Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8942 total)
28 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (6 members, 22 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,759 Year: 18,795/19,786 Month: 1,215/1,705 Week: 21/446 Day: 21/64 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of Species
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 379 of 450 (625542)
07-23-2011 9:24 PM


quote:

I think everyone is fairly familiar with the biological species definition, and some may be familiar with the morphological definition. Here is a site for reference on these definitions:

The list leaves out the first recording of what is today termed as species, namely what is referred to as 'KINDS' in Genesis.

When the question is asked, what is the most fundamental and first observable variations in life forms, one observable by all generations of humanity, the answer is exclusively seen in Genesis. Namely, this by terrain and habitat, as opposed to skeletal and hidden genes markings; the former is indisputably not confusing while the latter is subject to gross errors and manipulation. While the jaw bone of an ass can fit exactly to the jaw bone of a monkey, this can be the result of environment impact drift on the skeletal, not to mention such a similarity can be seen in millions of other bone pieces not reported: we cannot be sure here. We can here:

1. Vegetation - including sub-branches like earth hugging shrubberry; an immobile life form.

2. Sea borne. This includes transit life forms and those unseen by the naked eye.

3. Airborne

4. Land based. This includes mammals and creepy crawlies.

5. Speech endowed human.

One cannot talk science and leave out the first listing of life firm categories, in their correct protocol, from which all science emerged. Think it over, minus the phobia.


    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


(1)
Message 380 of 450 (625543)
07-23-2011 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Wounded King
07-23-2011 1:09 PM


Re: No pesudogenisation? Are you sure?
quote:
Again the question isn't really how such a mutation can occur, that is a simple result of random mutations, but rather why this particular frameshift has subsequently become fixed in the human population.


If its random then the result is not predictable, and a zebra will not necessarilly reproduce a zebra. As it turns out it is not random and a life form follows its own kind, solely dependent on the program directive transmitted via the seed output of the host. To disprove this, one must show a mutation occuring without the seed output. Catch the ball.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Wounded King, posted 07-23-2011 1:09 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Wounded King, posted 07-24-2011 4:54 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 384 of 450 (625586)
07-24-2011 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 381 by Wounded King
07-24-2011 4:54 AM


DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE.
quote:
If its random then the result is not predictable, and a zebra will not necessarilly reproduce a zebra.

Well sometimes a zebra doesn't produce a zebra in the same way that many human pregnancies end in spontaneous abortions very early in the embryo's development. A number of these can be ascribed to embryonic lethal mutations which severly disrupt the embryo's development to the point of making it unviable.

But no one is suggesting that an organisms entire genetic complement is randomised every generation. You seem to have come up with a new insane creationist strawman, well done.


What I'm NOT doing is creating a strawman. I remind you spent your post describing a 'sometimes' factor and a 'number of cases' - namely an abberation subject to maybe trillions of uncommon occurences happening simultaiously but which no one has ever witnessed in reality.

quote:

As it turns out it is not random and a life form follows its own kind, solely dependent on the program directive transmitted via the seed output of the host

If by seed output you mean germ cells, i.e sperm and egg, then you are wrong. How an organism develops is not solely dependent on this. It also depends on a wide variety of environmental factors.


The environment effects like a hand touching fire, which it not the impacting factor here by a country mile. By seed I refer to any core output from the host - your supposed to show how only the environment impacts here - w/o the seed?

quote:

Going by your reasoning every single organism should be an exact 50%/50% mixture of its parents' DNA, but we know this isn't the case from multiple studies across a wide variety of organisms. Even within an organism somatic tissues many novel mutations can be identified.

Read again. Its like a computational process, whereby the dual gene transmission includes a new factor derived from still past generational hosts, which accounts for trillions of new possibilities depending on what part is interwoven with which other - which ToE refers to as mutations, but with a varied spin inclined to its source. All repro works w/o any enviroenment impacts; it still depends solely on the seed.

quote:
Mutations occur, some are harboured in the germ cells and some occur during the development of the embryo and can be passed on in that organism's own germ cells some occur in somatic tissues that will never contribute to germ cells.

These are not environmental impacts.

quote:

Clearly the germ cells are needed as the medium to convey genetic material in sexual species but that doesn' t say anything about mutation being random or not.

So could you try and make coherent argument this time?


The evironment is a later impact, mainly impacting the external skins, eyes, hair, etc, and not connected with repro. To disprove this you have only one credible option. Leave one of the two parent hosts on a ledge with any environment you choose - and effect a reproduction.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Wounded King, posted 07-24-2011 4:54 AM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 386 by Wounded King, posted 07-24-2011 7:53 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 389 by Nuggin, posted 07-24-2011 1:27 PM IamJoseph has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 387 of 450 (625596)
07-24-2011 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by Wounded King
07-24-2011 7:53 AM


Re: DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE.
Imagine if you believed in a flat earth 500 years ago and said that as confidently? This is what you are doing now. I presented the first recording of species and their categorising - will you be more impressed if the term specie was used instead? Its about your response, which was only mildly funny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Wounded King, posted 07-24-2011 7:53 AM Wounded King has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Nuggin, posted 07-24-2011 1:21 PM IamJoseph has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 390 of 450 (625657)
07-24-2011 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Nuggin
07-24-2011 1:21 PM


Re: DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE.
quote:
If you believed the Earth was flat 500 years ago, you would be 1500 years behind.

And, your belief would not account for observable data. It would not make accurate predictions. It would not yield any workable results.

Can you give us an example of an invention based on flat earth?
Can you give us a paper written by any flat earth believers which adequately accounts for oceans?


IMO, this is v short sighted and incorrect. The flat earth people were fully and equally intelligent for their time, and had no way of rejecting a flat earth. This is also true of early humans who adopted paganism and saw thunder as angry deities. Every one of us would come to the same conclusion in their times: tell us why the earth is not flat without a telescope? In fact those ancients are the first thinkers of the universe and our place in it. Things graduated slowly as new finds emerged - only in its due time, discoveries happened almost unvoluntarilly, as with penicilin. You are talking in hindsight only.

quote:

We are confident in evolution not because we want to be confident in something. We are confident in evolution because evolution accurately explains existing data, it accurately predicts future data, and it yield real world workable products.


1. Evolution does NOT explain existing data - there is an X factor applying. Evolution comes from genesis - every small detail of it. 3. Evolution is a later development in the universe, preceded by a host of factors which anticipate life [Genesis]. 4. Evolution is the wiring process in a directive program - its not the modern deity of a neo science. Today, most humans are behaving exactly like the ancients who bowed to thunder and made it their deity: the man made deity of evolution is the wiring in your cell phone chip - nothing more than that; the cell phone maker didit. The same applies wth everything, else its not science.

quote:
Can you say the same for Creationism?

No. Creationism is far superior and a far greater science, with no alternatives applying. When one delves into the scenario presented in ToE, they will find grotesque non-science as its base.

quote:

Creationism can't account for existing data.

The reverse is the case. Our science cannot account for existing data. We know zero/nothing about the origins of anything. All we know is the B-Z. We devise novel imageries like evolution, plank and infinite to cover our zero knowledge in this area, mostly because we don't like what we see - many careers hang in the balance here; they also don't want to be riciduled by their peers. It is better to admit we do not know and the not knowing does not mean we must invent fantastical scenarios to incline with evolution; this is fine as springboards only when something cannot be deciphered, but we must not confuse this as reality. For example, there is no such thing as NATURE, a modern man deity in line with Zeus.

quote:
It can't predict any future findings.


Its the only document humanity possesses which did so - numerously.

quote:
And in THOUSANDS of years it has yet to yield a single product.

Most all products we call science stems from the Hebrew bible; it KO'd Zeus and Jupiters when humanity was ready and introduced Monotheism, which made man think who/what is behind all this universe; how was it done; etc. It declared the universe as finite and gave a follow-up scenario of a lawless void with no form, then a lawbased universe with form [science]; it stated the first product was light, separated from the void because of specific laws [science]; then listed an array of separation actions which aniticipated life [science]. The first categorising of life form groups and their correct protocol has nothing to do with Darwin - its in Genesis, in its correct place [science]. How can evolution kick off without first having something to evolutionize [non-science]? And how can it operate without pre-actions which direct it to do so [non-science]? Which is the real science - Genesis - or ToE? One cannot even utter the words species; evolution; finite universe; etc - without mentioning Genesis as its introduction.

Better that I test you with more relavent questions about schools and the Hebrew bible:

Which is the first intriduction of MEDICINE? I mean its first separation from the occult, with a scientific process?

Which is the oldest active calendar humanity possesses - and the most accurate one?

Which is the first alphabetical book?

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Nuggin, posted 07-24-2011 1:21 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by Nuggin, posted 07-24-2011 10:10 PM IamJoseph has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 392 of 450 (625660)
07-24-2011 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by Nuggin
07-24-2011 1:27 PM


Re: DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE.
quote:
namely an abberation subject to maybe trillions of uncommon occurences happening simultaiously but which no one has ever witnessed in reality.

Countless lab experiments have been done measuring mutation rates.


Mutation rates are subject to a directive program [laws]; once there was no mutation and no laws. You have to give a scenario how something can mutate w/o respective laws before you align with any science.

quote:
Can you site a single lab experiment which measures Creationism beams?

Yes. Laws embedded in base particles. What are you saying makes beams? Evolution is based on laws - its not a free floating eon made of jitterbugging quarks [non-science]. There is no evolution on Mars, our closest neighbour, despite almost every element found there as on earth. Thus evolution is critically focused on this planet, with a host of actions listed in Genesis - its not a random. It must be displayed with focused actions which anticipate life, such as critical focusing of light and darkness on this planet which produces equal sleep time for life forms [unlike the 12 year dark nights on Jupiter]; separation of water from land; a measured protocol of life for its sustainenance, etc. If it was random, animals would appear before vegetation - and life would not prevail. Genesis wins from a true scientific POV.

quote:

The environment effects like a hand touching fire, which it not the impacting factor here by a country mile.

Explain fetal alcohol syndrome.


Attributes embedded which cause changes in fermentation processes which create a reaction on human livers - something like that.

quote:

To disprove this you have only one credible option. Leave one of the two parent hosts on a ledge with any environment you choose - and effect a reproduction.

You are mistaking the environment of the womb with the environment that the parent is in prior to conception.

However, I'll take your bait. Take any man and have him spend a couple of months walking around Chernobyl, then use that sperm to create a child.

You tell us, did the environment effect his reproductive material?


Why introduce chernoble? I never said that one cannot disrupt a system if they tried. You have not taken the bait, it was not a bait but a simple question. You cannot explain reproduction with environemental FX. Admit this bodly, and give the point to Genesis. A true science must show actions which are able to sustain and cater to life; when that happens the sustainence process is the closest we can attribute to evolution. Evolution is not the cause of your cell phone operating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by Nuggin, posted 07-24-2011 1:27 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Nuggin, posted 07-24-2011 10:46 PM IamJoseph has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 394 of 450 (625667)
07-24-2011 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by Nuggin
07-24-2011 10:10 PM


Re: DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE.
quote:
Wrong. Eratosthenes in 240BC measured the Earth's circumference. To claim that people 1500 years later had "no way of rejecting a flat earth" is just ***.

You've just hit your head with your own hammer. I am aware that Gealeleo was preceded by many with similar thinking. It makes no difference if it happened earlier. The point was that before such knowledge came, the people were credible and correct in assumping thunder was a deity. Occultism was a pre-science, both being based on evaluations of the knowledge held at any given time.

quote:

Every one of us would come to the same conclusion in their times: tell us why the earth is not flat without a telescope?

You can see the curve of the Earth on the horizon.
Ships at see are spotted by their sails first, not their hulls.
The shadow of the Earth during a lunar eclipse is round.
Water would pour off the edge of a flat Earth.

There's 4 observations off the top of my head in 30 seconds. Not one of which requires a telescope.

1. Evolution does NOT explain existing data


Of course it does. We look at measurements of change in a population over time. Evolution explains those changes. That's existing data which is explained by evolution. We have the first scientific cencus which accounts 3 million Hebrews, with sub-totals of age and gender. Hello?

quote:
Sorry, you continue to miss the point here.

Populations are well repsented in the Hebrew bible, with numbers and genealogies in blocks of periods.

quote:

There is Creationist explanation which accounts for changes in populations.


Yes, there is. Speech endowed humans' populations account for 6000 years only. Otherwise 60K year humans would be in the trillions today.

quote:

Evolution comes from genesis

Wrong.


Name the first listing on record of life form categories?

quote:

3. Evolution is a later development in the universe, preceded by a host of factors which anticipate life

Also wrong.


Brilliant answer! There was no evolution at one time; there is no evolution in the known and seen universe; it cannot be an on-going process. There is only evolution subject to critical actions which predate life [science] - and this is seen as recorded only in Genesis.

quote:
4. Evolution is the wiring process in a directive program

Also wrong.

Here's a tip, you can't just make claims like this without offering ANYTHING to back them up. I don't need to present any evidence to disprove your complete lack of evidence. I just need to tell you you are wrong.


I'm not making up anything. I am quoting a source [Genesis] and backing them up with scientific premises. Please show us how evolution and life can occur on earth w/o the actions listed in Genesis? Can all life as we know it sustain themselves without critical separations of day and night, and water from land - its a scientific question?

quote:
Today, most humans are behaving exactly like the ancients who bowed to thunder and made it their deity

Correct, the majority of humans believe in mythical wizards like "God" or "Shiva" and bow to them asking for magical favors or to protect them from natural events.


Incorrect. The Hebrew bible alone mentions majestic laws [non-belief based], as opposed earth bound localized names of deities. Creationism is based on majestic laws.

quote:
Creationism is far superior and a far greater science

Then it should have produced at least one working product in the last 2000 years. What has Creationism produced? What new medicine? What new invention? What new treatment?

We've been asking and asking, surely you must have SOMETHING that Creationism is solely responsible for.


Its the only document humanity possesses which did (make predictions) - numerously. I mentioned a host of items - you have bypassed them.

quote:

Name one fossil which was predicted by Creationism.


It does not because fossils are not evidences of cross-speciation. A species follows its own kind based on the directive program of the host.

quote:

Name one previously undiscovered species which was predicted by Creationism.



"'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures"

Do you know what smarms are - these are products which the naked eye cannot see. Swarms within swarms and even smaller items. There are millions of yet undiscovered life forms.

quote:

Name one complication of medicine which was predicted by Creationism?

In ancient times, leprosy was seen as a spell from occultism. This changed with the first recording of medicine and its separation from the occult, with the first display of contagious and infectious deseases, their ID, treatment and quarantine. Focis in every line, as opposed seeing only what is a deceptively simple writings - this is where medicine comes from, and medicine is a faculty of science, not belief:

quote:
Lev14/ 33 And the LORD spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying: 34 When ye are come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession; 35 then he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying: 'There seemeth to me to be as it were a plague in the house.' 36 And the priest shall command that they empty the house, before the priest go in to see the plague, that all that is in the house be not made unclean; and afterward the priest shall go in to see the house. 37 And he shall look on the plague, and, behold, if the plague be in the walls of the house with hollow streaks, greenish or reddish, and the appearance thereof be lower than the wall; 38 then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house, and shut up the house seven days. 39 And the priest shall come again the seventh day, and shall look; and, behold, if the plague be spread in the walls of the house; 40 then the priest shall command that they take out the stones in which the plague is, and cast them into an unclean place without the city. 41 And he shall cause the house to be scraped within round about, and they shall pour out the mortar that they scrape off without the city into an unclean place. 42 And they shall take other stones, and put them in the place of those stones; and he shall take other mortar, and shall plaster the house. 43 And if the plague come again, and break out in the house, after that the stones have been taken out, and after the house hath been scraped, and after it is plastered; 44 then the priest shall come in and look; and, behold, if the plague be spread in the house, it is a malignant leprosy in the house: it is unclean. 45 And he shall break down the house, the stones of it, and the timber thereof, and all the mortar of the house; and he shall carry them forth out of the city into an unclean place. 46 Moreover he that goeth into the house all the while that it is shut up shall be unclean until the even. 47 And he that lieth in the house shall wash his clothes; and he that eateth in the house shall wash his clothes. 48 And if the priest shall come in, and look, and, behold, the plague hath not spread in the house, after the house was plastered; then the priest shall pronounce the house clean, because the plague is healed. 49 And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hyssop. 50 And he shall kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water. 51 And he shall take the cedar-wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times. 52 And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar-wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet. 53 But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open field; so shall he make atonement for the house; and it shall be clean. 54 This is the law for all manner of plague of leprosy, and for a scall; 55 and for the leprosy of a garment, and for a house; 56 and for a rising, and for a scab, and for a bright spot; 57 to teach when it is unclean, and when it is clean; this is the law of leprosy.

quote:

I stand by my statement. Creationism has never made a single successful prediction about future data.

I suggest you sit humbly instead of standing. Its now 1000's of years when it was listed that the nation of Israelwill be exiled and dispersed, and that she will return, via a remnant [small measure]. This happened with an exactness whch is impossible to deny - when Europe's chimneys still fumed and all the nation's doors were slammed to Jews fleeing Europe. Its either a prediction which happened - or a mind boggling co-incidence: choose one, but either way, it was recorded and it happened. The other prediction is the advocasy to humanity for the future: today's climate control debacle is an example. Here, we have no choice but to go forth and have dominion of other worlds - its not a choice factor and there are no aternatives. In 1000 years our population will be unsustainable no matter what measures we take. Not to mention the other life forms we cannot control. Such is the anticipatory power of Genesis!

quote:
Most all products we call science stems from the Hebrew bible; it KO'd Zeus and Jupiters when humanity was ready and introduced Monotheism

... which the Jews stole from the Egyptians. So, really, what you are arguing is that Ra is the one true God and that the Jews had it wrong.


No, applying some knowledge is generic and natural. But Ra represents the very antithesis of Monotheism, as do the laws of Liberty from the Pharoaic false divine kings. I see that only the Hebrew version of a creator is vindicated today, not Ra, JC or big Mo, but only an unseen, indescribable Creator is vindicated.

quote:
Basically, you just shot your entire argument in the foot.

The rest of your claims are also about Judaism not Creationism.

Are you changing your argument from Creationism should be taught in science class to Judaism should be taught in science class?

Seriously? Maybe you should take a moment and figure out exactly what you are trying to argue, cuz right now you are coming across more than a little retarded.


The Hebrew bible introduced species, evolution and laws which turn humanity's institutions, and these should not be distorted as ToE. At least, one cannot omit the Hebrew bible from these faculties and remain scientifically credible in a British or any ither classroom.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by Nuggin, posted 07-24-2011 10:10 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 395 of 450 (625668)
07-24-2011 11:38 PM


I see I quoted the wrong passage which introduced medicine. This is better illustrated here:

quote:
Leviticus Chapter 13
1 And the LORD spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying: 2 When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it become in the skin of his flesh the plague of leprosy, then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests. 3 And the priest shall look upon the plague in the skin of the flesh; and if the hair in the plague be turned white, and the appearance of the plague be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is the plague of leprosy; and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean. 4 And if the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white, then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days. 5 And the priest shall look on him the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague stay in its appearance, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the priest shall shut him up seven days more. 6 And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague be dim, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is a scab; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. 7 But if the scab spread abroad in the skin, after that he hath shown himself to the priest for his cleansing, he shall show himself to the priest again. 8 And the priest shall look, and, behold, if the scab be spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is leprosy. {P}

9 When the plague of leprosy is in a man, then he shall be brought unto the priest. 10 And the priest shall look, and, behold, if there be a white rising in the skin, and it have turned the hair white, and there be quick raw flesh in the rising, 11 it is an old leprosy in the skin of his flesh, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; he shall not shut him up; for he is unclean. 12 And if the leprosy break out abroad in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the plague from his head even to his feet, as far as appeareth to the priest; 13 then the priest shall look; and, behold, if the leprosy have covered all his flesh, he shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague; it is all turned white: he is clean. 14 But whensoever raw flesh appeareth in him, he shall be unclean. 15 And the priest shall look on the raw flesh, and pronounce him unclean; the raw flesh is unclean: it is leprosy. 16 But if the raw flesh again be turned into white, then he shall come unto the priest; 17 and the priest shall look on him; and, behold, if the plague be turned into white, then the priest shall pronounce him clean that hath the plague: he is clean. {P}

18 And when the flesh hath in the skin thereof a boil, and it is healed, 19 and in the place of the boil there is a white rising, or a bright spot, reddish-white, then it shall be shown to the priest. 20 And the priest shall look; and, behold, if the appearance thereof be lower than the skin, and the hair thereof be turned white, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy, it hath broken out in the boil. 21 But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hairs therein, and it be not lower than the skin, but be dim, then the priest shall shut him up seven days. 22 And if it spread abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a plague. 23 But if the bright spot stay in its place, and be not spread, it is the scar of the boil; and the priest shall pronounce him clean. {S} 24 Or when the flesh hath in the skin thereof a burning by fire, and the quick flesh of the burning become a bright spot, reddish-white, or white; 25 then the priest shall look upon it; and, behold, if the hair in the bright spot be turned white, and the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin, it is leprosy, it hath broken out in the burning; and the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy. 26 But if the priest look on it, and, behold, there be no white hair in the bright spot, and it be no lower than the skin, but be dim; then the priest shall shut him up seven days. 27 And the priest shall look upon him the seventh day; if it spread abroad in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is the plague of leprosy. 28 And if the bright spot stay in its place, and be not spread in the skin, but be dim, it is the rising of the burning, and the priest shall pronounce him clean; for it is the scar of the burning. {P}

29 And when a man or woman hath a plague upon the head or upon the beard, 30 then the priest shall look on the plague; and, behold, if the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin, and there be in it yellow thin hair, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is a scall, it is leprosy of the head or of the beard. 31 And if the priest look on the plague of the scall, and, behold, the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, and there be no black hair in it, then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague of the scall seven days. 32 And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the plague; and, behold, if the scall be not spread, and there be in it no yellow hair, and the appearance of the scall be not deeper than the skin, 33 then he shall be shaven, but the scall shall he not shave; and the priest shall shut up him that hath the scall seven days more. 34 And in the seventh day the priest shall look on the scall; and, behold, if the scall be not spread in the skin, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. 35 But if the scall spread abroad in the skin after his cleansing, 36 then the priest shall look on him; and, behold, if the scall be spread in the skin, the priest shall not seek for the yellow hair: he is unclean. 37 But if the scall stay in its appearance, and black hair be grown up therein; the scall is healed, he is clean; and the priest shall pronounce him clean. {S} 38 And if a man or a woman have in the skin of their flesh bright spots, even white bright spots; 39 then the priest shall look; and, behold, if the bright spots in the skin of their flesh be of a dull white, it is a tetter, it hath broken out in the skin: he is clean. {S} 40 And if a man's hair be fallen off his head, he is bald; yet is he clean. 41 And if his hair be fallen off from the front part of his head, he is forehead-bald; yet is he clean. 42 But if there be in the bald head, or the bald forehead, a reddish-white plague, it is leprosy breaking out in his bald head, or his bald forehead. 43 Then the priest shall look upon him; and, behold, if the rising of the plague be reddish-white in his bald head, or in his bald forehead, as the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh, 44 he is a leprous man, he is unclean; the priest shall surely pronounce him unclean: his plague is in his head. 45 And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose, and he shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry: 'Unclean, unclean.' 46 All the days wherein the plague is in him he shall be unclean; he is unclean; he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his dwelling be. {S} 47 And when the plague of leprosy is in a garment, whether it be a woolen garment, or a linen garment; 48 or in the warp, or in the woof, whether they be of linen, or of wool; or in a skin, or in any thing made of skin. 49 If the plague be greenish or reddish in the garment, or in the skin, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin, it is the plague of leprosy, and shall be shown unto the priest. 50 And the priest shall look upon the plague, and shut up that which hath the plague seven days. 51 And he shall look on the plague on the seventh day: if the plague be spread in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in the skin, whatever service skin is used for, the plague is a malignant leprosy: it is unclean. 52 And he shall burn the garment, or the warp, or the woof, whether it be of wool or of linen, or any thing of skin, wherein the plague is; for it is a malignant leprosy; it shall be burnt in the fire. 53 And if the priest shall look, and, behold, the plague be not spread in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin; 54 then the priest shall command that they wash the thing wherein the plague is, and he shall shut it up seven days more. 55 And the priest shall look, after that the plague is washed; and, behold, if the plague have not changed its colour, and the plague be not spread, it is unclean; thou shalt burn it in the fire; it is a fret, whether the bareness be within or without. 56 And if the priest look, and, behold, the plague be dim after the washing thereof, then he shall rend it out of the garment, or out of the skin, or out of the warp, or out of the woof. 57 And if it appear still in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin, it is breaking out, thou shalt burn that wherein the plague is with fire. 58 And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or whatsoever thing of skin it be, which thou shalt wash, if the plague be departed from them, then it shall be washed the second time, and shall be clean. 59 This is the law of the plague of leprosy in a garment of wool or linen, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any thing of skin, to pronounce it clean, or to pronounce it unclean. {P}



    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 396 of 450 (625669)
07-25-2011 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 393 by Nuggin
07-24-2011 10:46 PM


Re: DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE.
quote:
I don't have to give a scenario as to how something can happen without "respective laws"

You do if your talking science.

quote:

until you can demonstrate that such laws ACTUALLY exist.

You haven't.

You are the one making the claim here, it's your job to prove it.

Take your best shot, then I'll tell you why you are wrong.


The laws relating to the universe are complex and above our minds. But all laws the world accepts and turns by, such as judiciary, ethics, morality, animal rights laws, copyright laws, women's rights, liberty, inalienable human rights, slaves converted to contracted wirkers with rights - are contained exclusively in the Hebrew bible - all of them - in their entirety.

When we speak of how life emerged, there is no way this can be credible without the actions before life listed in Genesis; these are not even included in ToE! You have not proven me wrong or yourself right in any instant whatsoever.

quote:
Yes. Laws embedded in base particles.

What laws? How are those "Creationism Beams"? You are supposed to be describing a mechanism of Creationism. Something that we can point at an empty box and have a giraffe come out.


No, I do not. Whatever laws we have today are limited to our own generation only. More important than which laws, are that laws did not exist at one time, then they did, and that the universe turns on laws. This premise comes from Genesis. The stars never existed at one time - because they are based on laws; and laws have to be implemented with wisdom.

quote:

There is no evolution on Mars, our closest neighbour, despite almost every element found there as on earth. Thus evolution is critically focused on this planet,

Error 1: You don't know there is no evolution on Mars. Right now, the best you can say is that we have not detected life on Mars.


Ok. Fine. And if we go to Mars and find no life - you will still be right and I wrong! Of course you are becoming desperate here - there is no evidence of life [as opposed 'proof'] in the known universe for 15 Billion years; no imprints whatsoever. Science works via probabilities, not possibilities. And in the math, the vastness of the universe actually favors no life, not life as possible; this has been a mathematical corruption when using this factor to assume life can exist in the unknown universe by its vastness - the reverse applies. A first hand actual survey of the known universe confirms this: the unknown is more likely as the known than not so.

quote:

Error 2: You are using a set of exactly 2 planets out of literally an uncountable number of planets and saying "because there isn't like on A, therefore B must be magic". WRONG.

No sir. You are using wrong math to negate what Mars says.

quote:

Error 3: You are claiming that evolution is "critically focused" on Earth as if evolution could only occur here and not on some other planet where there is also life. I admit that right now we don't have evidence of life on other planets, however that does not mean that there is none. We've examined Earth and found life. We've peaked at Mars. We've done just about nothing else.


At this time, till you come up with life - Genesis wins.

quote:

light and darkness on this planet which produces equal sleep time for life forms [unlike the 12 year dark nights on Jupiter]

Error 4: You are saying that Earth has equal day/night and that Jupiter doesn't because Jupiter has 12 year long nights. How long are Jupiter's days? Busted.


You miss the point again. The fact is humans cannot surive on Jupiter's ratio of day and night. The earth ratio is cirtically focused, as indicated in Genesis, because even a small variance will negate life. The evidence denies random.

quote:

Attributes embedded which cause changes in fermentation processes which create a reaction on human livers - something like that.

Error 5: You are claiming that the above happens within a fetus regardless of exposure to alcohol. Exactly HOW is the fermentation process effecting the fetus without the fetus being exposed to the fermentation?


This is a ridiculous statement.

quote:

Why introduce chernoble? I never said that one cannot disrupt a system if they tried. You have not taken the bait, it was not a bait but a simple question. You cannot explain reproduction with environemental FX.

Error 6: You are claiming that the environment can not effect reproduction. Try having a child after walking around Chernobyl. CLEARLY that environment is going to have an effect on reproduction.


I do not also negate the effects of abortion. Chernoble and abortion are not environmental factors; they are made made intrusions of the life cycle.

quote:
Man, you really screwed this whole post up. You should take more time and maybe get a little help from a grown up before you post.


I am grown up; I never did open mouth AAH! to everything stated as fact. I don't bow to a diety called Nature - the antithesis of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Nuggin, posted 07-24-2011 10:46 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 12:38 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 398 of 450 (625672)
07-25-2011 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by Nuggin
07-25-2011 12:38 AM


Re: DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE.
quote:
But all laws the world accepts and turns by, such as judiciary, ethics, morality, animal rights laws, copyright laws, women's rights, liberty, inalienable human rights, slaves converted to contracted wirkers with rights - are contained exclusively in the Hebrew bible - all of them - in their entirety.

Wrong, but more importantly completely irrelevant. None of that has anything to do with Evolution. None of it provides any evidence for Creationism.

At _BEST_ you can say that human societies are built on a few simple principles like "don't kill each other" and "don't take other people's stuff". Hardly exclusive to the Jews.


Except that there is a commonality in science and laws that govern humanity, the earth and the universe?! Yes, the world knew about not to murder an innocent; but the world became modern via 613 laws, most of which never existed before and not seen in any other scriptures. Guess why Europe eventually spat out Hellenism, Zeus, Jupiter and Rah for the Hebrew bible!? Omissions are a form of false responses.

quote:
When we speak of how life emerged, there is no way this can be credible without the actions before life listed in Genesis

Genesis claims that people are made of clay.
People are not made of clay.
Beginning middle and end of your claim right there.



You are evading, and inserting another false charge. Genesis says man was made of the earth's elements [iodine, iron, phosperous, water, etc], plus an X factor [Genesis also includes a breath of life factor which made the completed life form as living], and constitutes a microcosm of the earth and all its life forms. Adam means OF THE EARTH. There is no alternative to this: from where else applies?

quote:
there is no evidence of life [as opposed 'proof'] in the known universe for 15 Billion years; no imprints whatsoever.

There aren't enough zeros in the internet to describe mathematically how little of the Universe we've explored. You are drawing you conclusions based on the less than 1% of Mars we've explored. We've done NO exploration of any of the other planets, NO exploration of any moons other than a small fragment of our own.


As I stated earlier, as of today, Genesis prevails. I also stated your math is wrong - the zeros go against the probaility of life, and shows the desperation of relying on such factors - it shows all else is lost and Genesis correct. Beware those who say wait for millions of years or first go and unturn every rock in the universe!

quote:

You are drawing conclusions not supported by evidence.

You have not correctly analysed the evidence you rely on. Do you understand what it means when we have not a trace or imprint of life in the known universe for 15 Billion years? Do you know good math - that the more the zeros, the less chance for life?

quote:
A first hand actual survey of the known universe confirms this:

Wow. Now you are claiming that you know someone who has searched the ENTIRE UNIVERSE PERSONALLY.


Yes, exactly. We have used telescopes, missions, manned and unmanned, seen billions of miles into space, sent messages and checked the radiation stemming from the beginnings of the universe. Not to mention that had evolution been a credible premise, the other older life forms [thus more advanced than us] would have long ago made their presence known. You loose.

quote:

The fact is humans cannot surive on Jupiter's ratio of day and night.

First of all, the day/night ratio on Jupiter is NOT a factor in human survival there. Second, who gives a crap if humans are effected by the ratio, we don't live there. It only matters to whatever life LIVES on jupiter.


Sure. But it also says that life on this planet does care of the critical focus of day and night on this planet, which BTW is not included in ToE. There is no equivalence with a planet which has not indicated any life, as you offered.

quote:
You are trying (and FAILING) to argue that we live on Earth because we fit Earth's day/night schedule - in other words, "It's a miracle that puddles all find the right sized holes".

Pathetic.


No, I am doing nothing of the sort. I am saying that life on this planet is critically hinged on actions which support and anticipate life, and are clearly listed in Genesis - but not included in ToE. I say life could not emerge without those actions, no matter how you shout Eureka about the environment or evolution.

quote:
The evidence denies random.

Who claims anything is random? Are you aware of the word "selection" and what it means?


Are you aware of the word selectEE?

quote:

This is a ridiculous statement.

Hey, you are the one trying to argue that fetal alcohol syndrome happens in the absence of alcohol. I'm just giving you enough rope to hang yourself. It's not my fault you're sounding ***. If you dont' want to sound ***, stop saying *** things.


Its a ricidulous statement continuously.

quote:

Chernoble and abortion are not environmental factors

Chernobyl is a CITY. Are you REALLY going to claim that a CITY is NOT an environment. Show me ON YOUR BODY where your Chernobyl is located.

Remember what I said a second about about not saying *** things. Go back and read it again.


Chernoble and abortion are man made intrusions of the life cycle. Go back and check.

quote:
I don't bow to a diety called Nature - the antithesis of science.

No, you bow to "Yahweh the Jew Wizard" because your mommy told you to and you think your mommy is always right.

I am grown up;

Uh huh. Yet here you are crying like a baby and screaming for your mommy. Very convincing.


No sir. I am saying there is no alternative to Creationism, and that this is most evidenced scientifically. Again: which is the first recording of medicine, the oldest active calendar and the first alphabetical book - which according to your mommy talk is not impacting. Really?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 12:38 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 1:49 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 401 of 450 (625676)
07-25-2011 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 399 by Nuggin
07-25-2011 1:49 AM


Re: So much ***, so little time
quote:
Your argument APPARENTLY (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that since we have yet to discover life elsewhere in the Universe, there is no other life in the Universe.


Wrong - I am correcting you. I am saying the evidence favors no life. There is nothing in Genesis which opposes life elsewhere, but the facts before us say so. Also, that the vastness of the universe also favors no life - so your only left desperate arguement which you rely on, even while ignoring all the applicable evidences, is also wrong.

Now if you have a 100 story building and are looking for green monkeys, you can say the tower is too big for you to check. Then you only check three floors, a reasonable solution since you cannot possibly traverse all floors - and you find no green monkeys.

The probability factor says there are no monkeys in all 100 levels.

The non-scientific possibility factor will cling to the premise we have not checked every nook and corner of every level. This premise will never reach a conclusion and will spin forever in a circular path - the proof of its method being wrong.

The science and math, as well as all evidential factors, rests with no life.

You can shout Eureka! only when you prove life. Till then, you are wrong: there is no life out there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 1:49 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 3:10 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 402 of 450 (625677)
07-25-2011 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Nuggin
07-25-2011 1:50 AM


Re: Gotta Love Censorship
quote:
Here's what I love about the new censorship.
Stu.pid gets ***
L.ie gets ***
Shit and Fuck are both A-OKAY!


I attended and exhausted all your arguements. The reverse applies with you of my questions.

You wrongly quoted Genesis as man came from clay.

You failed to acknowledge the discrepency in ToE of not listing actions which predate life.

You ran far from th first introduction of medicine, the most advanced time measurement calendar [including the introduction of the DAY & WEEK], and the most advanced first alphabetical books.

You failed to acknowledge that today's laws for humanity stem from the Hebrew bible - to the extent not a single law from any current scripture gave humanity a single law.

You failed to acknowledge that evolution was introduced in Genesis, covering every aspect of it more comprehensively, including cross-speciation.

You failed to acknowledge the first recording of the universe being finite, and that there is no alternative to Creationism or Monotheism.

You made a mess of understanding that ToE's spin of 'selection' is nothing other than a random occurence which is based on non-science, containing no source factor, cause or effect, and no selector or selectee. This is slight of hand casino science.

You just ignore and make leaps to other areas - as if you won a point: you did not. The universe was created in wisdom - not jitterbugging quarks which don't know where to go - because!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 1:50 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 3:15 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 405 of 450 (625683)
07-25-2011 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by Nuggin
07-25-2011 3:10 AM


Re: So much ***, so little time
quote:
Wrong - I am correcting you. I am saying the evidence favors no life.

And the "evidence" consists of...

Out of HOW many possible planets?


No impact. There is no possibility of accounting every planet. The science and math is the only factor applicable, and both say for 15 Billion years, there are no imprints of life. The far stars & planets were once in our vicinity - they left no life imprints. This is also how we measure distance stars and planets without actually visiting them. So 'ALL' evidences point to no life, while you are clinging to the unprovable and impossible conditions.

quote:

Now if you have a 100 story building and are looking for green monkeys, you can say the tower is too big for you to check. Then you only check three floors, a reasonable solution since you cannot possibly traverse all floors - and you find no green monkeys.
The probability factor says there are no monkeys in all 100 levels.

That's RETARDED.

If you lose your keys, do you check one pocket in one pair of pants and then conclude that your keys don't exist?


Its not retarted - your example is retarded. The other pockets on your person are of reachable distance; the furtherest reaches of the universe are not. Your spins are bogus.

quote:

Till then, you are wrong: there is no life out there.

Well that rules out Genesis. No life out there means no God.


No sir. The reverse applies: if just one planet holds life, it shows critical focusing, non-random and non-evolution as the cause. Let's hope your science is not as retarded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 3:10 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 9:31 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 406 of 450 (625684)
07-25-2011 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by Nuggin
07-25-2011 3:15 AM


Re: Gotta Love Censorship
quote:
You wrongly quoted Genesis as man came from clay.

You wrongly quoted Genesis that man came from iodine and phosophorous.


Of course humans contain those things. How else? Are you short of iodine or iron - get yourself checked.

quote:

You failed to acknowledge the discrepency in ToE of not listing actions which predate life.

Why should ToE have anything to with anything pre-life? It's a part of BIOLOGY.


Biology is part of a system which fostered it. Life is not possible without pre-live actions which anticipate and foster life. Genesis wins.

quote:

ToE also doesn't address gravity. So what?


Laws address gravity and laws have a source.

quote:

You failed to acknowledge that today's laws for humanity stem from the Hebrew bible

I refuted it.


Not all laws come from the Hebrew bible, a late comer in the ancient world. But all laws followed by the world's instutions are listed only in the Hebrew bible - without the head bashing deities.

quote:

You failed to acknowledge the first recording of the universe being finite

Prove that it's finite.


Its expanding. It was not infinite 10 seconds ago. One cannot make an infinite rope longer - else it was not infinite!

quote:

that there is no alternative to Creationism or Monotheism.

Polytheism.


If it takes more than one deity - then they are all weak in graduating diminishing order. You are only pushing the goal post further - with no credible premise at the end.

quote:

'selection' is nothing other than a random occurence

No, selection is the opposite of random.


Then where is your selector - evolution never existed at one time, so how can it account for anything other than being a selectEE?

quote:

Basically your assessment of the entire discussion is woefully wrong, just like all your points have been.

Let's sum this up.

You believe that Jews are magic because your mommy told you Jews are magic. Period. That's the entire reason you hold your belief.


That's a sum up? If I respond adequately, all the blame goes on the Jews? Why not see them as a small, miniscule nation, with no land, oils or population to boast of instead? Your attacks are now descending to racism, not science. And strangely, which you ignore, the Jews have excelled in science, chemistry, medicine, literature and a host of faculties, in the Nobels and other award sectors, even under woeful conditions - one must wonder where they got their education from!

quote:

End of story.



Check mate.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 3:15 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 9:40 AM IamJoseph has responded

    
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 1957 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 412 of 450 (625720)
07-25-2011 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Nuggin
07-25-2011 9:40 AM


Re: Bible
quote:

Of course humans contain those things. How else? Are you short of iodine or iron - get yourself checked.

So said that these two elements are specifically mentioned in the Bible. That was a L.I.E.


No lie. It says man is made OF THE EARTH [dam = earth]; earth = all elements of this earth. Terms such as iodine are new.

quote:

Now, back on topic.

The Bible has NO workable definition of species, therefore Creationism has no workable definition of species.


I say that every aspect of Darwin's notions of species is already contained in Genesis, and more comprehensively and scientifically posited. Darwin, a religious Christian, was reading and responding what is in genesis; his folly was that he observed a process at work and shouted Eureka! no processor here. Darwin made no other contribution other than exciting atheists.

quote:

Couple that with Creationisms no workable definition of mechanism and no accounting for existing or future data and you're left with NADA.


Why do you say so? There is a continueing list of actions, beginning from a pre-uni scenario, to the advent of laws being introduced, to the first products in the universe, and the first actions on earth which anticipated life. The future is also catered to with workable laws for humanity and how we can survive over population and diminished climactic conditions in the future.

I know of no other document which measures up to this mysterious writings. I wonder how a band of desert people knew about a desease being infectious [impacting by air flow] before this word was coined? I am wondering why we do not have a NAME pre-6000 which can be proven - nor a city, nation, war, king or anything which can be positively allocated to a speech endowed human, and how it is exacting and vindicated to the year and day? I am of course willing to be enlightened.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 9:40 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by Nuggin, posted 07-25-2011 10:03 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 414 by fearandloathing, posted 07-25-2011 10:04 AM IamJoseph has responded
 Message 424 by Taq, posted 07-25-2011 11:53 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019