₦airaland Forum

This is garbled - and in so many ways

LordReed:
Wrong. Human instinct is driven to procreate,

The heathen continuously insists on degrading humans to the level of brute beasts. Humans are not driven by instinct...

LordReed:
society however teaches us not partake in sexual activity outside of marriage.

...which is what enables us to develop and maintain sophisticated and complex societies. Of which one requirement is to moderate the sexual urge. And, if possible channel it into something that benefits said society - hence marriage!

LordReed:
Your holy book only attempts to reinforce social mores, it does not validate of any sort of conscience or instinct.

No, the bible instructs and, is a source of objective morality regardless of and without recourse to what society deems acceptable. There are numerous social mores that contravene, contradict or at best, only mimic biblical direction.

LordReed:
As for whether the bible mentions porn specifically one can approach the matter in a variety of ways. Is the god not capable of knowing what is to come in future? Why is it incapable of mentioning specific actions it knows in the future will be detrimental if that it is the way it views it?

So why choose a way that is at best bloody-minded and at worst nonsensical. The bible outlines a clear sexual ethic, the lens of through which pornography is clearly haram.

LordReed:
Yes, indeed it is immaterial if the bible condemns it or not because it is the encapsulation of the social mores of a certain group of people so it has no authority to dictate to any person who doesn't want to follow its dictates.

More heathenish raging. It's immaterial if you choose to disbelieve and disobey the bible. To those that do not it is essential.

Further, contravention of biblical morality always has an outworking - which is clearly evident. Attempting to sanitise perversity by creating an imagined scenario - faulty in itself - which presents it as "harmless", is not evidence of anything but the depths to which human degeneracy can sink.

I may well owe those brute beasts an apology. As dumb as they are, I cannot imagine them indulging in or arguing for an instinctive desire for porn consumption .


Saint
TV

LordReed:
I can defend it to the limits of my capabilities and I am sincere enough to admit when that limit has been reached.

Cheers

Holá, This is the opener on the introduction to evolutionary biology page;

What is Evolution?

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.

The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution.

The opening definition is vague to the point of meaningless, as it does not actually lead to a conclusion as to what this "change in gene pool" actually leads to or results in.

Secondly, the example cited is not so much a "change in the gene pool", more a pre-dominance of a certain colouring due to preference. This is akin to saying for example, that the preference of Naija men for light-skinned women leading to a increase in the number of light skinned women over time is a change in the gene pool and thus by definition evolution.

Did you by any chance read the link you posted? And would it be fair to say you are pretty much , if not totally, in agreement with the contents?


Cheers
TV



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5XSBQHz7B8 - please watch from 11.07 - just 30 seconds .

MuttleyLaff:
cc TV01

Hello MuttleyLaff, not sure why you mentioned me. You've not taken time to respond to any of the questions I posed and, this piece does not do that. What it does do, is help coalesce my thoughts about you, in regards to your submissions on this matter, and more generally.

1. The Lord Jesus referenced the creational purpose of male and female, was such a purpose creationally envisaged for SS unions? Yes or no.
2. If no, in a Christina sense, can such relationships be considered moral or sanctified (by the qualifiers you endlessly repeat or any other way)?
3. If yes, what would be Gods blessing/outcome for them. Especially given how offspring & generational continuity are viewed biblically?

You see, I am happy to discuss this with a fellow believer. I am even happy to discuss with an unbeliever, who has a different perspective. My sense here is that I am discussing with an die-hard LGBTQ activist.

But hallelujah, there is always redemption - for those so stricken and for those who applaud. Some more from Romans Chapter 1.
Romans 1:32 - Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them


Best
TV

LordReed:
I decided no response I can give to your questions will do justice to the evolutionary theory so I think it best to point you to the resources that can better explain it, if you are interested. Some you might find interesting:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/compare-skeletons.html

. It's good to see you have a commitment to evolution - even if unable to defend it.

Thank you for the references. I'm making my way through this page on the first site - I'll be back to advise.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html.


Cheers
TV

The terms:
Nobody is a “homosexual” as in a type of person. Human beings are - created - functionally male and female, and not in any ontological sense different types of male and female. Secondly, nobody is “gay” as in, has an identity of being “gay”.

The terms gay, heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, trans etc. while potentially useful for discussion, will be avoided where possible and, are nothing more than social constructs, with no backing in law or biology.

People may be SSA or in SSR, but this is behaviour and actions. There is nothing “innate” or congenital about this. And, even if a link could be proven in part or in whole, biology does not determine morality.

The Bible:
Is clear, from OT to NT. Physical intimacy between SS humans is an abomination. There is no getting around that. No matter how one tries to minimise, deflect or cry hypocrisy.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (note v23 brackets this with bestiality. Further note that v24 that clearly states it is to defile oneself)

Leviticus 22:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

I’m happy to hear explanations as to what occurred inter-testamentally, or as a result of the saving work of our Lord that transmutes an abomination and being defiled into something holy and sanctified? Is bestiality now sanctified and holy?

In the New testament it is clear. In the run up to verse 26 of Romans 1, the narrative is unquestionably describing how the thoughts of those who turn away form God ultimately become darkened, with one of the inevitable outcomes being uncleanness and lust driven behaviour, evidenced by SS intimacy.

Indeed, God himself give such over to these “vile affections”. In both verses 26 and 27, this vile affection is clearly shown to be a change in the natural (creational) use, due to an uncontrollable burning lust (it’s not innate, but can be deeply driven). The very mind becomes reprobate, as they force out any notion of God and honouring Him from their minds. It's Judgement!!!

I could go on, with references to strange flesh and the like. But will cut to another point before I close this post. The bible is clear on SS intimacy. It is also clear that In Christ, God has made a way out of this mindset, out of this burning, out of this uncleanness and unnatural behaviour, and back to Him.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind...

...11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

I would question how one who describes himself as honest, let alone a Christian, can read anything else into or, out of scripture. No matter how sympathetic, no matter how closely affected.

Further, it has to be questioned, in the light of scripture and the saving work of our Lord, how any Christian can champion SS intimacy as moral and sanctified, and acceptable in Gods sight. More so, when it is described as abominable, defiled and indicated as a form of judgement.

It is clear from the Romans 1 passage, which I have added below for completeness, that not only is this about a rejection of God – and not imagined differences between “loving unions” and temple rituals, or meaningless differences between the penetrated and the penetrator. That’s it’s about turning away from a natural (or creational) use to something deviant.


Romans 1
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


Cheers
TV

MuttleyLaff:
For once, someone baring his chutzpah made of steel. I hope you don't wince in pains by the time we are done on this interesting subject

Pain from revealed truth is ultimately that of growth and edification. But please calm yourself, this is not a 12 round professional championship fight. More like amateur novice level.

MuttleyLaff:
Now please tell what the evil is, because you haven't at all answered my question before going on with your hump.

SS physical intimacy is an abomination and against nature, as clearly stated. It’s against Gods will ergo, sinful and evil.

MuttleyLaff:
Simply Bible and Spirit wisdom and logic bereft of ignorance and ill-informed jargons
Well, it is to defensively block any space and all rooms for people like you to want to manoeuvre in

No, what it is, is obfuscation, designed to draw attention from the nature of the thing and deflect attention to peoples desires and feelings around it. And, you are looking for avenues in which to take the discussion, when it is simply “are SS intimate relationships moral and biblically sanctified”.

MuttleyLaff:
By their fruit and entire context of how the question is asked

Again, you are trying to wrap this in a pretty package and present the packaging itself as the determinant in whether the contents are good or bad, holy or evil.

MuttleyLaff:
The entire criteria is relevant and applicable to heterosexual relationships too but those are part of the discussion, SS is.

Fine. However, no one demands those when discussing OS relationships or unions. Why, if you consider SS relationships equivalent, are you introducing additional burdens?

MuttleyLaff:
" to another" encompasses and includes the bigger societal picture or wider community or society at large. It defines an determines what a neighbour is

Fine, although a minor point

MuttleyLaff:
Are you 110% sure of this?
Do you have biblical backing of this ill-informed opinion you are trying to advance?
Are you ready and prepared to see to the end the fallacy of how you're erroneously interpreting, reading and understanding the two famous and well known verses I know you are about to wave around

Yes, yes, and, if you are able, please do so.

MuttleyLaff:
1/ Why is it an abominable act then?
2/ To whom, specifically, is it an abomination?

Because sexual intercourse was designed as an act of congress between male and female. It is abominable to all. God, people and right ordered society

MuttleyLaff:
There are quite a lot of things that aren't part of God's original plan. Case in point, human being body with two heads, human beings with more than one type of genetilia etcetera. We live in an imperfect world, you seem to forget

Firstly, such imperfections, be that of the body or behaviour are called what they are. Secondly, I can’t tell, is this a yes or a no to SSA and SSR? Are they part of Gods original plan? Shying away already .

MuttleyLaff:
Live life, accept what you are and exactly be all what is mentioned in the question

This pre-supposes a “yes” to my first question. Are you saying God ascribes sanctity to SS relationships – with or without your heavy qualification?

MuttleyLaff:
After the ground got cursed, abnormalities and whatnot soon reared their heads because the Pandora box was opened

This indicates a “no” to the first question Was SSA and SSR as a result of this Pandoras box of abnormalities and curses being opened?

MuttleyLaff:
You know me, ]I am in love already and loving this

It’s not about the feeling, which appears to be an early point of departure for you. It’s about the facts and the truth.

MuttleyLaff:
Bottoms up. Let's do this often and so put the devil and liars to shame

+ ignorant join!


Cheers
TV

MuttleyLaff:
If I should ask you to tell clearly and distinctly, and without prevaricating, say what evil is there, in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour, I bet you will shy and avoid reply to the question, huh?

Why would anyone shy away from this question? Shrouded in "worldly" wisdom, logic – and jargon - as it is, it presents no real challenge and is easily rebutted on its own terms, let alone biblically.

Why is there a need to qualify such a relationship so heavily? Almost as if to deflect from the intrinsic nature of a "same-sex" relationship, and focus on feelings, intent and motivation. That alone raises a number of questions;

1. How do you independently confirm, in addition to and, apart from testimony from, both parties, that, that is the exact nature of the "relationship"
2. Are SS or any relationships that fall short of your criteria above not moral or sanctified?
3. How do you define and determine harm to another? And why just “to another”? what about the bigger societal picture on what leads to a flourishing society?

And, to answer your question SS relationships are an abomination in the sight of God - evil - and being perverse by their very nature cannot by any means be made “moral” or otherwise sanctified from a Christian perspective.

MuttleyLaff:
You'll go underground and AWOL, if I am to ask you to tell me where in the bible homosexual is abomination, where and when homosexual is a word that is barely 200 years old. I am tired of all you guys who dont properly read the bible, dont rightly divide the word and accurately handle the word of truth.

There are a number of places in the bible - and both testaments - where it is clear that sexual relations between 2 people of the same (and not just for ritual purposes) is considered an abominable act. But let me ask you this.

1. Are SS attraction and SS relationships, part of Gods original creational intent?
2. If you respond yes to #1, could you advise what Gods intent for their unions would be
3. If you respond no to #1, kindly explain when such attraction and relationship appeared and, how we can confirm that God affirms them


I know you won’t shy away

Cheers
TV

Dhumancanvas:
You sha want to mention absolutism by all means dont you lol.

At all, but if it draws mirth, please be my guest .

Dhumancanvas:
Okay let me clear something up for you mate. DNA is biological matter, acid I believe. IT IS NOT LITERALLY WRITTEN CODE, OR SCRIPT. That's just how we as human beings conceptualize and understand it. So this your insistence on written code that requires writer is completely unfounded. This is something i see often. You take DNA to mean literal code or writing and you argue from that standpoint, that is invalid.

I don't believe I used the word "written". The fact remains however, it is programming/code, regardless of the medium of communication and transmission.

Dhumancanvas:
You realise we have vegetative organs and so do some animals, relics of the past that are no longer useful as we've evolved to not need them so they enter a vegetative state.

Do you mean "vestigial?" Organs whose functions are not fully understood are parsed by evolutionary thinking as such. It would be better to simply state the facts. Please follow that particular rabbit hole to "junk DNA" and "pseudogenetics".

Dhumancanvas:
Mind you the DNA that matches is what i refer to as shared DNA. When DNA sequencing is done and the gene responsible for certain attribute is AGGCCTGAAC for example. They find an exact match of this sequence in other organisms that share that attribute.

If the DNA sequences "match", if it is "shared" why are the attributes not replicas? Why do humans not sometimes develop chimpanzee legs. The coding is similar, but "written" , to achieve different varieties of the same thing, by a common Creator.

Dhumancanvas:
I don't know how you translate this but having common DNA across very different speices points to the evolutionary theory that all life descended from a common ansenstor. That we share 98% of our DNA with our closest relative apes and even even 92% with mice further supports evolution.

As above, it's not common DNA in the sense that it gives the exact same version of the attribute. Just "common", similar programming that leads to variations of the same attribute. And they are not fungible like the same part on different cars. Every part is unique to every creature.

Dhumancanvas:
That we have similar bone structure too supports this(im pretty much gonna repeat myself but try to be clearer). We had a similar ancestor, through the course of evolution, as the different spieces evolved and adapted to their unique niches the functions of these limbs changed, some became fins to cope with water, some wings for flight others legs/hands but the overall structure remains pointing to the fact that they came from a similar ancestor but branched off over the course of evolution to adapt to their various environmental circumstances.

Repetition is perfectly ok if it aids clarity. But not to strain at the truth...and then the switch and bait happens. To blithely state that a type of limb evolves over time into different types of limb without being able to demonstrate the mechanism by which the code is modified, is mere assumption. There is no known natural mechanism for the code to be edited.

Simply ascribing it to random errors and lots of time is conjecture at best. Adaptation is not evolution. A creature in an unsuitable environment can only adapt so much. It then fails if that adaptation is nut sufficient for survival.

Dhumancanvas:
But okay. How do you hope to explain this your creator theory beyond 'God did it'. How do you even explain God. Scientists have gone through pains to put forward their thories and models. You wanna introduce this inexplicable being and say all your theories are nonesense. The explanation is this guy did it. How does that aid in explaining or understanding anything?
You wanna claim absolute knowledge. How do you verify your claim? Wheres your proof?

Sir, we totally know what "it" is. What we are taking sides on is how "it" came about. Some look at the beauty and complexity of design and say God did "it". Theories and models - even if labelled scientific - which claim it all happened randomly and undirected are "designed" , simply to say He didn't.

And, believers in God can be scientists. Science observes, repeats, tests, records and falsifies. It is empirical. True science is not at stake here, or even in view. This is an interpretation of what went before based on what evidence we have. It's by design and in code. There is only one deduction for that.


Cheers
TV

budaatum:
Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism, evolutionary creationism or God-guided evolution are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of general evolution relates to religious beliefs in contrast to special creation views.

Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict each other.

Yes, I'm aware such views exist. However, I don't agree they can be inferred from the scriptural narrative and contradict it in several ways - which I noted.


Cheers
TV

Akin1212:
And to think you just called someone a fool, while the glass of irony shatters on your empty skull

No I did not. I merely quoted what the Bible - which you continually disparage - says about you.

Akin1212:
Again let me remind you that holding an idea is different from writing down an idea. I won't have to keep repeating it to a supposed wise one like you, would I? Lol.

This is both tired and lame. Your OP was clear - if somewhat clumsily written

Akin1212:
Whether my people or family have written anything is out of the argument, it's not even what we are talking about. Stay on point and stop threading the path of mentioning my family or my people. I know you might be tempted judging by your level of IQ to hug ad hominem and straw man, but stay focused. We are interested in those who started the concept of God , they were cavemen.

It is absolutely the point. The scriptures where written thousands of years ago by a sophisticated and highly intelligent people, who were also deeply spiritual and walked with God. You erected a strawman claiming such adherents were illiterate cavemen. I hope you are suitably humbled - which is the whole point - by the fact that you are yourself at the end of a long line of still semi-literate cavemen.

Akin1212:
What is the evidence that God has presented? List them please

This I did in my OP. Which was clear to any whose eyes are not blinded by pride, prejudice and a vaulting opinion of his own knowledge & prowess

Akin1212:
You have not pointed any evidence. Enumerate or list them and also show how they are evidence for God?

As above.

Akin1212:
What little do we know that is just enough?

As above

Akin1212:
It means it's all human concepts.

As I noted, this is besides the point. Humans are able to conceptualise or interprete concepts and, are able to discover concepts independent of them having previously existed or not.

Akin1212:
Lol, your ignorance is fun to behold.
You're just as old to still hung up to childhood stories. That's a real shame.
The choice his yours. I pray mercy speeds it on and leads you aright.

Yours is a crying shame.


Have a reflective weekend
TV

^{Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:}

UyiIredia:
but evolution can also be used to support theism or Christianity and in all honesty

No sir, it cannot. Not the Christianity of the Holy Bible. The scriptural narrative and TOE present diametrically opposed propositions.

Biblical notions of a young earth, creature kindss created whole, and, no death until sin, are starkly opposed to TOE, which assumes millions upon millions of years, gradual changes from the one life form and, death as a mechanism, not a bug, as the default, not a problem.

Attempts to "christianise evolution may hold sway with evolution, but attempts to "evolutionise" Christianity, is to reject Christianity, if not to outright accuse God of lying. Blasphemy by any other name. But that, is the whole aim of the TOE.


Cheers
TV

Dhumancanvas:
Creation for which unlike evolution there exists no evidence whatsoever. I think I'll place my bets on the theory that at least has some backing.

As if the clearly scripted nature of the code that replicates life is not undeniable evidence of a creator behind said code? How can one not grasp this, or, see this and claim there is no evidence for creation? I can only see this as a kind of blind absolutism. I simply cannot fathom what else drives statements of this nature .

Dhumancanvas:
Anatomical similarities is proof actually. That fishes and even birds have similar bone structure to mammals and indeed humans points to a common ancestory.

No sir, it is not. If two people both write an excel macro, any number of the coding elements or outcomes may be similar. That is not evidence for a common designer, just evidence that the scripting methodology is the same/similar. Further, it speaks more credibly to a sole designer, who is more likely to repeat script where desired outcomes are the same/similar.

Dhumancanvas:
Similarities in DNA does too. I mean its been shown that we even share a small portion of DNA with some plants. To put in another way, you can tell family ties by similarities in DNA -you know, like paternity test-. If all things were created independent from each other there is no reason why pretty much all spieces in some way share DNA. The closer the speices to man e.g. apes the more of our DNA we share. All this supports TOE.

Similarity in the scripts leading to similar parts, does not mean the parts are exact replicas. The structure and make up of limbs in all creatures that have them is different. It is not, as it is made to sound, like different cars using the exact same parts. The whole notion of "sharing DNA" in that sense is therefore flawed. That 2 creatures have DNA to produce a leg, does not mean that the "DNA is shared", although parts of it may appear common. In a paternity test it is true sharing, as that is a testing inherited DNA.

Dhumancanvas:
My take is this. Noone really knows whats going on. We all just came and met the world as it is. Even our best minds don't have it all figured out. What we do have are models and thories that attempt to explain life, existence, the universe and all that. Now, as far as that goes, creationism and models proposed by most religions do not provide good explanations as to what's really going on.

This is mistaken; we absolutely know what is going on. The difference is in belief as to how it originated. A script never arises without a script writer, neither a code without someone to encode it. TOE is not, in the first instance, a model whose purpose is to explain what is going on, it's a model created solely to deny and, attempt to disprove the obvious truth of creation.

Dhumancanvas:
So far following the scientific method has been shown to offer better models and explanations.
Science is constantly under scrutiny. False or inaccurate models are disproved, abandoned and replaced with better ones which offer more accurate explanations. Mean while christianity for example relys on a book from 2 thousands years ago written by far less knowledgeable people and even considers it a virture that the book is pretty much the same now as it was then.

Another common trope. As if "religionists" are not scientists or, do not apply scientific methodology. In terms of origins and the wonderful and complex variety of lifeforms, the scientific method s, in some ways quite limited. What happens is an "interpretation if what happened", based on the available evidence. But with advances in understanding DNA, it's scripting and complexity, the case for a creator is clear.

Dhumancanvas:
To bring it back to the whole evolution vs creationism thing. C'mon there is no competition. Evolution is obviously the better explanation. It succeeds in explaining life as it is to a very high degree of accuracy. Creationism explains nothing and relys purely on faith. Even the Pope agrees with evolution and religious scholars. They don't argue agasint it. What they argue is that God had a hand in evolution.

Creationism is not in competition with evolution. Evolution was designed to deny The Creator. The agreement of the Pope is not evidence and neither here nor there. But no surprise, Catholicism was used to formulate the theory of evolution along with heliocentrism to that very end.

Dhumancanvas:
The writing is a little long but i hope you read it entirely and get what im trying to say.

No problem. It's nice of you to take time to share. Hopefully I've in turn articulated well enough to you.

Have a pleasant weekend.


Cheers

TV

Dhumancanvas:
I'm not gonna argue about absolutism and relativism as its opposite. Thinking in terms of those will only lead to pointless round about arguments.

Cool

Dhumancanvas:
Do you have a better theory than that proposed by evolution?

Creation

Dhumancanvas:
The evidence is clear, from DNA and anatomical similarities across different spieces, to fossil records. Even in other fields like psychology, certain behaviours can be adequately explained from an evolutionary stand point. But please if you have a better explanation i would love to hear it or read it as it were.

DNA is essentially a templated script, a code. Reproduction is only ever within the limits of that code and, there is no known mechanism for the script to acquire new code. Indeed, inherent within the code is a self-regulating function, designed to ameliorate any errors.

Anatomical similarities are not proof of "evolution". It is more a deduction (in the sense that it is opinion not evidence).

The mechanisms and dynamics ascribed to TOE do not bear real scrutiny. Theories in many fields are forced through the lens of evolution - for a number of reasons. They do not constitute proof, only an attempt to align them with the TOE which is in a sense inviolate, but not true.



Cheers
TV

Akin1212:
Lwkmd, ad hominem again. It's always this and not evidence. This has nothing to do with the evidence we ask. Prove that your favourite imaginary sky daddy is real. Simple enough!

How is it ad-hominem? You described people who believe in God as cavemen and illiterates. I asked if your own people - whoever they are - have a written script of their own, and when storey building commenced amongst them. To highlight that 1. Through time, people who believed God have been anything but illiterate and cavemen and 2. that you are in no way positioned to refer to them in a derogatory sense. Unless of course you can show me the script your people invented ? It's not laugh that should be killing you, it's shame .

Akin1212:
Honestly thinking, I have told you that there is no God. There can't be one. Your acceptance that he isn't bothered about my quest is enough proof, your inability to give objective evidence is enough proof that there is no God. If we truly know little then it's no ones fault that we don't believe. If we truly know little then it's the responsibility of the God to let us know more. But because he is imainary and not real, he can't do anything about it. Why are you so daft?

And God has presented clear evidence to His existence - as I clearly noted in my initial offer of assistance . That you reject it on the basis of your own "intellectual prowess" and desire to believe "alternatives" is your choice. No problem for God and no problem for me .

Akin1212:
Because we know little, therefore we must believe without evidence? Knowing little is a prompt to know more by investigting, not believing.

No one asked you to believe without evidence. I pointed some out to you and invited you to investigate.

Akin1212:
You have a condition called cognitive dissonance. You just said we know little, now you're saying you have shown me the evidence for the existence of God. Do you have a wrong understanding of what an evidence means?

That we know little does not mean that we don't know enough to arrive at the right conclusion from the evidence presented. And consequently take the next logical step.

Akin1212:
Only a fool believes in magical beings without proofs or evidence to substantiate their claims. Only a fool believes that there is a spiritual kingdom where a spiritual daddy is sitted on the throne

I agree. In lieu of proof or substantiation of any kind. However, the evidence is there - and glaring

Akin1212:
Throne, kingdom, and army, all these things are human inventions.

Even if so?

Akin1212:
Come, how old are you?

Old enough to have camped at your current position for years. To have demonstrated umpteen times more hubris, and mercifully, been shown the error of my ways.

It's good you are here. If you truly knew there was no God, you wouldn't waste your limited time arguing about him. CogDiss or what .


The choice his yours. I pray mercy speeds it on and leads you aright.


Best
TV

^{Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:}

Dhumancanvas:
However I feel its way too rigid, once one regards a concept to be an absolute truth theres no room for flexibility.

And the demand for, or higher virtue of, "flexibility" over absolutes is?

Dhumancanvas:
I'm more orientated towards relativism but not to the extent that absolutely everything is relative.

In the absence of absolutes, the concept of relativism itself becomes tenuous.

Dhumancanvas:
On a final note. There is no such thing as athiestic evolution. There is simply evolution. A widely accepted theory which is by far the best explanation we have for life as it exists in all its variety.

Agree on "evolution". Especially relative to the bible, as "evolution" in any form is simply counter to the biblical narrative.

"Widely accepted" does not accords to truth in either a relative or absolute sense. And when you describe the absurdity of evolution "as the best explanation", do you mean in an absolute or relative sense .


Cheers
TV

Akin1212:
And in all this you cannot really sense that you are the ignorant and blind one here?

Not in plainly seeing the evidence for God, acknowledging my own frailty - and on the basis of that seeking Him.

Akin1212:
I said the idea was held by illiterate cavemen, not written by illiterate cavemen. Sometimes, in fact, all the time, you don't disappoint in showing how much ignorance is in you, just like peak milk. It's in you

By it is held and written by those who are not illiterate or "cavemen" to this very day. Your people, your tribe if you will, do they have a script of their own? One for recording their own language? When was the first "storey" building in your village . Yet here you are at once condemning some as illiterate and "cavemen", when those words are in fact emblematic of your whole lineage

Akin1212:
Ideas can be held, passed or taught to others who will write them down. Of course, I had to tell you that. I have realized that most of you theists believe in this sky daddy because you don't think deeply.

Maybe it's not about thinking deeply, rather thinking honestly. Not prating in our knowledge, but realising how little we truly know. But at once thinking and knowing enough to appreciate the evidence as presented.

Akin1212:
You now want to lie for God and introduce a straw man? Give solid proof and evidence for the God you worship or suck it up.

God does not need me to defend Him, any more than your pathetic attempts to make demands of Him merit His attention.

Having said that. I have pointed you to the evidence. The choice as to whether to critically examine it, or, fall back on to fables that allow you to sneer at those whose intellectual - let alone spiritual - spit would have drowned you without trace, is yours.


Like I said, humility.


All the best
TV


^{Psalm 14 - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.}

Akin1212:
First of all, the bible is not valid evidence. So all these baloneys don't count. Show tangible and objective evidence. The heavens and the firmaments are not the handywork of any spirit. That idea was held by illiterate cavemen who never investigated anything but reached a conclusion from ignorance. This is a new age. Wake up

...l did not direct you to the bible did l? Can illiterate "cavemen" write? Have you per chance considered your own ignorance?

I stand corrected, perhaps humility should be your starting point .


Best
TV

...if one can participate without being political. Perhaps. If one can remain Christian and non-partisan, maybe. But l don't personally think it is possible.


Cheers
TV


^{Matthew 4:8 - Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”}

...it's there...in a huge and glaring cosmological sense

Psalm 19 - The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

...it's there...in the beautiful design and intricate complexity of the tiniest living cell

Psalm 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

...it's there...if you truly seek Him, seek truth, and not in your pride seek be led by, or a leader of these;

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

...it's there if...you don't fall for this;

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:


Praying that the scales of everything out of nothing, men from monkey like creatures and, a spherical, moving earth, drop from your eyes, would be a good start. Then throw some humility into the mix and...

...the choice is yours.


All the best

TV

LordReed:
Very good. This exposed the very misunderstanding of what the evolutionary theory deduces I suspected you were relying on.

I don't so much misunderstand TOE, as believe it isn't actually possible - no matter how explained. Neither is it evidenced, no matter how insisted. As for describing it as a deduction, I don't believe it is an honest one, based on the available evidence, or the possibility based on how we understand the code to work.

LordReed:
Your conception of evolution is akin to viewing the changes as a ladder whereby each step is a discrete change like a reptile morphing or giving birth to a bird but this is not what evolutionary theory observes.

My conception of TOE is in a sense by the by, my desire here was to hear a credible defence of the position.

Having said that, my grasp of TOE was never as sketchy as to suggest one kind can give birth to another. After all, if the timescales postulated are collapsed, what is TOE actually saying?

TOE deduces that all life originated form a single point and, over time, different genus or kinds of creatures morph into others. My point being that no matter how much time, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection or adaptation, no creature morphs into another kind.

LordReed:
Evolutionary theory envisions the changes like the branching of a tree whereby species branch off to give rise to new species in a consequential series of changes over a long period of time rather than in discrete leaps.

Species, or, variations of a kind is fine. Evidenced. But they remain the same kind - I cited dogs as an example here.

But changing into a new type, genus or kind cannot happen, as the code has limits to it's variability. And, over time variability is lost, not gained, such that morphing into something entirely different is possible - no matter how much time that elapses, or the number of changes that take place.

LordReed:
This answers the question of why there is no evidence of a leap from reptile to bird because the long chain of changes are each small but cumulative rather than discrete and sudden.

Earlier, you stated the below...

LordReed:
When records or evidence exists, much like the review of security camera footage or the reconstruction of a crime scene from bits of evidence.

...which directly contradicts your statement above. Hence the excitement generated by the OP. So what evidence is there, other than mere deduction?

LordReed:
We can also envision it the way language also evolves. The english language changed from and had input from many languages, we did not have a german or celtic speaking mother give birth to an english speaking baby.

I'm not clear how this speaks to the subject at hand. The "evolution" of language, in most instances, is clearly evidenced and documented, clear lines can be drawn.

As for the birth point, mothers, of any ethnicity or background, couple with fathers of any ethnicity and background and, give birth to children, bar any unfortunate circumstances, with the power of speech, who can apprehend any language. Speaking, I would suggest, more to my point about variation within a core commonality (kind, genus).


Best
TV

^{Psalm 139:14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvellous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.}

LordReed:
Before we go on kindly provide the definition of kind as you are using it.

At two basic levels - kinds at say the level of fish, reptiles or birds. At a secondary level, say kinds of dogs. Quite simple and, as I've hopefully used consistently in my responses. Happy for you to use any taxonomy you choose. Just that it be clearly defined.

And, my point was that life is transmitted code. That is why kinds produce after their own. There is variability and a measure of adaptive capability within this code, but no known mechanism whereby additional code can be incorporated that can lead to it "morphing" into a totally different kind. No matter the degree of variability or adaptation, or how long elapses.

Further, the fact that it is code, suggests the presence of a Code Writer. Not to mention information, and how that is created, transmitted, stored, retrieved, read and disseminated.



Cheers
TV

LordReed:
When records or evidence exists, much like the review of security camera footage or the reconstruction of a crime scene from bits of evidence.

Please, what "records" or "evidence" exists that clearly demonstrates living creatures changing from one kind to another i.e. fish to reptiles or reptiles to birds, or vice-versa. Or any other example.

LordReed:
New scientific information always pushes the paradigm. The discovery of quantum mechanics changed the way we think about subatomic particles.

New information does not change facts or the truth. If evolution is "certifiable scientific fact", the experiment in view would not have staggering implications. Especially since in and of itself it is not evidence of evolution.

If a single cell or whole animal is split in to 2 (or cloned even) , it does not mean it is predisposed to morphing into an entirely different creature or, will do so under the right conditions.

What we know is that life is essentially a code. Life is always produced within the boundaries of that code. And any variation between kinds of animals clearly shows that. Dogs are a good example.

For a creature to morph into a different kind, it would have to acquire new code. There is no known natural mechanism for that to take place. Not in 3 days, not in 30,000 years.

What we have clear evidence of is that animals only produce after their own kind with variation limited as noted. Indeed, not only is new code never acquired, it is more likely that code/variability is lost through successive generations amongst populations.

So far example, whilst a Yoruba and Chinese couple will produce viable offspring, a Yoruba couple will never produce a Chinese looking offspring. Neither will a Chinese couple produce a Yoruba looking offspring. Variability diminishes, it does not increase.

LordReed:
What other way do you interpret a single cell organism morphing into a multicellular one?

One should always interpret what is observed on its own merits, not in light of some pre-conceived notion.

LordReed:
Are you ignoring the time scales and generational cycles? This experiment observed over 750 generational cycles, in human terms that will be a time scale of over 30,000 years. Meanwhile general evolutionary timescales are in the millions of years. How are you expecting one organism to evolve in 3 days?

And where is the evidence to show living creatures "morphing" into other kinds of creature over millions of years?

LordReed:
What is the meaning of kind? Evolutionary theory does not speak of kinds.

Fish to reptiles as mentioned above would be an example

LordReed:
Evolution has several mechanisms eg. Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection. It is all these processes and their outcomes that is collectively known as evolution.

Several processes have been presumed to drive "evolution", but all of the process noted happen within animals of the same kind and drive variation within those kinds. They do not lead to animals changing into different kinds

A single cell "morphing" into 2 cells - if that is what happened without intervention - is not morphing into a different kind of cell. That would be like saying because I split me tenner into 2 fives, it could morph into gold bullion or shares in First Bank.


Danke!
TV

LordReed:
This is the first time I am hearing of it being observed in real time, all other observations have been of past occurrences.

This sounds contradictory and for a number of reasons;

1. How is a "past occurrence" observed?

2. If evolution is a "certifiable scientific fact", how does this have any real implications, let alone staggering ones?

3. This only has any implications if the interpretation of what is actually occurring is correct, and not because it's derived from an a priori bias towards the notion of evolution and every effort to proving it true..

LordReed:
Nope. People tend to say adaptation simply because they are uncomfortable with the implications of evolution but forget that adaptation is a mechanism of evolution. In other words evolution is the result of many adaptations.

Adaptation is only assumed to be mechanism of evolution and will remain an assumption until evolution is proven. When in fact, what we can see and, what we observe in "real time", is that adaptation is a mechanism in it's own right.

I'm currently undertaking a 100 push-up challenge. within 3 days I felt like I'd had chest implants, within 4, increased vascularity was evident. That's adaptation. It just ensures fitness for purpose and hence survival. I'm not changing into another creature. I'm still a TV, just buffer .

LordReed:
No. This is gradual changes over many generations not a sudden instantiation.

Which has never been shown to give rise to a different kind of creature, only variation within the kind. Not only is the notion of "observed past occurrences" bordering on the absurd, there is no supporting evidence to lend it the slightest credence.

You also mentioned adaptation as the mechanism for evolution. I'd always thought it was attributed to random mutation, which in turn was as it sounds "undirected". Are you saying it is directed or by design via adaptation?

Push up time jor. Let's see if I can push that PB. I'm so hot right now, I guess I could be considered another kind .


Cheers
TV

^{Revelation 4:11 - “You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created.”}

LordReed:
1. Evolution can be observed in real time.

Has this not happened already? How does it become "certifiable scientific fact" without having being observed?

LordReed:
What moved life from single cell to multicell could have been the same need to self preserve.

Evolution is mindless and undirected is it not? To self preserve via adaptation to stimuli, and surely preserve is the opposite of evolve?

LordReed:
We could be affecting evolutionary trends with our actions right now.

Per above, would that qualify as "evolution"? Sounds more like creation, if only in an additive sense.

Just wanted to understand that's all.


Cheers
TV

LordReed:
Staggering implications.

Please sir, what are these "staggering implications"?

LordReed:
As in, you need to be INCREDIBLY obtuse to take such a deliberately contrarian stance.

Are you saying evolution is a certifiable scientific fact .


Ekú weekend y'all
TV

From here - https://www.nairaland.com/5034006/revival-fasting-modern-pentcostal-christianity#75901481

1/ Does he believe that Jews were gassed, or is that with Kraków and Auschwitz fakes and/or hoaxes?
Do I believe – as the bible states – that Jewish people have, over the ages, been dispersed across the world and, at points, relentlessly persecuted? Yes. Do I know, or have I researched, particulars of this persecution and, specifically the “holocaust”? No.

And, as it does not directly question my faith in God or scriptural inerrancy, I see no reason to. Same for any other conspiracy theories such as 9/11. I am not a conspiracy theorist, I am not a flat-earther, nor a “holocaust” affirmer or denier. I am a bible believing Christian.

As I move through this, and indeed any other discussion, let me make clear, I have learnt that in believing God, therein is righteousness Genesis 15.6 Romans 4:3.

One way this plays out for me is that I always believe God first, then reverse engineer my beliefs and/or wait patiently until understanding comes.

I may misunderstand the scriptures, I may mis-apprehend and even miss-apply them, but I do not second guess them. To wit, my worldview is a biblical one. I do not try and fit the bible into other worldviews or, read it to accord with worldviews that are diametrically opposed to what it clearly states. Discernment keeps what experience has taught.

Romans 3:4 - Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, And may overcome when You are judged.”

2/ Will a ship, with inexhaustible supply of fuel, tip, overturn and fall suddenly or not, at the opposite alleged far other end of a flat earth? Or if he walks continously in a straight line, will he sooner or later fall off the earth after getting to the edge of the flat earth?
No. The vessel will be prevented by, or at best, continue to circumnavigate the inner ring of the spherical earth, as has been recorded severally by mariners attempting to circumnavigate what is commonly called Antarctica.

There is no “edge” as supposed by some. And not in the sense that the earth is perfectly flat, meaning a ship could possibly sail over said edge. The Antarctic is not a large island continent, but a ring of ice that encircles the earth.

Job 38:10-11- And I placed boundaries on it And set a bolt and doors, And I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop'?

Proverbs 8:29 - When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth;

3/ Ask him to provide, all his bible verses that he interpretes the bible being flat with and lets all together examine them each.
Please see attached jpeg for reference.

4/ Ask him, why did the Roman Catholic Church have a paradigm shift on this subject?
I am not a Catholic, neither, as stated above, do I approach the bible with a denominational position or “other” worldview, I let the bible speak for itself and then weigh other positions against it. These other positions may in some instances accord with the bible in whole or in part. I have no problem with that, or necessarily with those that hold to the other.

Having said that, I do appreciate that not only did the Catholic Church shift, many of the “scientists” that drove the shift were in fact Catholics. Further, I would consider the uppermost hierarchy and ultimate power behind the Catholic church to be problematic to say the least.

Catholicism is not necessarily Christianity. And, Catholic doctrine or dogma is not necessarily scriptural. In like manner, the same could be said for Anglicanism, Pentecostalism and any other Christian denomination or sect.

To be clear and so as not to deflect, I am not a denominationalist, neither am I for, or against denominationalism per se. Nor do I believe all Catholics are going to heaven any more than I believe all Pentecostals are going to hell. My view of hell is a whole other discussion

5/ If the earth is flat, ask him to explain why it is evening now in Australia, when it is morning now where we both are?
That is due to the size – relatively small – distance from earth – quite close – orbiting cycle – every 24 hours – and lighting effect – like a spotlight – of the sun. Both sun and moon are luminaries, under the earths firmament and orbiting us within it . Hence, we see them in “the sky”. Look out of your window during the day, the sun is seen in the sky and, oft times clouds can be seen behind them.

As the sun approaches (rises), it appears to get larger and higher. As it recedes (sets), it appears to become lower and smaller. This is perspective and the “vanishing point” experienced by the human eye due to it’s mechanics and limits.

The sun’s size and spotlight effect means that only half the earth – and that to varying degrees – is lit at any one time. Some areas are becoming progressively “lighter”, whilst others are becoming progressively “darker”.

Genesis 1:14-19 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. ..

God made the sun for light during the day. Ergo, we do not need it, to see it or, its light during the night. Perfect construct. As opposed to a sun that is upposedly 93,000,000 miles away

6/ Ask him to provide where Jesus said the earth is flat, so I can show Jesus implying the opposite
I don’t, off-hand, recall The Lord saying “the earth is flat”, so cannot provide such a verse. But I have no problem for verses showing Jesus “implying the opposite” to be presented


Cheers
TV

ThothHermes:
^^^^
TV01

Holá.

Apologies, I was unable to respond being the recipient of a spambot ban . The "eaten" post #12 directly under your callout to MuttleyLaff
below, was mine.

I'm finding NL weirdly unstable. Having to log in multiple times. Being kicked out whilst quoting/posting/modifying etc. I've learnt to c&p my responses just in case . It's enough to turn one into a conspiracy theorist .

Let's do it here, so as not to derail Mr Oarloye' thread - https://www.nairaland.com/5043603/which-bible-story-bible-passage


Cheers
TV

LordReed:
Really? so where did you get the numbers from?

A number of "science" sources. But you know what, just demonstrating the axial and orbital motions of the earth will be enough, forget speed sef. I'll be so wowed, I will add first fruits join

2 Corinthians 10:5 - We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,


TV

LordReed:
LMFAO! Come and see American wonder, come and see American wonder!

nwabekeyi:
Until you give me a scenarios where science made mistakes and religion fixed them then can't take you seriously.

It's hard to get off your positive schizophrenia

Please sirs, provide evidence of the earth's motion as described below and, I will renounce Christianity poste-haste, joining your worldview, or whichever one you direct me to . Additionally, if you are able to provide evidence of the earths sphericity, I will pay my tithes direct to you .

Any evidence that the earth moves? On it's axis at 1'000kmph, around the sun at 67'000 mph, both within a "galaxy" moving at 500'000kmph, which is in turn within a universe moving at 1.2m mph.

Intelligent enough to believe the earth experiences 4 high-speed motions which are not physically experienced and, cannot be directly detected or shown

1 Timothy 6:20 - O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:


TV

Horiolah:
You again.

Yes 0. Still here and by God's grace I shall not be moved - like the earth, which is resolutely flat.

LordReed:
Fuckiing shiit! A dyed in the wool flat earther! Wow! Wonders indeed shall never cease!

No. A bible believer. Which bible clearly details the earth created planular and stationary.

LordReed:
the apparent motion of the sun is a result of the earth's motion

So the sun - along with the moon - which we can be clearly seen orbiting the earth every single day is not actually moving, it only appears to do so because the earth is moving .

Some people will dis-believe their own eyes, and accept obvious nonsense - evolution, big-bang from nothing, as long as it makes them feel intelligent and allows them to rebel against God. The veracity of the holy scriptures s the least of your worries.

LordReed:
if the sun at all appears to stand still it is because the earth has stopped moving not the other way around.

Any evidence that the earth moves? On it's axis at 1'000kmph, around the sun at 67'000 mph, with both within a "galaxy" moving at 500'000kmph, which is in turn moving through the universe at 1.2m mph.



TV