho. All you do is go from embarassement to another embarassment. If you had not known... as well as evolutionists - we have a tail bone, although a very very small - so why the embryo should not have it? You should show - hey they have a head.... yeah they do. Humans tend to have heads ok? Hopwood’s excellent, thought-provoking book makes us ponder how these erroneous illustrations acquired their iconic status, and, above all, it shines a spotlight on the power of drawings to influence our thinking. Why the evolutionists have a fraud as their icon? Becuase they are liars. You have to lie to yourself to believe evolution. So they have no problem with lying to the others. Hiccups, the look of a lips, and developement of genitalia in the fetus is your "proof". Wow... You are desperate boy... Talking about of embryo having eyes on the sides is wrong. No. The fetuses at this point does not even have eyes - a lot later they have the eyes. Almost no vertebrate normally born without eyes... So before having the eyes it is totally irrelevant where those non-existant eyes are. Btw not all fishes have eyes at their sides. There are various placements. Some have them almost outside the bodies. Picture the human fetus with eyes outside - that would be something.... People might wonder if evolution is true then. You are very desperate to believe that.
|
|
|
|
Yes evolution is a hoax. If man origins was ape then we conclude that all old human must turn to ape physical features. But this was not happen then therefore human origin was human and ape is ape.
I must say - I do not agree with the guy above, even if the first sentence is true, that evolution is hoax. Old humans do not devolve... Well... That is a weird idea. They are just having a cellular aging caused probably by toxemia. But on the other hand a fetus being similiar to the fish was proven to be a fraud. Why someone is frauding the evidences? There could be only one answer because something is not true, and that this person who do it knows it is untrue, but want it to look like truth. |
|
|
|
unlike evolutionists that deny to read anything critical against evolution.
Anything critical against evolution is usually a circular argument. Example: We know the world was created in six days because it says so in the bible. As I said, they would not believe evolution even if they saw it with their own eyes but when it comes to a stupid story written thousands of years ago, they dive in head first. It's quite hysterical honestly. If I would saw a convincing proof I would become an evolutionist. You judge me wrongly and Baddecker as well... But you do not agree with the commandments of God, so not misjudging and not giving a false witnessing against another human being is not your moral standard. Have I not read any single one of your materials? No. I have read them all and answer them all. Were my answer no - because no? I had a valid arguments that you had not comment. You know what that means in the debate? If you do not have a counter argument - I won. And yet you say I do not agree for the sake of not agreeing.... That is dishonest. All you could done is strawmaning the slavery, while there are probably more slaves than ever in the history of the world, they are not considered a commodity because we have slaves that are so cheap that they can die and be replaced by a fresh meat. Noone cares. If I would saw a convincing proof of God I would become a believer. Reading hard things to read, soltitude, and especially fasting increase the spirituality of a man. Try that first. First of all the faith is the gift and it easier to have God's mercy if you have been affected in life because it is written that he lift up the weak and throw down the proud. The more people have hurt you, the more you have favours in the most High, as he is the pure justice, not only by punishment, but by repaying. I would think once again if I were you, if you really want to meet the Lord ok? He have no reverance for a self-pride. That could be hurtful. |
|
|
|
unlike evolutionists that deny to read anything critical against evolution.
Anything critical against evolution is usually a circular argument. Example: We know the world was created in six days because it says so in the bible. As I said, they would not believe evolution even if they saw it with their own eyes but when it comes to a stupid story written thousands of years ago, they dive in head first. It's quite hysterical honestly. If I would saw a convincing proof I would become an evolutionist. You judge me wrongly and Baddecker as well... But you do not agree with the commandments of God, so not misjudging and not giving a false witnessing against another human being is not your moral standard. Have I not read any single one of your materials? No. I have read them all and answer them all. Were my answer no - because no? I had a valid arguments that you had not comment. You know what that means in the debate? If you do not have a counter argument - I won. And yet you say I do not agree for the sake of not agreeing.... That is dishonest. All you could done is strawmaning the slavery, while there are probably more slaves than ever in the history of the world, they are not considered a commodity because we have slaves that are so cheap that they can die and be replaced by a fresh meat. Noone cares. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
