[MBTI General] Intuitive Bible processing

[Totenkindly]

Now if evolution is a fact then you should be able to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that it is true. Unless you think I'm being unreasonable.

Here is my reasoning:

If you are going to create a forced binary, it's a lot more accurate to say it's a fact than to say it is not. IOW, you will actually be far more misleading and dishonest to say it is NOT a fact than to say that it is.

So no, I'm not going to manipulated into playing your game beyond what I've already allowed. This part of the discussion has been manufactured by you. If you don't like my answer, then don't force a binary. You're actually allowed to see evolution as the most viable alternative (by far) without thinking it is perfect and unflawed.

This is ridiculous though, theory and a fact? are you serious?

Yes. See above. The problem is with your forced binary AND with your implied insistence that if something is not 100% proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (which, of course, nothing can be), then it is equivalent in probability to all other ideas that one might present without testing. It's like playing Powerball with one ticket while someone else has bought 50 million tickets and saying you both have equal odds to win because, after all, "no one knows what will happen."

At the moment, there is no other viable alternative to evolution, scientifically, and it is constantly being refined by experimentation and data. So it best describes the data we have, just as Newtonian physics best described the data at the time... and was never really "wrong," it just could not explain all potential situations that might arise and it could not explain WHY things worked as they did.

And no, I'm not required to engage you in a detailed discussion of evolution, I have a life outside this forum. I've found enough to satisfy my own curiosity on the topic and have no vested interest in winning you over to believe in evolution -- why should I care? My complaints in this thread have pretty clearly been about the lack of rigor in your logical process, as I have noted above for the third or fourth time above; that has been my concern. You muddy the definition of what a scientific theory is and suggest that points of view unsupported by the same copious quantity of data are equivalent.

If you want to understand why I hold this view on evolution, go read books by people who work in the field daily -- I doubt I could present a case to a level that would convince you of anything. There's a plethora of books out there explaining how science views evolution, the positives and the flaws, the areas of uncertainty, and the like, and what "other options" there are and to what degree those hypotheses are probable.

 

[onemoretime]

Furthermore, I have heard of mummies in Egypt having impacted wisdom teeth. This fact, added with the fact that many people to this very moment don't need to pull their wisdom teeth, totally puts a big hole in your assertion that our jaws have evolved to accomodate space for our larger brains and lingual skills. And I'm supposed to accept this as fact?

Evolution doesn't have teleology. It's a set of genetic variations that are selected for by aiding reproduction, selected against by precluding reproduction, or allowed to persist because it doesn't affect reproduction one way or another - that's why we still have vestige organs like the remnant of the nictitating membrane in the corner of our eyes.

Humans have shorter jaws than most other animals - that's obvious. By examining various hominid skulls, we have noticed a correlation between jaw size and cranial capacity, and mechanics of speaking. For most people, that results in impacted wisdom teeth. For others, due to genetic variation in tooth size among other things, there is no resulting impaction. All of these are consistent with the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology.

There's no hole at all - you're just failing to see the bigger picture.

 

[onemoretime]

The first clarification I'd like to make here is that while a strictly metaphysical view of God is indeed unfalsifiable, a Biblical perspective is most certainly falsifiable. That is, through literal interpretation, the metaphysical account given in Genesis states that the world was created around 6,000 years ago, and furthermore there was a flood around 4,200 years ago. If one can prove that the universe has been around for longer than that (many of our scientific interpretations suggest so), then you've essentially falsified the Biblical account. However, if one choose not to take the Genesis account literally, then we've opened up a can of worms regarding Biblical interpretation... let's not go there.

We have. No one says that Genesis must be literal. Most scholarship has interpreted it as allegorical from the beginning. Even when hard evidence is presented that the universe is much older than YEC asserts, the response will usually be to reject the data.

Currently, I suspend belief in evolution theory, as it seems to lack sufficient evidence to support its core belief.

There is no belief. There is a theory, and there are mountains of data to support it. That it has essentially remained unchanged since Darwin and Mendel were combined in the early 20th Century speaks well to its sticking power.

We have no way of proving so much as the possibility of living material arising out of inorganic matter. To the extent of my awareness, the best laboratory tests with regards have brought to life... a few amino acids. This comes nowhere close to giving credence to an evolutionary origin of life. You'd need a couple dozen more of the correct amino acids to have the necessary ingredients for protein synthesis within a unicellular organism. Still, this gives no explanation for how the unicellular organism itself emerged.

Evolution and abiogenesis are two different concepts, and it's disingenuous to conflate them. There is nothing inconsistent with saying that a first cause created the universe, and then evolution happened because of the rules the universe was created by.

Consider the extraordinary amount of hurdles that follow after this. How does one explain the emergence of the genetic code? The transition from invertibrate to vertibrate? The transition from asexual to sexual reproduction? For that matter, aren't we already making key assumptions to support this idea? A simple example is in regards to the sun- it would've had to stay in a very similar state for millions and millions of years in order to maintain a hospitable environment for the evolution of life on Earth.

Once again, biogenesis and evolution are two different fields.

All of these subsequent things are easily explained through natural selection and genetic variation. Nervous ganglia in an invertibrate could have one or a thousand genetic variations that caused them to fuse into a notochord. Then further variations could have caused this notochord to calcify, and form a spinal column. From this point, variation can run wild, as there is a solid structure. One million years is a long time.

The sun has stayed in a very similar state over the last 2.5 billion years, slightly dimming over that time - we know this because the mathematics involved with astronomy tells us this to be the case. Likewise, that's a big assumption that life requires a similar environment to the current one to exist. Extremophile bacteria persist and thrive in high temperature and high acid environments. The only thing life generally can't tolerate is high ionizing radiation - and water does a good job of creating a barrier around that.

The point should already be clear to any rational thinking individual, the point I think INTJ123 has been trying to make. There is nothing wrong with believing in evolution theory, but understand that it is simply that- a belief, a faith based assumption, which in this characteristic is no different from religion. The theory is unsubstantiated, plain and simple. I do think we should continue to explore the possibility of the theory; stay true to the scientific method. However, we should not be indoctrinating children (a state of mind all too influential) toward this belief system, as it is not factual. Furthermore, through logical implication, it destroys the faith of many individuals- this, mind you, is what tends to frustrate the creationists most.

No. It's a scientific fact. It supports all the evidence, and has for over 150 years. The question since Darwin has never been whether there is evolution through natural selection, because it's that apparent. The question has been the mechanics of this evolution, which we now know to be genetic variation.

All of modern biology is built on this data. Modern biology is also incredibly good at making predictions based on this - once again, see the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This was predicted just a few years after penicillin was discovered, and did not surprise the scientific world as many would have you believe.

Somebody, please show me some evidence that supports evolution theory. Fossil record? Alright then, but first let's discuss radiometric dating, and its inherent assumptions that potentially disavow the entire process. Mutations and genetic drift? Evidence for variation within a species, not speciation. I'm serious, show me some evidence. Granted, I'm not an expert. However, I have been spending copious amounts of time discerning the argument from both sides, and after careful consideration, I remain unconvinced. I simply wish to know the truth.

Radiometric dating? Mountains of research affirming its effectiveness. The math works, too. The only real "evidence" that could disavow it is the idea that "God created it that way" - a non-scientific hypothesis. Oh, and we also measure the decay rate in recently deceased organisms, too, just to calibrate the numbers.

Mutations and genetic drift? Once again, the very famous case of moths in England, whereby the black variation would thrive in a polluted environment with soot-covered trees while the white variation would be dominant in the cleaner areas with white-barked trees. Oh, there's also the thing about my being lactose tolerant, which arose in only two places in the world - Northern Europe and West Africa. Every other population stops producing lactase after weaning. Variation within a species? Last time I checked, humanity was able to reproduce among itself, regardless of ethnicity, each of which has traits specific to it (skin color, average height, temperature tolerance, etc). There's lots of variation within homo sapiens sapiens.

What's interesting is that, hypothetically and momentarily, imagine the Biblical account of the flood to be true- an account, for the record, which has dozens of similar occurrences through out multiple, unrelated cultures around the world (I'll site if necessary, though I'd really prefer not to due to laziness, please do your own research if you're curious). Now consider the supposed transitional fossils we find of twelve foot neanderthals. Under this interpretation, these were not neanderthals; they were humans from a pre-flood world. Under pre-flood atmospheric conditions, the air we were breathing would've been oxygen saturated and of higher pressure- conditions which have been scientifically proven to cause organisms to grow much larger than they would otherwise.

There is nothing within that statement that fits the evidence that we have. Until you provide substantial evidence for a global deluge (extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence), this hypothesis completely collapses on itself.

But of course, it's not scientific to use a creationist explanation to interpret evidence, as the creationist relies on the metaphysical, which is inherently unscientific due to its unfalsifiability.

And that's a bad thing? Like I said, put up the evidence, then we'll talk. Until then, it's not worth consideration.

If I may momentarily muse: the first law of thermodynamics shows that matter is neither created nor destroyed, simply changed- this implies that, assuming a closed system (which allows for these laws to hold true), there must have been an external source that created our universe. Additionally, the second law, regarding entropy (yes I'm understating, but the implications hold true), would imply that even if there was an oscillatory process of big bang >> big crunch >> big bang, the closed system would not be able to continue this process infinitely due to dispersal of energy. This means there was also a beginning to the universe. Whether you want to use multiverse, intelligent designer, or any other theory to explain this is your decision.

No, it doesn't. It means that these are the rules of the universe as it currently exists. Just as we cannot know what happened before the Big Bang (or if there is such a thing as before), unless some spectacular evidence arises to explain this, or some powerful equation describes the relationship, we cannot make any assumptions on where the universe came from. The null hypothesis is that matter and energy are eternal and uncreated, and until we have distinct evidence otherwise, that's the place to start from. Second law only states that by current energy transfer methods as we understand them, the tendency is for entropy to increase. It doesn't mean that something else completely different on a quantum scale starts happening when a system is fully entropic; it just means we don't know, and can't observe otherwise. It implies nothing about the start of the universe whatsoever - it just means that we don't know, beyond a heat death, what would happen when the universe reaches full entropy.

My issue is that the Big Bang is also written in textbooks made for children, and this is clearly metaphysical in nature. Given this hypocrisy, I don't see any reason why intelligent design should not also be allowed to be taught in schools, but that's just my opinion.

The Big Bang is science. We have evidence (intergalactic background radiation) that it happened, and its mathematical implications square away with all other known scientific knowledge. We're not just making it up.

Consider the implications on behavior with regards to evolution versus creationism (in this case, Christianity). Evolution suggests a state of moral relativism, with which the logical ad absurdum conclusion is that anybody can kill anybody with no lasting consequence- that is to say, if you were caught you may be punished by death, but even so. This might seem excessive, but I would argue that we've witnessed social darwinism in practice, Hitler is unfortunately a fine example. Christianity, on the other hand, suggests a constant state of judgment for your actions, as at the end of your life, you will be held accountable. It gives a more persuasive reason to act righteously outside of satiating personal ego in a morally relativistic world.

No, anthropology has made it abundantly clear that humans are social beings. Evolutionary theory has taken this and through the application of game theory and other mathematical constructs, made it very apparent that it's to humans' survival advantage to be social and altruistic - the real basis of religious morality. Selfish behavior is punished because we need our group surroundings and social cohesion - a single human doesn't last long in an unfriendly environment, as we have no claws nor fangs. Likewise, many seemingly contradictory traits (such as homosexuality) make a lot of sense in this context (you personally do not reproduce, but you help your brothers/sisters reproduce, and since they have half your genes, that helps self-perpetuation).

Err, I'm growing weary. Seriously, bring some evidence to the table that we can discuss. Let's see where this topic goes. Take care everyone!

The evidence exists. Are you willing to accept it?

 

[INTJ123]

The first clarification I'd like to make here is that while a strictly metaphysical view of God is indeed unfalsifiable, a Biblical perspective is most certainly falsifiable. That is, through literal interpretation, the metaphysical account given in Genesis states that the world was created around 6,000 years ago, and furthermore there was a flood around 4,200 years ago. If one can prove that the universe has been around for longer than that (many of our scientific interpretations suggest so), then you've essentially falsified the Biblical account. However, if one choose not to take the Genesis account literally, then we've opened up a can of worms regarding Biblical interpretation... let's not go there.

Currently, I suspend belief in evolution theory, as it seems to lack sufficient evidence to support its core belief.

We have no way of proving so much as the possibility of living material arising out of inorganic matter. To the extent of my awareness, the best laboratory tests with regards have brought to life... a few amino acids. This comes nowhere close to giving credence to an evolutionary origin of life. You'd need a couple dozen more of the correct amino acids to have the necessary ingredients for protein synthesis within a unicellular organism. Still, this gives no explanation for how the unicellular organism itself emerged.

Consider the extraordinary amount of hurdles that follow after this. How does one explain the emergence of the genetic code? The transition from invertibrate to vertibrate? The transition from asexual to sexual reproduction? For that matter, aren't we already making key assumptions to support this idea? A simple example is in regards to the sun- it would've had to stay in a very similar state for millions and millions of years in order to maintain a hospitable environment for the evolution of life on Earth.

The point should already be clear to any rational thinking individual, the point I think INTJ123 has been trying to make. There is nothing wrong with believing in evolution theory, but understand that it is simply that- a belief, a faith based assumption, which in this characteristic is no different from religion. The theory is unsubstantiated, plain and simple. I do think we should continue to explore the possibility of the theory; stay true to the scientific method. However, we should not be indoctrinating children (a state of mind all too influential) toward this belief system, as it is not factual. Furthermore, through logical implication, it destroys the faith of many individuals- this, mind you, is what tends to frustrate the creationists most.

Somebody, please show me some evidence that supports evolution theory. Fossil record? Alright then, but first let's discuss radiometric dating, and its inherent assumptions that potentially disavow the entire process. Mutations and genetic drift? Evidence for variation within a species, not speciation. I'm serious, show me some evidence. Granted, I'm not an expert. However, I have been spending copious amounts of time discerning the argument from both sides, and after careful consideration, I remain unconvinced. I simply wish to know the truth.

What's interesting is that, hypothetically and momentarily, imagine the Biblical account of the flood to be true- an account, for the record, which has dozens of similar occurrences through out multiple, unrelated cultures around the world (I'll site if necessary, though I'd really prefer not to due to laziness, please do your own research if you're curious). Now consider the supposed transitional fossils we find of twelve foot neanderthals. Under this interpretation, these were not neanderthals; they were humans from a pre-flood world. Under pre-flood atmospheric conditions, the air we were breathing would've been oxygen saturated and of higher pressure- conditions which have been scientifically proven to cause organisms to grow much larger than they would otherwise.

But of course, it's not scientific to use a creationist explanation to interpret evidence, as the creationist relies on the metaphysical, which is inherently unscientific due to its unfalsifiability.

If I may momentarily muse: the first law of thermodynamics shows that matter is neither created nor destroyed, simply changed- this implies that, assuming a closed system (which allows for these laws to hold true), there must have been an external source that created our universe. Additionally, the second law, regarding entropy (yes I'm understating, but the implications hold true), would imply that even if there was an oscillatory process of big bang >> big crunch >> big bang, the closed system would not be able to continue this process infinitely due to dispersal of energy. This means there was also a beginning to the universe. Whether you want to use multiverse, intelligent designer, or any other theory to explain this is your decision.

My issue is that the Big Bang is also written in textbooks made for children, and this is clearly metaphysical in nature. Given this hypocrisy, I don't see any reason why intelligent design should not also be allowed to be taught in schools, but that's just my opinion.

Consider the implications on behavior with regards to evolution versus creationism (in this case, Christianity). Evolution suggests a state of moral relativism, with which the logical ad absurdum conclusion is that anybody can kill anybody with no lasting consequence- that is to say, if you were caught you may be punished by death, but even so. This might seem excessive, but I would argue that we've witnessed social darwinism in practice, Hitler is unfortunately a fine example. Christianity, on the other hand, suggests a constant state of judgment for your actions, as at the end of your life, you will be held accountable. It gives a more persuasive reason to act righteously outside of satiating personal ego in a morally relativistic world.

Err, I'm growing weary. Seriously, bring some evidence to the table that we can discuss. Let's see where this topic goes. Take care everyone!

Thank you that clears alot of things up.

I agree, big bang is a big contradiction to science, the energy came from??? nowhere?

 

[Edgar]

If humans were the result of intelligent design, then why the hell do we have inhaling tract located right next to ingestive tract? That's retarded. If humans were a product, the creator would get sued for producing defective merchandise.

 

[INTJ123]

If humans were the result of intelligent design, then why the hell do we have inhaling tract located right next to ingestive tract? That's retarded. If humans were a product, the creator would get sued for producing defective merchandise.

Good question? Only the designer could tell you that, if there is even a designer. I suppose everyone assumes I'm a die hard ID pusher, but no, I don't really care that much, I just acknowledge that the theory exists, just like the THEORY of evolution, it's not a fact...

 

[onemoretime]

If humans were the result of intelligent design, then why the hell do we have inhaling tract located right next to ingestive tract? That's retarded. If humans were a product, the creator would get sued for producing defective merchandise.

Good point. Same as the old civil engineering joke - "How do you know God's a civil engineer? Only a civil engineer would put a pleasure center right next to a waste channel"

 

[The Decline]

The Hallucinogen N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) Is an Endogenous Sigma-1 Receptor Regulator -- Fontanilla et al. 323 (5916): 934 -- Science

DMT is a metabolite of tryptophan, an amino acid, much as serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine) is. It binds to the sigma-1 receptor.

This does not provide evidence supporting the claim that REM sleep and endogenous production of DMT is somehow linked, that DMT is produced while we sleep. My argument, as previously stated, is that science has yet to uncover the patterns of DMT production.. which invalidates the claim that DMT is produced during sleep cycles.

However, I will applaud your usage of scholarly journals. There is a serious lack of such a methodology in investigating the truth in this thread. I mean, I know random people lecturing in YouTube videos are educational and all..

 

[onemoretime]

This does not provide evidence supporting the claim that REM sleep and endogenous production of DMT is somehow linked, that DMT is produced while we sleep. My argument, as previously stated, is that science has yet to uncover the patterns of DMT production.. which invalidates the claim that DMT is produced during sleep cycles.

However, I will applaud your usage of scholarly journals. There is a serious lack of such a methodology in investigating the truth in this thread. I mean, I know random people lecturing in YouTube videos are educational and all..

Sigma-2 receptor is closely related to the kappa opioid receptor (even once leading to the assumption that sigma-2 was an opioid receptor), and both are highly correlated to dream activity, particularly through their regulation of the NMDA system. This would help to explain the partially dissociative nature of dreaming, as opposed to the purely psychedelic effects of substituted phenethylamines and synthetic tryptamines (not to mention the ergotamines).

 

[Valuable_Money]

Ive been gone for a day, I came back to check on this thread. Aparently hes not only kept this going without ever really giving a debate and hes gotten people into a RAGEEEEE about religion. Bravo INTJ123 your Te trolling skills arevery good. To all the people who continue to debate with him you should know that your not talking to a legitimate representation of his supposed point of view, your not going to learn anything, your not going to convince anyone of anything. Everything he says has been carfully crafted to pisss people off.

 

[onemoretime]

Ive been gone for a day, I came back to check on this thread. Aparently hes not only kept this going without ever really giving a debate and hes gotten people into a RAGEEEEE about religion. Bravo INTJ123 your Te trolling skills arevery good. To all the people who continue to debate with him you should know that your not talking to a legitimate representation of his supposed point of view, your not going to learn anything, your not going to convince anyone of anything. Everything he says has been carfully crafted to pisss people off.

Even a troll is a good opportunity to sharpen one's debate skills. Even bad practice is still practice. I run into way too many people who argue like he does in actual life, so figuring out how to make them look foolish is certainly in my best interests.

 

[The Decline]

Sigma-2 receptor is closely related to the kappa opioid receptor (even once leading to the assumption that sigma-2 was an opioid receptor), and both are highly correlated to dream activity, particularly through their regulation of the NMDA system. This would help to explain the partially dissociative nature of dreaming, as opposed to the purely psychedelic effects of substituted phenethylamines and synthetic tryptamines (not to mention the ergotamines).

That's all good and well, but it's a stretch to consider this information as elucidation on the biological function of DMT, particularly in relation to dreaming, simply by its recognition as a ligand of the sigma-1 receptor. Plenty of other psychoactives are agonists here as well, and yes, we can tie them to dream-states, particularly the NMDA inhibitors. Surely researchers can use this as a stepping stone to procede with further research into the biological roles of DMT now, but to say that DMT, when endogenously produced, affects our dreams on a regular basis is still a stretch. There could be plenty of other variables (other psychoactives?) not yet understood that are at work in dream-states, though I do not dismiss that something is going on with this molecule within the brain, at some point in time. I mean, if DMT has been detected in blood, then it is most likely produced constantly in our brains (as well as the resulting serotonin and friends)... however, our sober, waking reality is the product of plenty of other neurochemical processes. The same is true for the shift into sleeping reality, where the neurochemical systems are entirely different.

Oh, and I have nothing against DMT, I just have a problem with jumping ahead of the empirical process when it's not safe to do so. In fact, DMT is a curious and marvelous chemical...

 

[onemoretime]

That's all good and well, but it's a stretch to consider this information as elucidation on the biological function of DMT, particularly in relation to dreaming, simply by its recognition as a ligand of the sigma-1 receptor. Plenty of other psychoactives are agonists here as well, and yes, we can tie them to dream-states, particularly the NMDA inhibitors. Surely researchers can use this as a stepping stone to procede with further research into the biological roles of DMT now, but to say that DMT, when endogenously produced, affects our dreams on a regular basis is still a stretch. There could be plenty of other variables (other psychoactives?) not yet understood that are at work in dream-states, though I do not dismiss that something is going on with this molecule within the brain, at some point in time. I mean, if DMT has been detected in blood, then it is most likely produced constantly in our brains (as well as the resulting serotonin and friends)... however, our sober, waking reality is the product of plenty of other neurochemical processes. The same is true for the shift into sleeping reality, where the neurochemical systems are entirely different.

Oh, and I have nothing against DMT, I just have a problem with jumping ahead of the empirical process when it's not safe to do so. In fact, DMT is a curious and marvelous chemical...

As the article stated, DMT is the first endogenous chemical to be recognized as a sigma-2 ligand. As far as we know, there are no other endogenous ligands, and as such, while not affirming a causative relationship, strongly implies a correlative one.

You're right though, you can't get ahead of yourself here - but you have to hypothesize and speculate, or science is dead. Everyone thought we had figured out the other opioid receptors and their various endogenous ligands (endorphins and enkephalins), until we found out that amazingly, humans produce morphine endogenously as well, throwing the whole thing into a bit of dispute. Isn't science fun?

 

[Rixonomic]

Throughout my twenty some odd years of conscious existence, I have always considered the theory of evolution to be the most scientifically reasonable explanation for the origin of life on this planet. Countless times have I passionately defended my clear and concise understanding of the science which I have been taught. Simple, it would seem to me, to understand the flawed reasoning behind a persons faith...behind the faith of all humanity. We did, after all, evolve from a much more primitive being who, in awe of the planet and cosmos, would undoubtedly have created less than scientific explanations for the great mysteries of the observable universe. Of course, we are now technologically advanced enough to have explained away all the mythology, religion and misunderstanding that once plagued our ancient societies. It would seem, however, that the wildly absurd beliefs of a few misguided people continue to persevere in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence against them. I could rather confidently assume that this is primarily the result of an upbringing heavily saturated in religious belief while simultaneously supported by a near detrimental lack of scientific understanding.

This is what I would consider to be my basic world view from the evolutionary standpoint. And I have long felt very comfortable holding and defending this position.

Now, in spite of mankind's apparent inability to think objectively, I have found myself considering the possibility that I am, at the very least, faulty in my interpretations and assumptions. I make no claim of being unbiased, for at any given moment I may be swayed in one direction more so than the other and in turn think, speak and act as if I have chosen to affiliate myself with whichever explanation and supporting group of individuals I prefer. And so, in order that I may continue my search for the truth as objectively as possible, and until I feel comfortable in "knowing" anything, I will attempt to maintain my current position on the fence so that I may see all sides with open eyes, and hear all with open ears.

P.S. I now totally buy the creation story. It's based on a lot of science, and I objectively believe it makes a lot of sense. Subjectively speaking, I think it makes the evolution theory look like a huge pile of shit. :/ Give it a try? God love's everyone, and my food tastes better now that I pray to it (I can tell because I always forget until I'm half way done with it! ).


Universe - Single spoken sentence (Uni: single, Verse: spoken sentence

In the beginning - Time: past, present and future
God created the heaven - Space: length, width and height
and the earth - Matter: solid, liquid and gas

A trinity of trinity's

And, of course, a lot of people know that on the first day, along with the universe, God created light. "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light". But not a lot of people know what God did on the second day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Yeah, I didn't follow any of that the first time I read it through. However, interestingly enough, this "firmament" is mentioned shortly after in verse 20 of Genesis 1, "...and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven". So the birds are flying in the dirt? Oh I see, "firmament of heaven". The same place we live. And this means there would have been a layer of ice or water around our atmosphere, which would have blocked out all the harmful and negative effects of the sun. Additionally the earth would have increased air pressure. And if this were the case, not only would everything be able to live for hundreds of years, but it would all grow to be approximately twice as big as it is now. It's the same effect you get from growing something in a hyperbaric chamber. Ever seen cherry tomatoes the size of your fist? I have. I've also heard there are football teams that use hyperbaric chambers because their injured players heal twice as fast. They dig up hunks of amber with air pockets and find 50% more oxygen in them. They dig up giant human skeletons, 12 feet tall, and I know someone won't believe me, and I implore you to doubt me! Please, research it and show me the photos I've seen are fakes. At least then you might look at them before disregarding my wild claims. This would explain dinosaurs...And dragons. You know, reptiles never do stop growing. Scientists who study the pterodactyl say that 50% more air pressure than we have today would be required for one of those guys to fly. All over the world in famous lakes, sightings are reported of creatures resembling the plesiosaur. I've seen pictures of dead ones washed up on the beach. Huge long neck, always described as smelling terrible. This is one of the most terrifying stories I have ever heard, right here.

5 boys were killed in pensacola harbor in 1962 1 drowned 3 were ate and 1 lived? - Yahoo! Answers

And then there's Mok'ele-Mbembe

Mokele-mbembe: The Living Dinosaur!
TrueAuthority.com - Cryptozoology - Mokele-mbembe

It's like, man, maybe there is something else going on here. I'd feel a fool to simply ignore it all. Like the flood account. In cultures all over the world there are stories of a great flood. And we dig up so many bones. In some places it's just tons and tons of old bones dug up out of these sedimentary layers, which until recently I have believed were millions of years old. And they're always bones of things we see alive today. Sure, there are a lot of hoaxes, which still carry weight for those less inclined to do any real research. If you believe we've dug up dinosaurs with feathers, you might be interested to know your belief is based on a cheap Chinese forgery. And yes, Evolution is very much so a belief. We don't observe any of it, you have to imagine it, long ago and far away. We never see one kind of animal produce another kind. A peppered moth changing colors is still a moth. That's a simple variation, no new genetic information has been added. A virus changing into a virus is still... yes, a virus. No new genetic information. Please, someone, anyone, give me an example of a beneficial mutation! Natural selection is not a driving force for evolution, natural selection, selects. And it can only select the existing genetic information it has to select from. This is why mutations almost always include an extra limb or appendage. Seriously! One single beneficial mutation, and you might be able to salvage this tattered theory for me. And it doesn't matter what you call it, theory, religion, it still requires the use of your imagination to believe it. Several months of avid study in this area have led me to the conclusion that my entire belief in evolution was strictly faith based. I had faith in the science, I had faith in the scientists and theories. Never before have I even been able to comprehend the lack of real science involved with the evolutionary theory. Seriously, do not take my word for it! Research this! So far every single person who I've gotten to look into this can at least agree, yeah, maybe the Bible isn't the answer, but it's definitely NOT evolution. And I'm fully aware what a frightening concept this is for many people. In order to accept creation as a possibility, you're forced to bring your entire being into question; how you live, are you an asshole? You know, the important things. Is there a creator, and does he actually have rules we just might should be following? I'm still up in the air on all that, and I'm still not sure I can trust any religion. Regardless, it's at least mildly terrifying, whether you'd like to admit it or not. Man, I was gonna talk about this flood. Okay...

So the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And this gets really out of hand, so God gets pissed, and decides he's gonna drown everybody. And remember, Earth has this super-cool layer of water or ice above the atmosphere protecting us from the sun and increasing the air pressure. So Noah, at the age of 600 or so, is commanded by God to build an Ark. Now, I don't know anyone with perfect genes. And I certainly don't know anyone who has lived to the age of 600. But considering the probability that Noah was no less than 12 feet tall, I have no problem believing that this guy built that ark. Just based on the conditions we are given. (Welcome to Wyatt Archaeological Research Inc) "ON June 20, 1987, the Turkish government officially dedicated "Noah's Ark National Park," after a Government commission verified the investigative work on the site by American, Ronald E Wyatt and independent work by Turkish scientists and archaeologists." A lot of people call this a hoax, however, in my objective search for the truth, I've managed to uncover nothing to conclusively support this claim. According to scripture the Ark settled, not as many people think on Mt. Ararat, but in the mountains of Ararat. Which is where this supposed Ark was found. On Doomsday Mountain in the "Valley of Eight" interestingly enough. Let's see, Noah had a wife, and his three sons each had a wife. Well, that's something to consider. I'm well aware that what I'm telling you requires equal use of the imagination, however this is at least potentially based on eyewitness testimony. Yeah, I know it's the bible. Tough. That doesn't discredit it, as much as I would have liked to disagree with that statement in the past, no individual thinking clearly and objectively can say that scripture doesn't count because it's scripture. You sure can't say it doesn't fit with the science. The Bible has no qualms with science, which to me has been an utterly mind blowing, and life changing realization. When people believed the earth was flat, the Bible was still teaching it was round. It's really incredible, the bible explains a lot more than most people would like to give it credit for. So anyway! "Its dimensions are close to those given in Genesis: 'The length of the ark shall be 300 cubits, the breadth of it 50 cubits, and the height of it 30 cubits,' that is, 450x75x45 feet. A quick two-day survey revealed no sign that the object was man made. Yet a scientist in the group says nothing in nature could create such a symmetrical shape." As earlier implied, you be the judge. If nothing else, I think it's worth considering. However, keep in mind, these measurements match up with that of a 12 foot tall Noah who would have had a much larger cubit than anyone today. Equal to that of the Royal Egyptian Cubit, if I correctly recollect. So anyway, Noah made this ark, and I'm just willing to bet he was smart enough to figure on bringing babies instead of full grown animals. He even added a moon pool (WWF: Ventilation) for increased air circulation, and a place to easily dispose of all that excrement. Additionally, massive dredge stones were found around the site, which would have been used to stabilize the Ark in rough weather conditions. So God's like, "C'mon Noah, get in the Ark with me" And Noah gets in the Ark, and as all the water above our atmosphere falls to earth, it begins to rain. And it rains for 40 days and 40 nights. We lose our oh so protective water canopy, and the atmospheric pressure plummets to half what it used to be. According to scripture, the flood lasted a little over a year. Not the rain, but the actual flood. So as the moon goes around the earth it pulls the tides with little to no resistance in a constant motion. This would more than likely cause an interesting phenomena known as hydro-logic sorting. If you take some dirt, put it in a jar, fill it up with water, shake it around, and set it down, you will notice that the water begins sorting the sediment by density. I do not believe it is any stretch of the imagination to consider the possibility that all theses layers of dirt found all over the planet are the result of hydro-logic sorting. This would explain all the petrified trees we find standing up, sometimes upside down, or even sideways through these supposed millions of years of dirt. I'm sorry, but trees don't stand up for millions of years waiting to get petrified. That's not observable science. Petrification is a very quick, observable process. Then I read about this whale they found in the vertical position standing up through dozens of rock layers. So now the whales are standing up for millions of years waiting to be petrified? Maaaaaaaaaan, I'd better take a closer look. And as it turns out, this is a common and observable phenomena, to get petrified trees in a number of positions through multiple rock layers. It happens whenever there's a volcano or a flood. Good grief, imagine that. It's almost as if some creationists are actually basing their belief on observable science. We observe the same thing, on a smaller scale, with regards to the Grand Canyon. I've wondered, in awe, throughout my entire life, just exactly how did the Grand Canyon get formed. As it turns out, this very same type of formation occurs often when there is a volcano, or a flood. Mini grand canyon, with sedimentary layers and everything. You take a geologist up there a week later, and he'll try to tell you those layers are millions of years old. Then they'd carbon date it five times and get five wildly different dates, but only use the one closest to how old they think it is. Yeah, that's science. The last thing this post needs is more filler, so I won't do it now, but happy will I be, when confronted, to address the problems associated with radiometric dating. All you really need to understand is that the earths atmosphere has not reached equilibrium, and thus, we are unable to get any sort of accurate measurement. Once again, please doubt me and do some research of your own. I know, it's time consuming, and there are so many other fun things you could be doing, but seriously, if you won't do it, then who will? I know how easy it is to simply trust what you're being told. Why, I would implore even the believers to doubt me. I have no way of knowing that all my information is 100% accurate, and neither does anyone. Why are we always against each other on this subject? Why is it a battle? I believe everyone stands to benefit from finding the truth, not to imply that I have the answer. But who's really looking? Many people's lives are too fast paced to even glance at the possibilities. In my experience, people will act one of two ways when confronted with the information which I reluctantly, and yet at the same time, very passionately, stand for. Either they will listen and ask questions. (Oh, how I appreciate the deference. It's really all I've ever wanted). Or they will immediately deny what I am saying and attack my arguments as if I have begun to threaten them somehow. I'm not pushy about this stuff, I just want people to listen and give it a chance. My mother won't even listen have to say, she's not even afraid to tell me she doesn't want to hear it. Finally, after weeks of debate I have gotten her to admit that her overall trust in evolutionary science is faith based. One small step... All of my friends, primarily consisting of NT were at first very reluctant to accept my proposal that we might should look into this bible thing. My interest was initially sparked by my cousin (an ENTP) who explained to me just what creationists actually think. And furthermore, the individual whom without which I may never have discovered and developed my spiritual side. And I didn't do anything about it for a long time, almost a year or so. But throughout that year, I kept seeing signs and indications I simply couldn't ignore. And of course, being an NT, I look at this all as rationally as I can. Coincidence, right? Has, to be. But if I'm really thinking objectively, then I have to consider the other possibility as well. Now if all my friends had rejected my proposal upon actually researching the topic, I may have felt a bit more inclined to begin searching in another direction. However, this is clearly not the case. They have only helped to confirm what I have uncovered, and reaffirm my beliefs. And, sadly, I don't expect to get through to anyone with this. I'm terribly disappointed in what this reply has degraded into. I'll post it up anyway, but mostly just for all the time I put into it. I'm not against anyone here. I take everyone seriously. Even if a person is wrong, they still believe they have good reason to believe what they do. It saddens me to see INTJ123 labeled as a troll when I've seen no evidence to support such a claim. It it because he is not being taken seriously that his arguments are filed in minds as invalid. I see more so power, rather than logic being used to thwart this so called pest. But I digress. I just want to know what's really going in this crazy universe. And yet, still, while many remain confident in knowing, I feel I have hardly begun to scratch the surface.

Yeah... And I'm being completely honest here... I wouldn't read all that either. :/

 

[Edgar]

Good point. Same as the old civil engineering joke - "How do you know God's a civil engineer? Only a civil engineer would put a pleasure center right next to a waste channel"

Next to?!? Synarch told me it's in the same location!

(ENTPs and their lies)

 

[The Decline]

As far as we know, there are no other endogenous ligands, and as such, while not affirming a causative relationship, strongly implies a correlative one.

Isn't science fun?

I can definitely agree with you on these points. Thanks for the discussion! It sure beat the hell out of the faux-scientific discussion that this thread was founded on.

Also @Rixonomic, HOLY FUCK WALL OF TEXT

tl;dr. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a secondary "persona" (aka second account) of our dear INTJ OP. Any mods want to help out and see if there's an IP address similarity?

 

[INTJ123]

Throughout my twenty some odd years of conscious existence, I have always considered the theory of evolution to be the most scientifically reasonable explanation for the origin of life on this planet. Countless times have I passionately defended my clear and concise understanding of the science which I have been taught. Simple, it would seem to me, to understand the flawed reasoning behind a persons faith...behind the faith of all humanity. We did, after all, evolve from a much more primitive being who, in awe of the planet and cosmos, would undoubtedly have created less than scientific explanations for the great mysteries of the observable universe. Of course, we are now technologically advanced enough to have explained away all the mythology, religion and misunderstanding that once plagued our ancient societies. It would seem, however, that the wildly absurd beliefs of a few misguided people continue to persevere in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence against them. I could rather confidently assume that this is primarily the result of an upbringing heavily saturated in religious belief while simultaneously supported by a near detrimental lack of scientific understanding.

This is what I would consider to be my basic world view from the evolutionary standpoint. And I have long felt very comfortable holding and defending this position.

Now, in spite of mankind's apparent inability to think objectively, I have found myself considering the possibility that I am, at the very least, faulty in my interpretations and assumptions. I make no claim of being unbiased, for at any given moment I may be swayed in one direction more so than the other and in turn think, speak and act as if I have chosen to affiliate myself with whichever explanation and supporting group of individuals I prefer. And so, in order that I may continue my search for the truth as objectively as possible, and until I feel comfortable in "knowing" anything, I will attempt to maintain my current position on the fence so that I may see all sides with open eyes, and hear all with open ears.

P.S. I now totally buy the creation story. It's based on a lot of science, and I objectively believe it makes a lot of sense. Subjectively speaking, I think it makes the evolution theory look like a huge pile of shit. :/ Give it a try? God love's everyone, and my food tastes better now that I pray to it (I can tell because I always forget until I'm half way done with it! ).


Universe - Single spoken sentence (Uni: single, Verse: spoken sentence

In the beginning - Time: past, present and future
God created the heaven - Space: length, width and height
and the earth - Matter: solid, liquid and gas

A trinity of trinity's

And, of course, a lot of people know that on the first day, along with the universe, God created light. "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light". But not a lot of people know what God did on the second day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Yeah, I didn't follow any of that the first time I read it through. However, interestingly enough, this "firmament" is mentioned shortly after in verse 20 of Genesis 1, "...and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven". So the birds are flying in the dirt? Oh I see, "firmament of heaven". The same place we live. And this means there would have been a layer of ice or water around our atmosphere, which would have blocked out all the harmful and negative effects of the sun. Additionally the earth would have increased air pressure. And if this were the case, not only would everything be able to live for hundreds of years, but it would all grow to be approximately twice as big as it is now. It's the same effect you get from growing something in a hyperbaric chamber. Ever seen cherry tomatoes the size of your fist? I have. I've also heard there are football teams that use hyperbaric chambers because their injured players heal twice as fast. They dig up hunks of amber with air pockets and find 50% more oxygen in them. They dig up giant human skeletons, 12 feet tall, and I know someone won't believe me, and I implore you to doubt me! Please, research it and show me the photos I've seen are fakes. At least then you might look at them before disregarding my wild claims. This would explain dinosaurs...And dragons. You know, reptiles never do stop growing. Scientists who study the pterodactyl say that 50% more air pressure than we have today would be required for one of those guys to fly. All over the world in famous lakes, sightings are reported of creatures resembling the plesiosaur. I've seen pictures of dead ones washed up on the beach. Huge long neck, always described as smelling terrible. This is one of the most terrifying stories I have ever heard, right here.

5 boys were killed in pensacola harbor in 1962 1 drowned 3 were ate and 1 lived? - Yahoo! Answers

And then there's Mok'ele-Mbembe

Mokele-mbembe: The Living Dinosaur!
TrueAuthority.com - Cryptozoology - Mokele-mbembe

It's like, man, maybe there is something else going on here. I'd feel a fool to simply ignore it all. Like the flood account. In cultures all over the world there are stories of a great flood. And we dig up so many bones. In some places it's just tons and tons of old bones dug up out of these sedimentary layers, which until recently I have believed were millions of years old. And they're always bones of things we see alive today. Sure, there are a lot of hoaxes, which still carry weight for those less inclined to do any real research. If you believe we've dug up dinosaurs with feathers, you might be interested to know your belief is based on a cheap Chinese forgery. And yes, Evolution is very much so a belief. We don't observe any of it, you have to imagine it, long ago and far away. We never see one kind of animal produce another kind. A peppered moth changing colors is still a moth. That's a simple variation, no new genetic information has been added. A virus changing into a virus is still... yes, a virus. No new genetic information. Please, someone, anyone, give me an example of a beneficial mutation! Natural selection is not a driving force for evolution, natural selection, selects. And it can only select the existing genetic information it has to select from. This is why mutations almost always include an extra limb or appendage. Seriously! One single beneficial mutation, and you might be able to salvage this tattered theory for me. And it doesn't matter what you call it, theory, religion, it still requires the use of your imagination to believe it. Several months of avid study in this area have led me to the conclusion that my entire belief in evolution was strictly faith based. I had faith in the science, I had faith in the scientists and theories. Never before have I even been able to comprehend the lack of real science involved with the evolutionary theory. Seriously, do not take my word for it! Research this! So far every single person who I've gotten to look into this can at least agree, yeah, maybe the Bible isn't the answer, but it's definitely NOT evolution. And I'm fully aware what a frightening concept this is for many people. In order to accept creation as a possibility, you're forced to bring your entire being into question; how you live, are you an asshole? You know, the important things. Is there a creator, and does he actually have rules we just might should be following? I'm still up in the air on all that, and I'm still not sure I can trust any religion. Regardless, it's at least mildly terrifying, whether you'd like to admit it or not. Man, I was gonna talk about this flood. Okay...

So the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And this gets really out of hand, so God gets pissed, and decides he's gonna drown everybody. And remember, Earth has this super-cool layer of water or ice above the atmosphere protecting us from the sun and increasing the air pressure. So Noah, at the age of 600 or so, is commanded by God to build an Ark. Now, I don't know anyone with perfect genes. And I certainly don't know anyone who has lived to the age of 600. But considering the probability that Noah was no less than 12 feet tall, I have no problem believing that this guy built that ark. Just based on the conditions we are given. (Welcome to Wyatt Archaeological Research Inc) "ON June 20, 1987, the Turkish government officially dedicated "Noah's Ark National Park," after a Government commission verified the investigative work on the site by American, Ronald E Wyatt and independent work by Turkish scientists and archaeologists." A lot of people call this a hoax, however, in my objective search for the truth, I've managed to uncover nothing to conclusively support this claim. According to scripture the Ark settled, not as many people think on Mt. Ararat, but in the mountains of Ararat. Which is where this supposed Ark was found. On Doomsday Mountain in the "Valley of Eight" interestingly enough. Let's see, Noah had a wife, and his three sons each had a wife. Well, that's something to consider. I'm well aware that what I'm telling you requires equal use of the imagination, however this is at least potentially based on eyewitness testimony. Yeah, I know it's the bible. Tough. That doesn't discredit it, as much as I would have liked to disagree with that statement in the past, no individual thinking clearly and objectively can say that scripture doesn't count because it's scripture. You sure can't say it doesn't fit with the science. The Bible has no qualms with science, which to me has been an utterly mind blowing, and life changing realization. When people believed the earth was flat, the Bible was still teaching it was round. It's really incredible, the bible explains a lot more than most people would like to give it credit for. So anyway! "Its dimensions are close to those given in Genesis: 'The length of the ark shall be 300 cubits, the breadth of it 50 cubits, and the height of it 30 cubits,' that is, 450x75x45 feet. A quick two-day survey revealed no sign that the object was man made. Yet a scientist in the group says nothing in nature could create such a symmetrical shape." As earlier implied, you be the judge. If nothing else, I think it's worth considering. However, keep in mind, these measurements match up with that of a 12 foot tall Noah who would have had a much larger cubit than anyone today. Equal to that of the Royal Egyptian Cubit, if I correctly recollect. So anyway, Noah made this ark, and I'm just willing to bet he was smart enough to figure on bringing babies instead of full grown animals. He even added a moon pool (WWF: Ventilation) for increased air circulation, and a place to easily dispose of all that excrement. Additionally, massive dredge stones were found around the site, which would have been used to stabilize the Ark in rough weather conditions. So God's like, "C'mon Noah, get in the Ark with me" And Noah gets in the Ark, and as all the water above our atmosphere falls to earth, it begins to rain. And it rains for 40 days and 40 nights. We lose our oh so protective water canopy, and the atmospheric pressure plummets to half what it used to be. According to scripture, the flood lasted a little over a year. Not the rain, but the actual flood. So as the moon goes around the earth it pulls the tides with little to no resistance in a constant motion. This would more than likely cause an interesting phenomena known as hydro-logic sorting. If you take some dirt, put it in a jar, fill it up with water, shake it around, and set it down, you will notice that the water begins sorting the sediment by density. I do not believe it is any stretch of the imagination to consider the possibility that all theses layers of dirt found all over the planet are the result of hydro-logic sorting. This would explain all the petrified trees we find standing up, sometimes upside down, or even sideways through these supposed millions of years of dirt. I'm sorry, but trees don't stand up for millions of years waiting to get petrified. That's not observable science. Petrification is a very quick, observable process. Then I read about this whale they found in the vertical position standing up through dozens of rock layers. So now the whales are standing up for millions of years waiting to be petrified? Maaaaaaaaaan, I'd better take a closer look. And as it turns out, this is a common and observable phenomena, to get petrified trees in a number of positions through multiple rock layers. It happens whenever there's a volcano or a flood. Good grief, imagine that. It's almost as if some creationists are actually basing their belief on observable science. We observe the same thing, on a smaller scale, with regards to the Grand Canyon. I've wondered, in awe, throughout my entire life, just exactly how did the Grand Canyon get formed. As it turns out, this very same type of formation occurs often when there is a volcano, or a flood. Mini grand canyon, with sedimentary layers and everything. You take a geologist up there a week later, and he'll try to tell you those layers are millions of years old. Then they'd carbon date it five times and get five wildly different dates, but only use the one closest to how old they think it is. Yeah, that's science. The last thing this post needs is more filler, so I won't do it now, but happy will I be, when confronted, to address the problems associated with radiometric dating. All you really need to understand is that the earths atmosphere has not reached equilibrium, and thus, we are unable to get any sort of accurate measurement. Once again, please doubt me and do some research of your own. I know, it's time consuming, and there are so many other fun things you could be doing, but seriously, if you won't do it, then who will? I know how easy it is to simply trust what you're being told. Why, I would implore even the believers to doubt me. I have no way of knowing that all my information is 100% accurate, and neither does anyone. Why are we always against each other on this subject? Why is it a battle? I believe everyone stands to benefit from finding the truth, not to imply that I have the answer. But who's really looking? Many people's lives are too fast paced to even glance at the possibilities. In my experience, people will act one of two ways when confronted with the information which I reluctantly, and yet at the same time, very passionately, stand for. Either they will listen and ask questions. (Oh, how I appreciate the deference. It's really all I've ever wanted). Or they will immediately deny what I am saying and attack my arguments as if I have begun to threaten them somehow. I'm not pushy about this stuff, I just want people to listen and give it a chance. My mother won't even listen have to say, she's not even afraid to tell me she doesn't want to hear it. Finally, after weeks of debate I have gotten her to admit that her overall trust in evolutionary science is faith based. One small step... All of my friends, primarily consisting of NT were at first very reluctant to accept my proposal that we might should look into this bible thing. My interest was initially sparked by my cousin (an ENTP) who explained to me just what creationists actually think. And furthermore, the individual whom without which I may never have discovered and developed my spiritual side. And I didn't do anything about it for a long time, almost a year or so. But throughout that year, I kept seeing signs and indications I simply couldn't ignore. And of course, being an NT, I look at this all as rationally as I can. Coincidence, right? Has, to be. But if I'm really thinking objectively, then I have to consider the other possibility as well. Now if all my friends had rejected my proposal upon actually researching the topic, I may have felt a bit more inclined to begin searching in another direction. However, this is clearly not the case. They have only helped to confirm what I have uncovered, and reaffirm my beliefs. And, sadly, I don't expect to get through to anyone with this. I'm terribly disappointed in what this reply has degraded into. I'll post it up anyway, but mostly just for all the time I put into it. I'm not against anyone here. I take everyone seriously. Even if a person is wrong, they still believe they have good reason to believe what they do. It saddens me to see INTJ123 labeled as a troll when I've seen no evidence to support such a claim. It it because he is not being taken seriously that his arguments are filed in minds as invalid. I see more so power, rather than logic being used to thwart this so called pest. But I digress. I just want to know what's really going in this crazy universe. And yet, still, while many remain confident in knowing, I feel I have hardly begun to scratch the surface.

Yeah... And I'm being completely honest here... I wouldn't read all that either. :/

Wow you certainly know alot more about the bible than me, to be honest I have little experience with it, but every once in a while I pick it up and read a little. To keep this short, I think you really do see it from a similar perspective as me, and thank you for your informative and enlightening reply. I definitely learned something new by reading your post.


I could care less if someone believes in the bible or believes in evolution(as long as it's a belief and they know it). But as you can see, people were deluding themselves into thinking a theory was a fact.

 

[INTJ123]

I can definitely agree with you on these points. Thanks for the discussion! It sure beat the hell out of the faux-scientific discussion that this thread was founded on.

Also @Rixonomic, HOLY FUCK WALL OF TEXT

tl;dr. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a secondary "persona" (aka second account) of our dear INTJ OP. Any mods want to help out and see if there's an IP address similarity?

yea please some moderator go ahead and check the IP, then post your findings on here to show how paranoid and retarded these trolls are.

 

[INTJ123]

Ive been gone for a day, I came back to check on this thread. Aparently hes not only kept this going without ever really giving a debate and hes gotten people into a RAGEEEEE about religion. Bravo INTJ123 your Te trolling skills arevery good. To all the people who continue to debate with him you should know that your not talking to a legitimate representation of his supposed point of view, your not going to learn anything, your not going to convince anyone of anything. Everything he says has been carfully crafted to pisss people off.

I am staying mute on this topic. However I must say, good show, your trolling is strong and with a distinct Te style to it. But a word of wisdom, watch your ass, my Ne trolling will DESTROY your feeble Te!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't respect a man who doesn't follow his word, so shut the fuck up.

Edit: my mistake, you arn't a man, you're a little wittle boy.

 

[The Decline]

I don't respect a man who doesn't follow his word, so shut the fuck up.

Edit: my mistake, you arn't a man, you're a little wittle boy.

Ad hominem attacks are always the way to win people over to your beliefs. :rolli:

The funny thing is that everyone thinks that OP is trolling, when in reality his methods of broadcasting his beliefs (which are also a wonder) simply seem like trolling.