₦airaland Forum

I remember coming across the Dogon claim in one of David Icke's books, and I think Colin Wilson's. After refreshing my knowledge[, ]

Sista:
@ Drusilla

Drusilla, I study Astrology. Astrology was first discovered by the Dogun people from Mali.

Most definitely not, civilisations like the Sumerians and Egyptians would definitely have come long before the Dogons, even if we accept that the Dogons were/are, in the strictest understanding of the word, Astrologers.

The Dogun people said that they got their information of [b]Sirius B from these fish like people who visited them from the ocean.

Fish like people from an ocean like planet, but I'm just nit-picking.

The Dogun people also represented the big bang theory by the use of the spiral that has a beginning but no end.

I haven't been able to find anything concrete on the Dogons representation of the Big Bang theory. I have seen snippets here and there, but nothing I can tie to the Big Bang theory.

They believed because they were told by these fish beings that earth was given birth to by this star Sirius B and the star is the shell of earth.[/b] The spiral represents how earth poured out of the star going in a never ending spiral. The spiral goes around getting larger and larger but always spiraling at 360 degrees. Notice how when you add 360 across it is 9, nine represents endings where as 1 represents beginnings.  Within that spiral are these points which represent the beginning, the middle and the end but there is never a set in stone end, only an ending to a point but always the beginning of a new point, for instance the ending of a generation but the beggining of a new generation.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 notice how 10 is the reincarnate of 1? Ten is the beginning all over again and so fourth, the numbers reincarnate over and over. This is where the term there is nothing new under the sun comes from. Everything repeats itself.

To be honest and polite, it all sounds like a lot of numerology rubbish, amongst other things. Some points, 360 adds up to 9 like other factors (right word?) of 9, and no 9 isn't really a magic number. Also, why is 10 the reincarnation of 1? I would have gone for 11 myself, but really like I said it's pretty much souds like numerology rubbish.

Now, when the white scientist came into Mali,they did not believe the Dogun people because as usual, I am being sarcastic (black people have no knowledge, only superstition) plus the Dogun did not have fancy telescopes. Any how the white scientist put a telscope in the sky at the exact degrees the Dogun people told them the star was and they found the star. They could not understand how the African Malians from thd Dogun tribe  could have known about a star that could not be seen with the naked eye. The white scientist concluded that it was all coincidental. The Dogun told them about another star called Sirius A that is supposed to rotate at so many millions of years. It is possible that that star will give birth to another planet outside of earth. The scientist are looking for that star and I think that is why they probe in outer space so much, they are trying to find what is those Dogun are talking about. I forgot to mention that cirrus B was called the Dog star at first named after th Dogun but the white people gave it the Sirius name.

Oh boy, you've gotten it all wrong, history revisionism rears its head again.

Starting from the beginning, the White scientists actually pretty much "believed" the Dogon people, the anthropologists seemed to at least give that impression.

Second, skeptics who didn't, and don't believe the "aliens taught us" account didn't disbelieve the Dogons not because "black people have no knowledge, only superstition", but because the tale had several inconsistencies, and there were other plausible explanations. The superstitions probably didn't help though.

Thirdly, scientists didn't find either Sirius B, or indeed Sirius because of the Dogons, they were found before contact with the Dogons, indeed Sagan theorised that the Dogons learnt about Sirius B through Western influences. As for Sirius itself, it can be observed without the use of any telescopes and things of that sort.

Fourthly, space probes aren't being sent to look for a Sirius C, they are sent to actually probe other bodies.

Finally, no Sirius wasn't initially named after the Dogons, the name comes from "the Latin Sīrius, from Greek Σείριος (Seirios, "glowing" or "scorcher". As the major star of the "Big Dog" constellation, it is often called the "Dog Star"." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius)

Linking this into the planets and sustainable life. Now bare with me because sometime I get ahead of my self and this causes me to be the only one understanding what it is I am trying to explain.

The spiral affect is in the planets, when you ball your hand into a fist and open it, it opens in a spiral motion. The hair on your head grows in a spiral, just look at a newborns head you will see that spiral. The planets including earth, sun and moon are several millions of miles away from each other but as they get farther from each other they are going in this spiral and so far Earth is at the end of the spiral. What does this all mean? Well to me it means that it is possible that all the planets before earth did not have sustainable life on the outside of the planet itself but could probably have life sustainable on the inside of the planets. When you look close to those planets, they look like they have little doors on them where people can come out if they need to[b] like Aliens [/b] an go back into their planet through those doors.

I would like to offer a more substantial response to the above, but not only would I not know where to start, I'm not even sure I'm supposed to take it seriously.

This probably sounds a little far out but nothing is to far out these days. Now, when the spiral got to the end of the point where it was time to let another planet come in which is Earth at the end of the spiral, the universe decided to let planet (Earth) have life sustainable on the outside of the planet, making Earth probably the most venerable planet in existence.

Somethings are more far out than others, and others are just so far out they are called ridiculous, inane or even insane.

So, I ask you, do you think this might be possible?

Possible? Perhaps. Probable? I say not likely. The evidence doesn't seem to point that way either.

Bobbyaf:
But you're on the road and you don't even know it. Soon you'll see the end of the road, and that it is a dead end. By thenHi how goes?
it might/will be too late. Wake up its broad day light. Now is not the time to sleep.

That's wonderful, wake me up when you have anything of substance to say.

Bobbyaf:
You desire me to bring evidence in favour of creation, huh?

You already have the evidence. Just take a hard look around you and see the macro evidence. If you desire micro evidence look through an electron microscope.

Haven't played this game before? It was a lame game then and it's a lame game now. Looking at the evidence has shown evolution, evolution with common descent.

What do these sources have in common? Order and design, the likes of which didn't come by chance.

What order and design? The order that enables a large meteorite to wipe out a large number of organisms, or the order that renders our Universe as a more hospitable place for rocks than life, some order. And speaking of design, are we speaking of the either drunk or simply incompetent designer that decided on the grossly incompetent design of the laryngeal nerve? Please!

Christians don't need to go into nitty gritty details about evidence, for we don't need to since we have a personal relationship with the Creator Himself who has revealed Himself to us in nature and Divine Revelation. In time you will come to know Him, or know about Him.

Anti-intellectualism at its most potent and worst. If you are anything to go by, then fundies do trully hate science, and that in itself is overwhelmingly sad.

He has given you the free will to choose the ToE even above Him, but in time you'll come to see that that choice would have been the wrong one.

Evolution =/= atheism.

I am going to leave a text with you:

Revelation 21:6-8
6 He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7 He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Repent while you have time. Now is the hour to reject all man-made doctrines that have their source in Satan, and listen to God's calling. What if at the end of this road you discover that what you learned to accept as truth is all a lie? What then?

Peace!

What's a good over zealot fundy Creationist rhetoric without some ambiguous scripture, that should somehow convince the reader to overlook the falsehoods that the Creationist had previously spouted. If you are the typical Christian, Creationist, then I'm glad to remain apart from your ideologies.

Drusilla:
Kag,

I just went and read a couple of sites about Alien invaders. The most popular Alien: the gray/white. Also high up there the blonde/nordic alien.

From what I could find too, the greys are the most popular for alledged abductions, not the most popular aliens generally shown in alien movies, same with the blonde looking humanoids. Secondly, these things: https://i4.tinypic.com/27xh3dh.gif look more like other worldly beings than "white" (as in Caucasian) beings. Finally, like I said generally aliens in movies are usually other worldly, and even when aliens with a recognisable human pigmentation are used, their characteristics aren't usually malevolent etc, they characteristics tend to differ depending on what the author had in mind.

A lot of people have noticed the pattern of the movies, apparently.

I haven't, and I'm something of a sci-fi buff, and neither has one of my college acquaintances who has watched more sci-fi movies than you can shake a stick at, in fact he's what is know as a uber geek. I guess we are just the odd ones.

By the way, here is Nasa talking about the 100+ planets that have been found.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/newworlds/marcy.html

Thanks for that.

Drusilla:
By the way: Whoever said there are millions of planets where life is sustainable has been watching too much scifi.

Not one-- I repeat -- Not one planet where life can be sustained has EVER been found.

And at most they have only found approximately 100+ planets and almost all of them are VERY VERY different from the Earth, and still not one could sustain life.

Erm no. I think we've found less than 20, if that. Secondly, take a guess at how many we've actually looked at properly? So, in all honesty, while it can't be said for certain that a life sustaining planet exists out there, it's a safe bet with the numerous planets that exist in the Universe

Drusilla:
Here is a cute freudian thought for you:

Alien movies generally show -- a normally white skinned group of superior beings who quickly take over and enslave the world due to their technical superiority.

Sound familiar?

Not true. Alien movies generally show other worldly beings with no human pigmentation. However, when caucasian like alliens are used in movies and shows, their characteristics are not definite, i.e their characteristics differ widely, and many Caucasian looking aliens are benign, kind etc.

Vampires are generally about -- white skinned persons who are burned up by the sun and and treat human beings horribly, even though they were formally human beings.

Sound familiar?

That's because the tale generally calls for that. The tale is usually based largely on an (Eastern?) European legend, a Europe with a large amount of Caucasians. It is, in my opinion, no different from a tale of an evil Obia priestess and her followers based in Africa, most, if not all, of the characters would undoubtedly be black.

Maybe even our ideas about such creatures have more to do with normal human history and what humans project about their behavior on the big screen and in books, then we like to admit.

Maybe, then again maybe you are just reading too much into it.

dp

Step 7: Persist in ignoring responses, desist from actually reading links that answer the questions you asked, and insist that you know what sciense is and isn't.

Bobbyaf:
What evidence have you supplied? Yours or what others have said existed? Read between the lines with a mind of your own. Don't swallow everything in the name of science.

Oh noes! My new super, duper irony meter just exploded. First, the evidence has been peer reviewed by several scientists, and many other scientists can and have followed and reproduced the results - and yes, I know there's a world wide conspiracy of scientists, but you (or one of those anti-religion scientists) can actually do it yourself and check them out.

Second, I have read the necessary material, and altough I probably haven't read between the lines (must be another variant of that spiritual eyes thing, you know the one where the words don't actually mean what they say, but say what you think it should mean instead - see the prophecy thing in this thread for example.), but I have understood what I've read.

True science supports the bible and creation.

LoL Pi is three, the Sun goes around the Earth, the Earth is flat.

Pseudo-science supports abiogeneis, and the ToE.

Says the man who clearly knows next to nothing about science

You haven't reached the end of the road yet, but when you do you'll see its only a dead end for you. wake up!

What road are we talking about here?

…and without acknowledging corrections and responses, he duplicitiously shifted the goalposts. And it was loudly proclaimed, "he truly is a quintessential Creationist", and all the people didst say "Yea, he is a true Creationist"

Bobbyaf:


The main links among the molecules-to-man theory would have to amount to millions for such a theory to come close to being accepted. The point is all these developments supposedly took place over billions of years according to the advocates of abiogenesis.

First, there is no "molecules to man theory", there are theories that describe the evolution from inanimate the animate, and theories that explain the evolution of species, including humans, from common ancestors Two seperate fields of study.

Secondly, you don't have a problem with the age of the Earth too, do you?

They are yet to prove or show evidence of the links between:

Just because you are not only ignorant of them, but have chosen to remain ignorant of them (while arrogantly shouting from the rooftops), doesn't mean evidence hasn't been shown. In fact, did you even read my previous responses?

1) how did the very molecules that they stress actually came about. They had to have come from somewhere, and even if they came from a source, where did such a source come from?

This isn't going to be one those infinity paradox things Creationist are famous for, is it? You know, we give evidence for say the formation of planets, then you ask what came before the formation of planets, that's given too, and you ask for…, well you get the idea.

In any case, which molecules are you asking about?

2) how simple molecules move to become complex molecules

3) complex molecules becoming simple oragnic molecules

4) simple organic molecules becoming complex organic molecules

5) complex organic molecules becoming DNA or similar information-storage molecules

6) and finally getting all these into a cell which is even far more complex in its structure than anything built by man.

I metioned before that several hypothesis have been presented for abiogenesis (I've decided to use hypothesis, because although they - for the most part - have all the evidence for how life may have formed, I don't think they are falsifiable. They could very be though).

While it would be nigh on impossible to go indepth into everything - you are afterall asking quite a lot, and I still have no desire to discuss abiogenesis yet (not for another month, and like I metioned before for personal reasons), I will however start you off on the road of discovering abiogenesis, by not only mentioning my favorite, the protocell theory (remember the example of life coming from non-life I gave, and hoped you would look up), but by giving a few links.

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199907/0062.html and http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/


That's the most serious and indepth response on anything scientific you'll get out of me for the next month.

Seriously now, would you expect people with common sense to believe that all these developments took place on their own, just by natural chance?

Depends what you mean by "natural chance". In a sense almost everything that occurs is a result of "natural chance", that doesn't however hinder those things from occuring. Also, "common sense" (see: intuition) usually takes a back seat in light of sceince. That abiogenesis can occur has been shown, even down to the lab. creation of life from non-life. Several mechanisms for the path it may have taken have also been proffered.

Ever wondered why all these scientists are so excited when they discover something on Mars or some other planet? Its because they are hoping to find something that would back up their athiestic views and theories.

Goodly people can you find a more faith-based religion than this one called abiogenesis?

Step 3: Complain about the secular/atheist/antireligious stance scientists supposedly hold.

Step 4: Claim that evolution/abiogenesis isn't science but a religion. Claim that it takes more faith to believe in evolution/abiogenesis than it takes to believe in God.


It's almost uncanny.

Bobbyaf:
Even a Nobel prize winner had this to say:

"Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves."
David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner"

A sentence without a context or even a reference, quote mining at its finest . Quote mining makes baby Jesus cry.

Bobbyaf:
Abiogenesis is absurd and you know it, so don't continue with the absurdity any longer.

At least he's stopped calling it evolution, a step in the rigt direction.

Life can only come from life. You cannot make life from dead chemicals. There is no science to explain the mysteries of life.

I take it you've never heard of protocells then. Protocells are essentially life (look up Webster's definition of life) from non-life. Webster's definition: "c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=life). Protocells do all of the listed.

Ever wondered why all these scientists are so excited when they discover something on Mars or some other planet? Its because they are hoping to find something that would back up their athiestic views and theories.

Yes, we all know scientists are all evil, atheistic devils.

If other planets went through a similar experience, like planet earth, seeing that they belong to the same galaxy, why aren't any life forms present on those planets? Why hasn't abiogenesis occured? hahahahahahaha,

We've only been able to look properly at about two or three out of the many planets in our galaxy, and been able to find a very, very, very, very, very tiny proportion of planets out of the uncountable number of planets in the Universe. Furthermore, other planets haven't necessarily gone through a similar experience, and that's immediately apparent if you look them up.

Spontaneous generation has been disproved long ago to lack real and substantive evidence, but somehow certain protaganists of abiogenesis can't seem to sleep at nights, so thay have nothing better to do but fill up in peoples' heads with sophisticated yet highly speculative jargon.

Yes spontaneous generation has been falsified, but only Creationists seem to bring it up, funny that.

Its always easy for people to say that abiogenesis occured, but wouldn't it be more in their favour to say how it can happen. Why not give us a break down using present-day chemical and biomolecular materials to prove the facts. Instead you all play mind games with people, at least the average people, knowing fully well that no one gives a hoot and interest in looking at the details, because if they did the truth will come out.

You obviously fit that bill. In any case several hypothesis for how abiogenesis may have occured are i existence, several of those hypothesis have working theories, and despite a dip in funding (from what a hear) work on abiogenesis is still going strong.

In fact the law of probability for the chance of abiogenesis occurng is 1:10 to the power of 50 according to higher mathematics, which makes this totally impossible.

If you're as clueless as Hoyle or Spetner, yes. If however you understand probability calculations and chemistry, you'ld quickly realise why that figure is stupid.

In essence dead chemicals cannot guide themselves into such orderly and complex formations. There had to be a designer who intricately placed things in place for life to have begun and contnue as is.

No.

Goodly readers w eare faced with two choices and chances that have to do with how life began. All we need to know is if one of those chances is wrong to accept the other as true. Both can't be true, and both can't be wrong. Its either or either. (eether or ither)

So statistically God comes out the winner. Modern science and higher mathematics in their own unique way continue to prove the reality.

False dichotomy, illogical deduction mostly based on ignorance, and unevidenced conclusion.

Bobbyaf:
So if evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life then what does?

*Sigh*. Abiogenesis.

jagunlabi:
Directed Panspermia,maybe?That is the latest scientific theory that has unseated the theory of evolution.

You're almost as bad as the bloke you replied, and from a quick skim, it appears the argument is no better than an "Alien of gaps" concept, based heavily on the "I don't know how that may have happened, therefore alien" type of argument. Incredulity and ignorance do not a science theory make.

Bobbyaf:
Many , believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted, In recent years, a great many people, having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

Thank God reality is reaching home.

LoL at Henry Morris a former evolutionist; doesn't get any better - well except if someone claims Kent Hovind was a former "evolutionist"

ope_emi:
@ nferyn & KAG

Can you guys briefly discuss on evolution to buttress your point?

And explain how life was formed on Earth through evolution (in its chemical and biological aspects)?

We've mostly discussed evolution, and touched on abiogenesis a little, so read through the thread or read Nferyn's link. Can't go into an indepth discussion on abiogenesis right now for personal reasons, but if you want a link or two to read, I can help you out.

Bobbyaf:
I guess I'll just wait on Nferyn to respond.

Well while you are waiting, you may want to think of reading up on the ToE, because I just realised that you've hit on everything (okay exaggerating, you haven't hit on everything, but you get the idea) [b]BUT[/B] the theory of evolution. From the Big Bang to abiogenesis to oxygen, and yet you insist the ToE has loopholes and is wrong, without actually touching on it. Most bizarre

I'm sure Nferyn will be along to add his two cents, but in the meantime,

Bobbyaf:
@ nferyn

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
There can be no sense in teaching that dead chemicals came to life and formed life over time.
Dead chemicals cannot make life, period. Its just not natural. If you desire to believe that go ahead!

In a sense we the "living" are made up of dead chemicals, but I digress. The hypotheses in Abiogenesis try to explain how the inanimate can become "animate, and how with time what we call "life" may have eventually arisen. I think the latest (and forgive me, but I haven't been keping up with the whole abiogeesis scene, so I may be wrong) finding is the TNA, which preceded the RNA.

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
Besides the uniformistic view that everything remains constant over a long time period
I am not surprised you wouldn't care to explain, or pretend to not know about the uniformist idea, so you resorted to me. I can only depend on what you guys say among yourselves. So if I use your own science against you, then why are you surprised? The iniformistic view basd on what I have read says that all processes remain the same over long periods of time. The early earth it is conviniently believed had no oxygen, because those advocates knew that self-assembling molecules, and especially the biomolecules couldn't survive in oxygen at all. Only God knows how molecules could self assemble anyway, but that is another matter. I am saying that geological evidence point to an oxidizing atmosphere, as indicated by the foundation rocks possessing oxidised ferrous iron, and also the vast amount of limestone present, together with large amounts of mineral distribution in sedimentary rocks.

Making up things, are we? I'm not surprised Nferyn had no idea what you were talking about. As far as I'm aware, "Uniformism" isn't  that things don't change, but that established laws - like for example the laws of physics - don't just change on a whim. Proper and tangible evidence is needed to show differences in the past, and there are several for the fact the Earth had less oxygen. Here's one I just pulled from google: http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=280

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
If early life in the form of cells according to the TOE, could have existed with out oxygen then why not discontinue with it today?
So somehow the plants found a way to make oxygen without oxygen?  If my memory serves me right, photosynthesis is the process involving plants using CO2, energy, etc; to make O2 and food, right. What is CO2 made up of? Isn't it a combination of O2 and carbon? How can there be photosynthesis without CO2, and if CO2 is needed then where how did the C find the O2 to react with, if there were no O2 present?

Simple answer (to a question that doesn't make much sense; owing largely to the whole free oxygen thing, not knowing about carbon, and anaerobic effect to name but a few - I mean we are all over the place here, from evolution to the atmosphere of the Earth to carbondioxide formation), organisms that harness energy from the Sun through photosynthesis have evolved to their present form. Long answer, if you can afford it, or you are a University member: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.arplant.53.100301.135212;jsessionid=iguM60J5b9U7G4tk80?cookieSet=1&journalCode=arplant

Quote from: Bobbyaf on Today at 01:18:24 AM
Basic biochemistry of which I am knowledgable specifies that oxygen as a free radical reacts with all bio-molecules.
Thats why God made everything perfectly from the beginning. He knew that sin would have caused all this change naturally, including how dangerous oxygen would become as a free radical. Hence all cells were made with outer membranes, and the organelles had inner membranes so as to provide future protection from all free radicals. All plants have in-built protection called carotenoids, or anti-oxidants, that when consumed by humans prolong life. In the beginning is it surprising that God in His wisdiom placed mankind on a plant diet?

What? No seriously, sin caused what? I'm pretty much speechless at this point.

From you conflating less oxygen (as in free oxygen) with absolutely no oxygen to more or less saying when you die you'll see I was right, nothing else needs to be said on the rest. Go figure.

Bobbyaf:
hey Kag how you interpret prophecy is your business, but I see things differently, ok? With that said I won't bicker about what means what or not.

Actually it's the business of many Christian leaders.

The point is the bible's clear prophecies are coming to pass and some have already come to pass.

You mean like, oh tehre will be wars, and *ahem* earthquakes somewhere in the world - very clear indeed.

How you and I see their fulfillment is irrelivant to our discussion of the TOE.

Well, in a sense it's a worthy distraction from your butchery of the ToE. I mean - and I mean this in the nicest of ways - your understanding of biblical prophecies can't certainly be worse than your understanding of the ToE.

My reasons for using the bible as reference was based on Nferyn's comments previously. If I could show you the truths of the bible, then the God of the bible would be seen as true also.

Although the logic in that statement isn't sound, it appears you've failed in that attempt anyway.

To try and twist bible interpretation to make it look un-reliable or inconsistent just won't work, because a secular mind cannot understand the things of God. No insult intended, just plain old facts."Spiritual things are spiritually discerned"

I'm sorry, twist? Ironic doesn't even begin to cover it. I was only going by the words written, and to try to claim the reason I have been able to point out your alledged prophecies fall well short of fulfillment, is because I don't belong to some secret club (a club it seems, if this things are anything to go by, that asks for logic to be crucified on the alter of reason). It would be quite funny, if it wasn't so sad.

P.S. I was once a Christian, and it read the same way then too.

My concerns with the TOE is its inconsistencies. Theyhave been so many variants to the theory its not funny. Its almost as if they are feeling as they go along.

Then point out the inconsistencies, do't go babbling [wrongly too] about the Big Bang theory, or on abiogenesis. Also, while there's nothing wrong with science correcting itself, I must ask that you provide some evidence for the "many variants to the theory". The only other variant I'm aware of, is the ol' Lamarkian evolution, and that was falsified/superceded by Darwin's theory.

The uniformist approach just doesn't hold based on what the same science has discovered. So its one body of science that is militating against the other body of science. They are too many loopholes in all this fancy-sounding theories, It all words with no meaning.

Uniformist approach? Which one? Loopholes? Elucidate.

The bible if its rightly understood and appreciated will, and can do far more for the human mind and body than any knowledge of science is concerned, and moreso the TTOE.

I'm sure.

rich olly:
I guess the minds of some beings have been intoxicated with a paralyzed delusion that the existence of God and other spirits is a falacy but i tell you, that is a farcical.

You say "paralyzing delusion", others say liberating reality; you say fallacy, others say truth; you say farce, others say you're deluded. Perceptions.

Secondly, blame no one but yourselves for your misfortunes for no man can be negatively influenced without the consent of his subconscious.

His entire family died in a plane crash - oops damn subconscious, his children, possessions are all destroyed in a fell swoop, and now he's covered in boils - must be that damn subconscious again.

Something about my king holding some tribe of Israel captive, and so my first and only son is dead, there's no water, cattle is dead etc - must be my accursed subconscious up to no good.

Born with a life threatening potentially uncurable disease which oter siblings have died from, but a lung transplant can help prolong life. Unfortunately parents aren't rich, and medicaid won't pay up "because you're going to die anyway", dead at 21 leaving a fiancee, family, a host of friends and acquaintances grieving - I'm sure it was that rotting, no good subconsious.

donmayor:
I am not a biochemist but as far as I have read and know, it is common now to hear molecular geneticist talk about an Intelligent Design based on findings from the DNA.

Many scientists, including biochemists, are theistic. Most only speak of an "intelligent designer" in a philosopical or theological sense. Let's not speak of the minority though (the IDists et al).

They might not want to call it God but those who have believed in God and not wavered in the face of evolution know that it's God they are tryin to refer to as Intelligent design.

Most who accept evolution are theists, yes they believe in God(s), and they accept evolution too - and yes many are in fact Christians too.

If you want proof, you can go to google. I just wish I could remember the name of that atheist who recently said he believed in the concept of Intelligent Design due to Conclusions reached on DNA

I'm guessing you mean A. Flew. He doesn't believe in the concept of intelligent design, but yes, he is now a deist.

Bobbyaf:
Just as a reminder the word "fast" in his context doesn't mean static. It means stable. In other words the universe isn't breaking up or falling apart. Besides, who is talking about space?

But if the Universe was static, "fast" would have meant "static"; anybody willing to wager on the fact "fast" meant "static" when the Universe was [believed to be] static?

By the way, you can't have the telescopes and the Universe, without space

I know how vast this universe is, but the photoshots say it all. Just more recently more planets were discovered in our galaxy. Only goes to show there is more surprise to come.

The Universe is vaster than the human mind can imagine, and oh yeas there's bound to be more surprises - maybe extraterrestial life?

Really now?

Clearly.

Well it depends on how one defines descendants. According to Paul the apostle all who accept Christ are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promse made to Abraham. God in His fore knowledge knew about a spiritual family that would not just be confined to a literal race, but to all those who will be saved in God's kingdom.

Good attempt anyway!

Holy ad-hocery batman! "Say Johnny, when is a "prophecy" actually meant to be taken not quite so literally, and meant only in the spiritual sense?" Why that'd be when it isn't being fulfilled KAG.

In any case, let's accept your reformed explanation of what should have been a straight forward prophecy (at least for now). The number of Christians both living and dead, would be no more than 5 billion - and that's being extremely generous. Well short of the intended target, I'm sure you'll agree.

Is that all you have to say about the prophecy? Believe what you desire, but I believe otherwise. Mary was untouched sexually and hence was a virgin. If she weren't then she would have had children before having Jesus.

Well, I just assumed it was self explanatory. I'll make it clearer: Luke 2:21 "his name was called JESUS" Isaiah 7:14 "and shall call his name Immanuel."

I could be wrong but you're saying based on what you understand of the record of Jesus as found in the NT that He wasn't really silent after all during His crucifixion, yet the prophecy said He would have been. The expression used in Isaiah isn't dwelling so much on whether or not Jesus wouldn't speak, but rather its focus was on He not resisting His crucifixion. It also means that Christ never spoke in order to defend Himself. So the expression "openeth not His mouth" more dwelt on his lack of vocal defence.

I'll post the verse again:

Isaiah 53:7
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.


John 18:34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?

35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

In either case you haven't disproved anything.

If anything, it has become abundantly clear that Biblical prophecies apologists are no different from other prophecy apologists hacks (see Nostradamus for example). Wiggle here, slide some letters over there, multiply by 1, now add 57, and hey presto it fits. See the prophecy was right all along!

Hey must_a_far, facts and logic are usually considered persona non grata in sensational supernatural tales. Why bother accepting ships and planes do cross the ever increasing Bermuda triangle unhindered, when you can just as easily claim those pesky aliens are up to no good again.

I suppose there's no harm in responding to apologetics that has strayed into evo/creation territory.

Bobbyaf:
@ nferyn

Next time peer through a powerful telescope and take a good look. You'll see that:

"the heavens declare God's glory, " It was He who stretched the heavens with the command of His word. By simply speaking the heavens came into being and stood fast. It is He who holds your breath.

No, what you see isn't space "declaring the Glory of God", and you definitely don't see the "heavens standing fast" (remember the Universe expanding - see your Bing Bang theory manuals for more information). What we actually see through a telescope, is a smidgen (and what a smidgen) of a vast - and you have no idea how vast - Universe. No Gods, no fairies, no monsters, and defiitely not a peep, or even a whisper, from the "declaring heavens".

Besides the physical evidences, there is the prophetic evidences from His word. Name a prediction from the bible that hasn't been fulfilled or is being fulfilled?

Disregarding the deceptive (in my opinion) poor attempts to retroactively apply events to alledged, and clearly ambiguous "prophcies" in the Bible (in fact sometimes the "prophecy was fulfilled" crowd even rope in words and statements that clearly weren't intended to be interpreted as prophetic), I'll see your challenge.

Here's one:

Genesis 15:4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

Pretty self-evident without retorting ad-hoc and retroactive attempts to shoe horn. Abraham's descendants (especially through Isaac) definitely aren't that numerous.

Here are a couple, which I and many Jewish scholars are certain were not intended to be read as messianic prophecies, but Christians have decided they are indeed messianic, so let's humour them:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (By the way, virgin in the original context didn't mean unsexed, untouched etc, it meant maiden; but hey, if the entire thing can be taken out of context to look "messianic", who cares about somehing so trivial).

Isaiah 53:7
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.


There you go, three for the price of one.

Probably if you took time to meditate on God's word you'd see for yourself.

God's word? See what?

None.

thebadguy:
My mother once witnessed an OPC membership initiation live.  She actually went visiting someone, when she heard the noise of gun shots at the back of the person's house, coming from an uncompleted building.  She peeped and saw that it was the newly initiated guys who were being tested with guns shots; which didn't penetrate into their body (the bullets I mean).  They were not wearing bullet proofs either. She later got to know that they were OPC guys from the person she went visiting, which, according to him, wasn't a strange practice in his hood.

I wasn't there anyway, but I know she definitely wouldn't lie about such a thing, or cook such story up.  She would be in a better position to explain this though.

Your mom heard gunshots coming from an uncompleted building, and decided to take a peep, staying long enough to see several guys get shot without any damage to their person? Interesting!

P.S What or who are the OPC?

From the wiki link you provided:

"Despite popular belief, the United States Coast Guard and other agencies cite statistics indicating that the number of incidents involving lost ships and aircraft is no larger than that of any other heavily-traveled region of the world. [1] Many of the alleged mysteries have proven not so mysterious or unusual upon closer examination, with inaccuracies and misinformation about the cases often circulating and recirculating over the decades."

But wait there's more:

Kusche came to several conclusions

"The number of ships and aircraft reported missing in the area was not significantly greater, proportionally speaking, than any other part of the ocean.

In an area frequented by tropical storms, the number of disappearances that did occur were mostly neither disproportionate, unlikely, nor mysterious.

The numbers themselves had been exaggerated by sloppy research. A boat listed as missing would be reported, but its eventual, if belated, return to port, may not be reported.

The circumstances of confirmed disappearances were frequently misreported in Berlitz's accounts. The numbers of ships disappearing in supposedly calm weather, for instance, did not tally with weather reports published at the time.
"

The skeptic dictionary also addresses the Bermuda Triangle: http://skepdic.com/bermuda.html

Draw your own conclusions; I've drawn mine, and it's apparent to me that like many other "supernatural" claims, the Bermuda Triangle is nothing more than a sensationalist tale borne out fertile human imaginations.

No.

simmy:
I do not neccesarily have to prove creationists right, all i have to do is prove t.oe wrong

Well you'd have to at least provide some evidence for your thesis.

Mr.kag
I'm not going to xchange words with u until u explain to me in your own words y the african elephant is considered a different specie 4rom the asian one if u can't , then we have nothing to speak about Nb, fossil records are there, these things are supposed to be common knowledge

I'm sure you simply missed it, and I can't be bothered to go back through the pages, but this was my post on this page

"I posted on the two African elephant species, which I pointed out were "as distinct as lions and tigers, which I’m sure you’ll agree, are different species.", and it seemed to have pretty much ended there, until you popped up asking for examples of speciation yet again. I can't pull up links on the Asian elephant, so I'll leave it at the African elephants, which is more than enough. I take it the peonies are to your satisfaction? ". Go figure

It's easy to poke fun at creationists and their "Goddidit" answer to everythng but u just have to face the fact that some arguments presented by t.oe are far more incredulous than a creationist answer as silly and unscientific as it sounds

Really? Changes in allele frequencies of a population which has been observed over and over again, is harder to accept than some deity zapped them whole into place? Or perhaps, it's the the endogenous retroviruses shared by humans and chimps for example, points definitely to common descent, that's harder to accept than and the constant handwavings.