₦airaland Forum

nuclearboy:
@All: recess in Session. We reconvene tomorrow

Halleluyah!! Now I can hug my bottles!

Good 'nite all!

Punkinmusty:
Viaro.i can assure u dat my connection is 100%.if u see my post in multiple then refer to d moderator.i think he wants u to reason along with us because he belivs u hav connection problem.anyway u sound broken n lookin 4 away out of d hot seat.am stil in d corner watchin.

When you stop all this hopping around to open unnecessary threads? What is biting you from the other thread?

Abu Zola:
It is late here in jamaica, catch u tomorrow, gudnite

commander, whatz up?

. . . Exhibit B, your honour:

Quran 5 verse 82 -

[list]

Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud.  [Pickthall]

[size=14pt]Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.[/size]  [Yusuf Ali]

[/list]

. . I'm still sorting the others out, superintendent.  >hiccup!<  

nuclearboy:
@Chairman:

Carbonated drinks again? Won't you ever learn? Ok, how many fingers am I holding up?

Your honour, you're not holding them high enough for me to see. Is there penalty if I say that I can only see two thumbs appearing and disappearing? Wait. . I need to shake my head clear!

__________________

Okay, your honour, am I permitted to tender exhibits? If yes, how many?

Well, here is exhibits A:


Quran 9 verse 97 in a few translations:

[list]

The Arabs of the desert are the worst in Unbelief and hypocrisy, and most fitted to be in ignorance of the command which God hath sent down to His Apostle: But God is All-knowing, All-Wise. [Yusuf Ali]

The wandering Arabs are more hard in disbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be ignorant of the limits which Allah hath revealed unto His messenger. And Allah is Knower, Wise. [Pickthall]

The bedouins are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be in ignorance of the limits (Allah's Commandments and His Legal Laws, etc.) which Allah has revealed to His Messenger. And Allah is All-Knower, All-Wise.  [Hilali-Khan]

The dwellers of the desert are very hard in unbelief and hypocrisy, and more disposed not to know the limits of what Allah has revealed to His Apostle; and Allah is Knowing, Wise.  [Shakir]

The Arabs of the desert are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, and most apt not to know the ordinances of the Revelation which ALLAH has sent down to HIS Messenger. And ALLAH is All-Knowing, Wise.  _{[Sher Ali]}

[size=14pt]The Arabs are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, and the most likely to ignore the laws that GOD has revealed to His messenger. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.[/size]  [Rashid Khalifa]

[/list]

Exhibit B follows in due course, your honour.

nuclearboy:
@the_seeker and Chairman V:

Will both counsel approach the bench (Damn, I love playing judge )!

This court is adjourned until either side decides to bring forward evidence to prove the case! Let me warn you both (all) that this court will not accept any obscenities or derailing of this thread trial. I want the cold hard facts considering Viaro's neck hangs only by E-flesh right now

All RISE!!!!!!!

Your lordship, permission to adjust myself until session resumes (hopefully, in another 24 hours?). . I'm on a carbonated drink just now.

Punkinmusty:
Viaro.u need nt create unnecessary distractions by talking vulgar.Abu safwan only said provide the text 4 al 2 see and read,since u ar confident of wat u ar defending.simple English.haba.

Is something wrong with your connection? Or are you just talented at repeating yourself?

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=375092.msg5248978#msg5248978 date=1262639768]viaro what kind of stunt are you tryng to pull here. I beg you to pls quote those verses completly if you are truthful. Only jcross and toba go for this kind of cheap fraud.[/quote][quote author=the_seeker link=topic=375092.msg5249188#msg5249188 date=1262642126]viaro sorry![/quote]

Abu Zola:
@viaro- Allah you go wound o, why pulling my legs, a

Whatz gwan, footsoldiers?

I'm as guilty as charged for quoting excerpts from the quran. . koran. . al-quran. But would anything change if I were to quote the whole of the passages?


Superintendent, what say you?

sauer:
Hello peeps,
It's a pity Nairaland does not have a science section where people can exchange ideas on latest scientific discoveries, or perhaps just discuss generally on scientific ideas. Discussing these things is actually the main reason I joined this terrible forum, but unfortunately no results . . .
So, am posting this in the religious section, since it's my favorite.

Hello sauer. Well, I would say that Nairaland rocks! I didn't plan to stay long when I joined, but here I am today. .

I think that with time as interest builds, there would be good reason for a board to be created for science and philosophy discussions. So, we could just start off by sharing points of interest along such lines until more posters support that move with enough interest and number of posts to sustain such sections.

However, what would you like to share about the latest science discoveries?

_________

edit:

PS. I haven't done anything tangible on Wiener filters and Kalman filters. But welcome to share.

Abu Zola:
Viaro is a trouble maker

. . Salute!

Punkinmusty:
Viaro.u need nt create unnecessary distractions by talking vulgar.Abu safwan only said provide the text 4 al 2 see,since u ar confident of wat u ar defending.simple English.haba.

My reply was to Abu Safwan; and if you would gain anything from it, please don't twist it round to read as distractions. You guys know how to open the Bible and read the texts of the verses there - and the verses I used in my responses in posts #22 and #23 on the previous page were outlined again in post #60, which he reproduced on this page (#66).

Abu Safwan understands how to read - let him go through my rejoinders, check up those verses, and come forward if he's still interested in further discussions. And talking about being vulgar, who was the poster who was being so crude in post #27? You need to heed your own advice.

toneyb:
Personally I would have preferred to see such calculus from the perspective of biologist.

Okay, okay. I just hope that such a biologist is capable of calculus!

Calculus is calculus, the same parameters used in calculating how improbable it is for life to have evolved through abiogenesis is the same parameters that should be applied when showing how birds came into existence fully formed by the words of an unknown and unseen deity that can not be detected at all.

That's fine; and I've made my point to the effect that the ORIGIN of life is not predicated on 'evolution' - not even the evolution of life completely on its own by chance!

Claims alone will not help the theistic supernaturalist because until he provideds some empirical evidence for his extra ordinary claims his cliams are as usless and as meaningless and the abiogenesis hypothesis he is discrediting and trying to show that it impossible.

Hehe. . may I turn you over to 'noah's cousin', noetic16. All along I have tried to point out that the idea of an 'assertion = empirical evidence' does not amount to 'science' in my books. It does not mean therefore that theism is meaningless; but that the atheist naturalist needs to provide meaning for his outlook otherwise his arguments are all but an exercise in futility.

toneyb:
@ vairo

Are these really "anomalies" or are they just some of the many myths that abound in ancient civilization.

The sun standing still or moving round the earth, stars fighting along humans, talking donkeys and snakes, a person living inside a fish for 3 days, stars falling into the earth, the sun going down at noon, dead people raising from the dead and walking all over the streets, rivers opening when a stick is thrown into them, sticks magically changing into snakes, burning bush etc.

In context of the meaning/definitions provided from the link noetic16 provided, I pointed out those as 'anomalies'. I did not claim to be in the position of verifying them empirically; nor am I aware of any atheistic materialist who has a philosophical and scientific paradigm to know the details of every occurence in the history of the Universe.

Why do such "anomalies" exist only in the pages of scriptures and pages of other books?

I don't know; but perhaps a conjecture is that naturalism will not record anything that it has no way of explaining.

According to the Islamic "anomalies" Mohammed was said to divide the moon into two and commanding it to bow down to him, he is even said to have made a tree cry.

That is remarkable! I shall let Muslims on NL offer you coherent answers thereto.

What do you make of all these myths and virtual reality "anomalies" that exist only on pages of books and are never recorded in reality?

What do you mean 'never recorded in reality'?

nuclearboy:
That is one monumental figure on this site and we needs must keep him around. NL will no longer be NL without Abuzola and we all know that. Wish I could meet the guy!

^^ sure thing, superintendent!
I don't want to risk being held responsible for the MIA (missing in action) of our indispensable Abuzo, esq. Salute!

Abu Zola:
Viaro, i know you will act like a m.a.d dog after my exposure, hahaha, now you know what your pastor is concealing to you

Abu Zola:
@nuclear, so you agree with that imbecilic viaro ?

. . hehehe. . Abuzo-lala! Whatz gwan??

__________________________________

nuclearboy:
Chairman Viaro:
My cup runneth over and tears are flowing freely from my eyes. Never thought of it that way!

Just don't take much notice of our dear friend. . the Abuzos of NL are proper graduates of those verses! Hands down, you can't even contest them if you tried!

viaro:
I see you posted a link (checked from www.dictionary.com  . .), and I shall oblige you consequently.

Okay, noetic16. . let's talk a bit more plainly now, shall we?

With regards to the question of 'anomalies', let me first remind you of what I have said thereto before proceeding:

1. I said earlier in post #22:
[list]

viaro:
One point we should note is that within an ordered and orderly world, there are anomalies; and if you had taken that into account, you might not so much be given to conclusions as the above for what is 'empirical evidence' for your case.

[/list]

2. I also noted in post #34:
[list]

viaro:
It does not mean therefore that 'anomalies' discredit God and His creation; infact, the Bible does not deny such even though it does not dwell so much on them.

[/list]

Now, within the context of the link you proffered:

noetic16:
I checked from www.dictionary.com  . . . .

. . this is what I got from that dictionary for the meaning of anomalies:

[list]1. a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form.
2. someone or something anomalous: [color=Grey]With his quiet nature, he was an anomaly in his exuberant family[/color]. 
3. an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.
4. an incongruity or inconsistency.
5. Astronomy. a quantity measured in degrees, defining the position of an orbiting body with respect to the point at which it is nearest to or farthest from its primary.
6. Meteorology. the amount of deviation of a meteorological quantity from the accepted normal value of that quantity.
7. Grammar. IRREGULARITY. [/list]

So again, within an ordered and orderly world, there are anomalies; and these anomalies do not discredit God and His creation.

A few examples in the Bible I had in mind for anomalies in an ordered and orderly world include:

[list]Astronomy[/list]
[list]A few examples of astronomical anomalies in the Bible are:[/list]

[list][li]The day 'the sun stood still, and the moon stayed' - Josh. 10:12-13. The next verse says that 'there was no day like that before it or after it' (v. 14), and this would indicate an anomaly in astronomy featured in the Bible, yet it does not discredit God and His creation even though the occurence is set in a world that was originally set to a particular order in creation.[/li][/list]

[list][li]A second example is found in Isaiah 38:8, where 'the sun returned ten degrees'. I am in no position to determine how that could have occured; but I hope you understand the enormous import of such a statement? Not that the sun literally 'moved'; but if understood in context of planetary movements, it would mean that the earth in its revolutions would have been affected in one way or the other - which is quite anomalous in astronomical terms.[/li][/list]

[list][li]But that is not all, for in Amos 8:9 is a prophetic astronomical anomaly where God said He would 'cause the sun to go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day'. Besides the debate of whether this prophecy applies in a literal sense or not, an even where the sun sets at noon is obviously not a 'normal' occurence.[/li][/list]



[list]Astrobiology[/list]

[list][li]A clear case of an anomaly occuring in biological nature of our own existence is found in Genesis. We know that all living creatures were to produce after their kinds (Gen. 1:11). However, when the fallen angels assumed relations with mankind to sire up children in Genesis 6, the result was an anomaly (see verse 4). This anomalous relationship between angelic beings and humans is also noted in Jude 6.[/li][/list]

[list][li]Outside of the Bible, we have a plethora of biological anomalies - example: the treeman (although I don't consider that to be an example of astrobiological anomaly).[/li][/list]

These are just examples I had in mind to the point that 'within an ordered and orderly world, there are anomalies'; and these anomalies do not discredit God and His creation. We just don't know the intricacies of nature in creation, and many things will remain a mystery to many of us Christians.

. . .And you the cousin of 'noah', glad to see you online again!

noetic16:
1. the year is still very young, but your posts on this thread are officially the dumbest and most ridiculous I have had the misfortune of reading this year. 

Now I know who's been mes.sing about with the radio buttons against my userID in this thread! Just take heart. .  if you don't understand a simple dialogue, you won't be arrested - there's no charge against simpletons in my quarters.

2. Dont u consider it ridiculously foolish on your part that u are unable to decipher my simple construct between the thing lines of CREATIONISM (its inherent biblical assertions). . .REPRODUCTION (its inherent empirical evidences) against the confused concept of "anti-God did it", . .why is this simple statements so hard for this dude to understand?  this aint rocket science. . . . or is it? 

Were you recently fed those adjectives or what? Bro, did you notice that I did not put forward an 'anti-God' argument but tried to explicate simple issues that you were confusing all along? Even after trying to buttress my comments with verses from the Bible to show what I was setting forth, I don't read you anywhere engaging in like manner, other than just hop from line to line and save face with smilies!

3. Did I attempt to produce conclusions from scrutinising biblical assertions? are u so dumb?  when did putting such under scrutiny imply making unchallengeable claims. . .wetin I no c for nairaland 

>(I hope for your sake that no one's reading your comical stage-fright here)<
Bro, your arguments since post #14 has been simply in the direction of 'assertion = empirical evidence'. I asked you a question directly thereto in post #17; and in your reply in post #19, your answer was: 'based on biblical accounts of the "God did it" case we know from the assertions of God that He commanded that man be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth' . . blah, blah. If this is how you argue 'empirical evidence' we might need to set up a fund-raising charity organisation for your re-education!

My dear sir, 'assertion = empirical evidence' is NOT science, does not bear any semblance to science or even pseudoscience, but is closest to nullibicity!

4. I did not in any way attempt to make a construct for u to understand my reproduction assertion. . . . I believe I made clear my position on reproduction in my last post. . if u had half a brain u should know that by now 

Well, 'reproduction' does not explain the ORIGIN of life; rather, creation does that job quite easily, succinctly and solidly. If you can't take that in, please show me directly from Scripture and help save the day, thank you.

5. why are u afraid of educating me on the anomalies in question? 

I'm not shying away from doing so - please read again my request: 'What meaning did you get after checking? Please let me know, and then tell me what you would like me to share in that accord, and I shall oblige.' I see you posted a link (checked from www.dictionary.com  . .), and I shall oblige you consequently.

was it described as LIVING?    knowledge is expensive 

Knowledge is easy. .  even free today. The problem is you're trying too hard and yet getting farther away from the basics. How else can we help?

the poor dude is just confused. 

If I were to post resources for you, what would be the use? You can't even hold a dialogue other than hopping like mantis in Kungfu Panda and expecting me to follow your incoherence? Dude, what's gwan?

toneyb:
Of course I know that mathematics is science, In fact back in high school were told that mathematics is the mother of all sciences.

Hehehe. . did you believe it when you were told that in school? I don't know; but from what you had tried to argue, it does not appear you trusted what you were told. .  only to repeat it here!

The probability to help the theistic super naturalist in showing that all the birds sprang into existence using words of the Hebrew language is what I am REALLY interested in seeing. .

That is something I cannot help you . .  until you provide me the basis for calculus in Hebrews!  I am serious, because as soon as you provide the foundation for a Hebraic calculus, we can get talking!

You can not use probability calculus to say that life can not evolve naturally on its own by chance and refuse to use probability calculus to show how life can evolve using words of Hebrew in my opinion.

Well, that's true, toneyb my man. . . that's so true, because I don't think that the question of the ORIGIN of life is one that rests on "evolution", not even the type of evolution of life on its own by chance! If you know how to compute the probability of anything in nature that points to the ORIGIN of life completely on its own by chance (both by calculus, fractals, and/or both probability and improbability theories), let's talk. I could spare some few more minutes online before dinner calls.

ttalks:
Which essentially reveals you and your lot for what you are -
You don't give because you care about others or love others. You give so as to increase your kitty and ensure your own satisfaction (investing in lucrative businesses to get a windfall of dividends )
You guys don't rep christianity at all when scrutinized properly.

Just from one quote he made, you have sized him up completely as to prejudge him, no?

I think we ought to be very careful in the things we say.

toneyb:
The probability calculus of bird springing into existence by the Hebrew language from some alleged outside force that is alleged to be immaterial is WHAT? I am really interested in seeing that calculus, Since the guy insisted that probability calculus shows how improbable it is for life to evolve by chance, I will like to see the probability calculus that shows how probable it is for all birds to spring up into existence by the alleged magical Hebrew declaration of an outside immaterial deity. I will love to see that probability calculus.

You're a comedian! If you ever saw basic calculus, would you know what to do with it? Borrowing chants from one another does not help the atheistic naturalist advance any single step beyond where he is! Bro. . what's happening to you? Point is that you cannot divorce mathematics from biology - that is why your 'repetition' which I quoted in post #68 was not an argument at all.

dwonder:
Are they equal?

Explain

Mark 10

17And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Was Mark 10 17-18 trying to tell you that Jesus was bad?

toneyb:
His mathematical Probability calculus of birds magically springing into life using words of the Hebrew language from some outside force that is alleged to be immaterial is what? I will really love to see that probability calculus.

Do you understand basic calculus if you ever saw one? If you did, you would not be making the sort of illation you did earlier between biology, chemistry and the mathematician.

uplawal:
@viaro,just keep your mouth shut,what do u mean,or is your bible lying?

Mrs lala-abuzo (of Abuzo-lala, esq.), pardon me for pointing out those verses from the quran. Have you gone back to check if the quran was lying in those verses?

[quote author=Abu-Safwan link=topic=373466.msg5247019#msg5247019 date=1262620868]But I used the real text not mere numbers. I f are you not afraid I let you to put forward, the textual words of the numbers you provided.[/quote]What is the difference between 'real text' and 'mere numbers'? The point was that your previous post soliciting the back-patting of your folks was quite dubious in your claim that "they still fail to use a single biblical verse to refute" whatever in your OP. Point is, there were more than one verse used in our refutation and rebuttal - and take my advice: stop stealing verses for Muhammad from the scriptures of religions you don't subscribe to. . . for as many times as you Muslims do so, you will be shown red cards.

And toneyb, this one is not quite an argument at all -

toneyb:
Let me repeat what I said earlier,  How reliable as sources for knowledge in biology or Chemistry is the opinion of a Mathematician? For biological or Chemical questions, I'd rely on the overwhelming consensus of professional biologists over a couple of mathematicians and an electrical engineer.

You cannot divorce Mathematics from science - any branch of science for that matter; and to do so is intellectually suicidal, not to talk of intellectually dishonest. The complex systems in biological sciences (such as the intricacies of the genome) is one reason why biologists cannot escape Mathematics.

The problem of biology majors entering any modern biology study without a mathematical foundation has become even more serious as to be highlighted in many science education policies. One example of such concerns can be seen in this abstract:

[list]A major challenge exists for many college biology departments. How can their majors take all the necessary biology courses, as well as complete the mathematical requirements for their degree in a timely manner? This is especially challenging at community colleges, when students entering the biology program often lack a precalculus level of mathematics training. As part of an NSF grant, we looked at ways to make mathematics more relevant and accessible to biology majors at the precalculus level. However, to be even more effective at reaching incoming biology students, we realized that we needed to begin at the Algebra II level. As we did in our NSF Grant, we are developing a Scientific Method Approach to teaching mathematics, and are closely tying it to concepts studied in their introductory biology courses, The intent is to take students at the beginning algebra level and enable them to learn the necessary mathematics, without having to delay their progress in their major. The approach is to tie the mathematics to their biology lab course, via the scientific method, and give them all the prerequisite mathematical skills when they need them, but at the same time give them a coherent introduction/presentation of the mathematics as well. The general philosophy on how to do this, as well as some specific examples will be presented and discussed.[/list]

The point is that current biological researches must by necessity involve Mathematics, or any so-called research that is bereft of mathematic foundations tends to pseudoscience, no matter how loudly or widely such 'researches' are applauded. It is for this reason that a biologist today should not think he's in a world of his own where other scientists (such as chemists, physicists, astronomists, mathematicians, etc.) are to be held as strangers. In brief, science today tends more towards a holistic systems approach, rather than a reductionist one.

Now, question #1:

Deep Sight:
1. Could you assist to distinguish between "the soul" and "the spirit."

I'm just lazy at the moment (out of a very tight schedule), otherwise there's a thread that I recently saw that has highlighted certain distinctions in this regard: 'Spirit, Soul And Body - What's The Difference?'.

I share some of the sentiments there; but I shall try later to proffer a few more where need be. Suffice to say that the basic distinctions are that the soul points to the 'psyché' (animating principle and man's personality);  while the spirit is the 'essence' that characterizes the psyché of any particular man.

Your question #2 seems to be a tidy contraction of several enquiries rolled into one; and it might be more helpful to answer them in sequence:

Deep Sight:
2. If man is said to become a living soul (= "living creature" according to the hebrew you laid out) upon the breath of life being breathed into his nostrils - then clearly prior to that act he was not a "living creature"

From the Genesis account, it might seem so - and if that's where alone we base our outlook, then I would tentatively agree with you.

. . .pray tell. . .what was he then?

He was called 'MAN' even before he was called a 'living soul' - Genesis 2:7.

And if not a "living creature" prior to the breath of life, could he at that point be called a "man?"

Definitely, yes. This is the one point that many people have not realised: they tend to think that the 'real man' is a 'soul', and in focusing so much on the 'psyché' they ignore the very foundation that bears that psyché - that foundation which is said to be in the dust (e.g., Job 4:19).

Why is this important? For at least three basic reasons of particular interest to the Biblical worldview:

[list](a) Adam as representative of his pedigree in humanity is said to be the 'first man'; but this 'first man' is particularly described as 'of the earth, earthy' (1 Cor. 15:47). However, it does not mean that this 'adam' is the very first in the line of homo sapiens, for he rather is the 'first' in terms of having the image of God in a 'renewed' natural world.

(b) Earlier, I pointed out that man is not only a tripartite being of spirit and soul and body (1 Thes. 5:23), but also that he is known as MAN in a psychological perspective - in which case there is the 'outward man' (2 Cor. 4:16), an 'inner man' (Eph. 3:16), and an 'inward man' (Rom. 7:22). This does not mean 'three men as one man', but simply shows the various ways of particularly speaking about man.

(c) but note particularly that the 'outward man' which corresponds to the 'physical body' is also called 'man', otherwise there would be no 'outward man' in the first place if 'man' is crossed out in that clause.[/list]

The basic point here is that 'man' is a single being that is comprised of all three entities: spirit and soul and body. To hold merely that 'soul' is the 'real man' is to hold a particular entity as the totality of man, whereas that is not what is presented in the Bible.

@Deep Sight,

Thanks for your observations which brought out a few interesting bits to consider.

Deep Sight:
I Fear that you are too caught up in word sequences (i.e: man became a living soul. . .) and that reading between the text might be more apt than strict reading of word sequences.

No, I'm not too caught up in word sequence as to miss the essential point in the Genesis narrative of the creation of man. There is a reason for the Biblical sequence presented to us there, without which the other verses would have made absolutely no sense in declaring that the foundation of man is in the dust. That does not say that 'life' originated from dust (as I clearly stated earlier in post #36), but rather that the 'body' that bears the life ('zoe') has its foundation in non-living matter.

Besides, ignoring the sequence would provide materialists with an unjustified protocol for 'equivocal generation' in abiogenesis, which is not what Genesis presents before us. There is a huge gallimaufry of 'life origins' researches in various fields, and the many that I have perused are only pointing to a deadend where the 'ORIGIN' of life remains undeciphered and elusive to current scientific paradigms. Abiogenesis continues to present materialists/naturalists with enormous problems in this regard, so that many other researchers are flirting with the possibility of 'life' from outer speace - such as Panspermia or Molecule Chirality - most often, these are attempts to describe 'alien life' (and Francis Crick favours such), but they are bereft of the 'origin' of life itself.

It is important, therefore, to note the distinctions so as not to misconstrue the Genesis sequence as for the idea of abiogenesis in current scientific ideologies. There are many undeciphered mysteries in existence (such as 'Linear A' of ancient Crete) which are within the purview of current science; but life itself is a huge mystery that transcends naturalism and materialist ideologies.

Deep Sight:
Or simply a lump of clay. . .a lifeless statue which no person can reasonably address as a man anymore than a barbie doll may be addressed as a woman.

The 'lump of clay' concept is akin to the Golem of Jewish folklore, with particularities of 'gavra' and 'cheftza' (ie., 'man' and 'object'). But no, that is not what I'm trying to set forth.

As delineated earlier in my reply (post #36), before even the talk of 'soul' he was already called 'MAN'; and the distinctions that set him apart is that this man became a living creature from the rest of animate life also known as 'living creature'. Three distinctions in this regard might include:

       * that man received the 'breath of life' directly from God,
          which is not said to be the same with animals;

       * that man 'became' a living soul (or living creature) thereby,
          whereas the animals did not 'become', but were just such;

       * and, in all living creatures, man alone is said to have 'SPIRIT'
          while other animate life are described merely as 'creature'.

I think it is in the third instance that you raised very interesting observations - which I shall next consider.

JeSoul:
Kai! @Noetic, Viaro this is a call to arms oh!

Not in this new year 2010. Happy New Year to you!

@toneyb, howdy. Let me quote yours and connect it to a line from beneli's:

toneyb:
Now that you have put the whole quote in context, I agree and I also believe that Mazaje will agree that he made those comments. The entire quote in context is quite different from the part that you pasted earlier.

@beneli, here's the line in yours I'd like to address:

beneli:
The contention here is that the renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins, said what he said, which seemed to give credence to Mr Borel’s calculation. This is why the source of the statement and Mr Borel’s credentials are questioned. But Richard Dawkins did say what he said and Mr Borel is quite competent to do his calculations.

I've tried to look up that quote which appears to have been attributed to Dawkins, I mean this quote:

We now believe that the universe is time-limited and as such even Richard Dawkins, one of the atheist’s messiahs, admits that "the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard."(2)

The source referenced for that quote (2) is Telegraph.co.uk, which featured an article reveiwing Dawkins' book by Kenan Malik. The reviewer also has a blog - kenanmalik, where the same article is posted.

I think the point is that Mr. Kenan was paraphrasing Dawkins' misplaced argument, so that the quote in parenthesis ("the probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard" is not directly Dawkins' but is rather Kenan's. I don't know if the said quote is directly from Dawkins' book - if one reads through page 113 of The God Delusion, especially this:

[list]'The argument from improbability is the big one. In the traditional guise of the argument from design, it is easily today's most popular argument offered in favour of the existence of God and it is seen, by an amazingly large number of theists, as completely and utterly convincing. It is indeed a very strong and, I suspect, unanswerable argument - but in precisely the opposite direction from the theist's intention. The argument from improbability, properly deployed, comes close to proving that God does not exist. My name for the statistical demonstration that God almost certainly does not exist is the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit.'
[/list]

Just something I'd like you to consider in regards to to yours, beneli, that 'But Richard Dawkins did say what he said'.

Hi beneli, I like your points; but here's something that caught my attention:

beneli:
With regards to the place of 'reason' and 'revelation', I would say that there is a limit to what reason can do for us in our attempts to walk with God. Revelation plays a great role as well; but i think the starting point is 'Faith'. Without 'faith' its impossible to even start on the journey. So for me it has been first of all faith, then came revelation and then reason. People should sort out issues of their faith first. Revelation will come to those who are earnest and honest.

That's quite sweet. For many others, though, it follows another sequence:

(a) revelation --> faith --> reason
(b) reason --> faith --> revelation
(c) reason --> revelation --> faith

Perhaps, it all depends on each person's pespective and experience.

This man noetic16. .  what's really biting you?  Please I don't have the time to shout, otherwise your complaining would have served me a good pastime. Anyhow, in brief and very quickly:

noetic16:
Can u stop running around? are u debating out of an obligation or what?  

No. Are you?

how have I related the origin of life to reproduction? . . . .  . did u not read the following?

I read it; but if you reasoned out my reply carefully, you'd see that the whole body of my rejoinder was informed by the basic question you had asked, viz: "what plausible explanation do u have for your existence other than reproduction?" Did you miss my answer to that? Rather than get upset, you ought to have checked it out carefully before recycling the retired 'reproduction' argument - that is just simply a non-starter.

from the above was I not clear that I wan simply placing biblical assertions under the same analysis as I place scientific notions?  

And your results are. . . ? Did you even place any Biblical assertion under scientific scrutiny? I didn't find where you did so; rather, you just plainly plastered the term 'empirical evidence' to a Biblical assertion - which is nothing more than 'just-say-so-and-that's-empirical-evidence'. That, my dear sir, is NOT science, nor does it even stand up to the dignity of pseudoscience. . . you're just in the middle of nowhere (a sort of nullibicity)!!

what assertion are we talking about?. . .  . .does the assertion in itself not suggest reproduction?. . . how then does your being alive not serve as an empirical evidence for reproduction?  

Your drivel is quite dumb, yes sir. Are you so far gone as to understand that reproduction does not explain the existence or the ORIGIN of Life? Is it by 'reproduction' that the Bible tells you things began to exist. . . or are you confusing these terms for pure comic relief?  I said plainly that CREATION explains existence, and 'reproduction' is only late in the scheme of things - it came AFTER the question of creation itself has been settled! If you have problems with that, please calm down and show me in the Bible that it is not creation but rather 'reproduction' that explains the ORIGIN of life.

And does any of those verses describe man as having LIFE until he received the breadth of LIFE?  

What did the verse Genesis 2:7 call that being before it mentions 'soul'?

noetic16:
I never said it does, all I did was express my surprise that non-creationist theories (evolution) did not lay claim to reproduction.

Said who?
This guy. . do you even understand E[/b]VOLUTION . . or you're just reacting to the '[b]E'-word??

I do not consider this an accident. if we have no witness at the point of creation who saw God create man. . .we can at least see men reproducing.

Bro. . 'reproduction' and 'creation' are not the same things. Creation came first and settled the question of our existence BEFORE the talk of reproduction. That latter ('reproduction') is IMPOSSIBLE without the former ('creation'). This is as simply as I can put it for you.

Now, if you put on your thinking cap and still have the lights switched off upstairs, could I kindly caution that you look where you're going lest you summersault!

1. is this not misplaced. how have I brought belief notions into play when science and evidences are being discussed. must u twist words to suit your baseless assertions?

I didn't twist anything; but 'assertion' is NOT equal to 'empirical evidence'. Period.

2. I just checked the meaning of the word "anomalies" again. . . .and I am awaiting your further education on the subject.

What meaning did you get after checking? Please let me know, and then tell me what you would like me to share in that accord, and I shall oblige.

3. would it amount to u reading upside down (on your part) to falsely deduce that I stated that your perceived anomalies discredit my belief in God and His creation? . . .  .of what use is this?  

I didn't even attribute that to you; but just so that my readers would not misread me, I noted that 'anomalies' in nature do not discredit God or Hos creation. If my making that point hurt no one else but you, tough luck.

at what point in creation did man become a LIVING being? was it when he was formed of dust . . . . or when he received the breadth of life?

At what point did the verse call that being 'MAN' - was it after or before the 'breath of life'?