"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

liamw

J C wrote: »

It does seem that God Created Humans knowing that many would end up in Hell ... but also knowing that many would end up in Heaven!!!

... such is free-will ... and such is life!!!

Is it some sort of sick game for god? But it's a pretty boring game if he already knows who is going to hell and who isn't...

J C

koth wrote: »

that means the numbers are pre-determined if he knows them already.

They are pre-determined from God's perspective ... but not from people's perspective ... otherwise the Lotto would go out of business.:)

Delirium

actually they're pre-determined for everyone, it's just that god is the only one that knows the numbers.

J C

liamw wrote: »

Is it some sort of sick game for god? But it's a pretty boring game if he already knows who is going to hell and who isn't...

It is a very sad situation for God ... it breaks His heart when people reject Him and throw in their lot with Satan.
... but it delights Him when sinners repent and believe on Him to Save them!!!

Salvation is a win:win for God and Man ... and the rejection of Salvation is a lose:lose situation for everyone!!!:)

equivariant

J C wrote: »

God is the Creator of the Universe ... and we all owe our lives to Him.

What an utterly nihilisitic worldview. Fortunately there is no evidence for this other than the book of fairy stories commonly known as the bible

He does giveth ... and He does taketh away.
We all ultimately die ... and God allows this.

Why do people feel the need for ye olde English when talking about god. What;s wrong with plain old 'He gives' instead of "He does giveth". Does it maketh it soundeth more importante this way? Anyway, what is the point of this waffle? So we all eventually die. I don't need some poorly transcribed 2000 year old ramblings to know this.

God stated that Creation had become so corrupt that He decided to wipe nearly all of it out in the Flood.

Charming fellow this god. He sounds much like an incompetent IT support person - you know the idea 'something is not working, so lets just reboot the whole system and see if that fixes it'. Seems pretty amazing that out of the millions of people supposedly alive at the time, exactly 2 were worthy of being spared. It all sounds sounds like a badly composed morality tale that some joker made up to entertain his kids. It couldn't be that could it?

I don't understand why this was the case ... I only know that it was, because he said so.

This may be the first time you have ever admitted ignorance on any topic. Well done.

In my pro-life worldview, I certainly don't believe that anyone should murder their children ... or anybody elses!!!!

'cept good old filicidal god, of course.

... so your hypocritical fear for my children is completely mis-placed!!!:(

I don't think so. I doubt that you have any murderous tendencies, but that is not what I meant. I imagine that it could be quite frightening for a child to be told that it is OK for an all powerful being to murder his own offspring.

liamw

J C wrote: »

It is a very sad situation for God ... it breaks His heart when people reject Him and throw in their lot with Satan.
... but it delights Him when sinners repent and believe on Him to Save them!!!

Salvation is a win:win for God and Man ... and the rejection of Salvation is a lose:lose situation for everyone!!!:)

It breaks his heart? How does it break his heart when he created those very people who reject him and knew that they would reject him.. that makes no sense JC!

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

It is entirely probable that people will produce a net average 2 children each when they are trying to 'go forth and multiply' ... like I have said a woman is capable of producing 20 children if she produces one child every 18 months

Birth rate is irrelevant. Survival to reproduction is the only statistic that matters (the one that produces growth rate) and what you are supposing (when someone else corrects the maths for you of course) has never been found in the history of human. Which is why there wasn't billions of people in the time of Jesus.

You also still don't get that if a person has 2 children then they DO NOT INCREASE THE POPULATION SIZE FROM THE PARENTS GENERATION.

But then you don't really believe any of the stuff you are spouting either, do you

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

... because the 'Egyptian artifacts' were produced by post-flood Egyptians.

So the the writers of Egyptian history wanted to eradicate the flood from history, as did all the nations except one.

Did Shem not tell his children about it? And did they not tell theirs?

(How did animals that can't fly get to Australia?)

So, the Sumerians must also be a work of fiction too, huh?

No Egyptians, no Sumerians, etc. but Canaan had been under Egyptian hegemony for a couple of centuries before the Hebrews arrived there.

That means that about 150 years after the flood, one of Noah's great-great-great-grandchildren began to become the Egyptian nation. 150 years after that, Egypt had become an empire which had conquered many other nation including the land of Canaan.

That is 150 years for one man to become the entire population of Egypt such that its kingdom dominated the then known world.

Remember, according to the Bible figures, 130 years after creation there were four people living only one of whom was a female and one of whom was a baby boy.

It must have happened some other way dude. Your way just doesn't work.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

Human free will ... and God's omniscience aren't mutually incompatible ...
... God knows exactly how we will use our free will ... and we have the freedom to freely accept or reject Him ... but He knows what we will actually do!!

So we are 'set' by God to suck or blow?

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

Of course God can know things that aren't pre-determined ... for example, He knows the numbers of next week's Lottery ... but that doesn't mean that He pre-determines them ... even though He could, if He wanted to!!!:)

God know things that are unknowable?

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

Does hearing the truth always have this dramatic effect on you???

Yes everytime you come out with a vicious attack on evolution I'm just
driven to the bottle to drink my sadness away at being outed for my
ever-present evolutionisisisisissisisisisisisisisisimist ways Your rock-solid
Aristotelian logic has such a chilling effect on my cold evolutionisisisimist
soul that I just can't face such white purity with my dark, dank, black cold
evolutionisisimist - fire honest creationist teachers - soul that I have to
hit the bottle hard. This time I was driven to some frosties flavoured
alcohol because all the rest just wasn't cutting it, your logic is just too
powerful. The iron-clad technique of ignoring all opposing arguments &
just discarding invalidated arguments is impenetrable, it makes me wonder
about all the lies propagated by evolutionisisisimists - I mean if they are
changing their arguments according to evidence it means they must be
wrong about everything right?

J C wrote: »

Please calm down ... you're becoming hysterical !!!

Thank you for your kind remarks, I'll try to remain in my seat.

J C wrote: »

... does it have anything to do with the fact that the 'penny is finally dropping' ... and you are beginning to realise that 'Pondkind to Mankind' is one big fat lie itself ... or do you just believe it to be specious nonesense, instead???!!!

You might be right, I think you should follow this chain of thought up for
4 months ignoring all counter arguments because you've just got to be
right, right?

sponsoredwalk

In other news, post 4000 is going to turn up on page 100 :eek: It just follows
that evolution is false because a self-permutating chain permutating posts
with evidence against evolution just couldn't land with evidence against
evolution on post 4000 also could it?

When a tree falls in the woods and no one is around does....

himnextdoor

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

In other news, post 4000 is going to turn up on page 100 :eek: It just follows
that evolution is false because a self-permutating chain permutating posts
with evidence against evolution just couldn't land with evidence against
evolution on post 4000 also could it?

When a tree falls in the woods and no one is around does....

Aw! Can't it go to 5000? I need to know more. I'm learning sooooooooooo much.:cool:

sponsoredwalk

Wicknight wrote: »

Birth rate is irrelevant. Survival to reproduction is the only statistic that matters (the one that produces growth rate) and what you are supposing (when someone else corrects the maths for you of course) has never been found in the history of human. Which is why there wasn't billions of people in the time of Jesus.

You also still don't get that if a person has 2 children then they DO NOT INCREASE THE POPULATION SIZE FROM THE PARENTS GENERATION.

But then you don't really believe any of the stuff you are spouting either, do you

Nah Wick the thing about JC's nonsense here is that he said that if every
person, every person, had two children on average then it would work.
You have to think about it in a certain way for it to make sense, I think
it's confusing at first alright. If person X has two children then that's
fine, but JC's axiom - I think it should be called the axiom of complete
bullsiht - states that every person must have two kids so if you think
about it the significant other of person X, lets call him/her/it ♥ for brevity,
must also have two kids. So you get a doubling population. Furthermore
the axiom of bullsiht included the possibility that 20 kids could be born
& 18 die for all we know, all we need is at least 2. Finally, the nail in this
rock-solid piece of logic is that 8 people were on the original magic wooden
submarine so that there was the possibility of each ♥ having two kids as
there were enough fantasy people there to (possibly incestually) kickstart
all of life.

Still, the whole thing is complete and utter nonsense, you have to ignore
a hell of a lot of common sense to think this is a coherent chain of logic in
the real world - & you simply have to be completely & utterly stupid to
think that this was enough to repopulate the entire world in all of the
geographically dispirate places they existed (for example). Of course
I could be wrong, I mean this magic wooden submarine may have, for all
I know, dropped Gorrilla's off in desolate parts of Africa, or Kangaroo's off
in Australia at some point. I haven't checked my bible thoroughly enough
to find the passages that inform me of these events unfortunately

sponsoredwalk

himnextdoor wrote: »

Aw! Can't it go to 5000? I need to know more. I'm learning sooooooooooo much.:cool:

Don't worry my son, time enough to be edumacated to post 5000 yet! :cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95qwoNX5C7Q

Btw, I have to give it to Hovind here, he said some fantastic things in his
first lecture. I didn't watch it all yet but he spoke of the sandwich principle
in his first lecture - sandwiching a negative statement in between two
positive statements - & it really is genius. Such an instructive way to
teach people. Also he is very astute as regards capturing the attention of
a crowd, i.e. telling jokes or making witty statements to capture the
attention. Highly recommended in that regard - I haven't gotten to any of
the bat-siht crazy creationism yet Still, I can see why he is able to
deceive people as he is a particularly good public speaker.

housetypeb

J C wrote: »

It's His Creation ... so He can (and did) destroy it ...

Based on that,it's obvious that god is in favour of abortion.

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

Based on that,it's obvious that god is in favour of abortion.

Abortion and murder are things that Humans do to each other ... and as we have not created each other we therefore don't have the authority to deliberately kill each other, except in self-defence!!!

God, on the other hand is the sovereign creator of all life ... and He is the ultimate source of justice (including the penalty of death) in the Universe.

He is also the ultimate source of mercy for all who repent and believe on Him to Save them.:)

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Don't worry my son, time enough to be edumacated to post 5000 yet! :cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlem1R-lUF0

equivariant

J C wrote: »

... and as we have not created each other we therefore don't have the authority to deliberately kill each other, except in self-defence!!!

God, on the other hand is the sovereign creator of all life ... and He is the ultimate source of justice (including the penalty of death) in the Universe.

Of course we create each other - it's called human reproduction, stupid:D. You can't have it both ways. Either we have free will, in which case reproduction is an act of creation by humans, or we don't have free will, in which case god is responsible for everything, including all the bad stuff (at least if you believe that god exists).

So, following your own logic to its conclusion, if we do have free will then we create life through reproduction. In that case, according to your abhorrent philosophy, we should have the same authority to kill and murder our offspring as you claim that god has. If we don't have free will then it must be god who is responsible for all the killing, murder and general bad stuff that happens.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

He is also the ultimate source of mercy for all who repent and believe on Him to Save them.:)

The thing is though that this comes from someone who claims that the Egyptian empire was built from scratch in only 150 years or so.

One message discredits the other.

Zombrex

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Nah Wick the thing about JC's nonsense here is that he said that if every
person, every person, had two children on average then it would work.
You have to think about it in a certain way for it to make sense, I think
it's confusing at first alright. If person X has two children then that's
fine, but JC's axiom - I think it should be called the axiom of complete
bullsiht - states that every person must have two kids so if you think
about it the significant other of person X, lets call him/her/it ♥ for brevity,
must also have two kids.

The problem with that is that it assume one person of the parent generation can't share a child.

Which of course is nonsense, you have to have shared child because it takes two people to have a child.

What JC actually means is that there are 2 children for every 1 parent. But that by definition means that each person has to have 4 children, because 2 parents will share one count on their "children".

Just more evidence (if more was needed) that JC doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, and clearly doesn't have a college level education in this stuff as he has falsely claimed many times. But then he is a troll pretending to be a Christian, so that is hardly surprising.

sponsoredwalk

Nothing like reading your own drunken posts complementing people
like Kent Hovind

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem with that is that it assume one person of the parent generation can't share a child.

Which of course is nonsense, you have to have shared child because it takes two people to have a child.

What JC actually means is that there are 2 children for every 1 parent. But that by definition means that each person has to have 4 children, because 2 parents will share one count on their "children".

Just more evidence (if more was needed) that JC doesn't have a clue what he is talking about, and clearly doesn't have a college level education in this stuff as he has falsely claimed many times. But then he is a troll pretending to be a Christian, so that is hardly surprising.

The whole conversation is nonsense, it's like a post I seen in the physics
room a while ago about getting free energy. Yes, you could get free
energy according to the set up of what was proposed, but you'd have to
break the laws of physics to do so. If we break the rules then what
is being said is plausible. It's the same with this trash-argument about
Noah & his mystery boat, if we abandon all forms of sense & reason then
yes they (possibly partially incestually) repopulated the world.

But I'm just saying that since JC said they could have 20 kids in their
lifetime, which is technically true & not unknown, all you need is to
average out two kids per person & it holds. You're right though, the
whole concept is nonsense & a hilarious aspect of JC's argument is
that he must accept polygamy or at least extra-marital relations (i.e.
children from two marriages at least) for his concept to hold

I really like that, that he would rather the human species to be built
up from a bunch of cheating whores & dinosaur killing pimps (as christians
would see such people, not me!) rather than accept the evidence for evolution.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

The problem with that is that it assume one person of the parent generation can't share a child.

Which of course is nonsense, you have to have shared child because it takes two people to have a child.

What JC actually means is that there are 2 children for every 1 parent. But that by definition means that each person has to have 4 children, because 2 parents will share one count on their "children".

Which part of an average of a net 2 children per person ... i.e. 4 surviving children per couple ... do you not understand???

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

Which part of an average of a net 2 children per person ... i.e. 4 surviving children per couple ... do you not understand???

LOL!
2 kids just pop out of daddy's arse too?

liamw

J C wrote: »

Which part of an average of a net 2 children per person ... i.e. 4 surviving children per couple ... do you not understand???

I thought you would have believed the stork delivery method anyway... I guess you would if it was in the bible

J C

equivariant wrote: »

Of course we create each other - it's called human reproduction, stupid:D. You can't have it both ways. Either we have free will, in which case reproduction is an act of creation by humans, or we don't have free will, in which case god is responsible for everything, including all the bad stuff (at least if you believe that god exists).

So, following your own logic to its conclusion, if we do have free will then we create life through reproduction. In that case, according to your abhorrent philosophy, we should have the same authority to kill and murder our offspring as you claim that god has. If we don't have free will then it must be god who is responsible for all the killing, murder and general bad stuff that happens.

You are confusing creation and reproduction. A photocopier can mindlessly reproduce a page of writing ... but the mind of an author is required to create the writing in the first place.
The author owns the writing and can do as s/he pleases with their own writing ... while the photocopier ... and anybody using the photocopier have no legal right to the copyright ownership of the text.
Equally, we can reproduce ourselves ... but it was God who created Mankind in the first place.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

LOL!
2 kids just pop out of daddy's arse too?

liamw wrote: »

I thought you would have believed the stork delivery method anyway... I guess you would if it was in the bible

The evolutionists on this thread seems to be just as mixed-up about Human reproduction ... as they are about Human 'origins'!!!

... anyway boys and girls ... when a man and a woman love each other very very much ...

:):eek:

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

... anyway boys and girls ... when a man and a woman love each other very very much ...

:):eek:

Or when a man loves a few women & those women each love a few men
according to your version of history

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Or when a man loves a few women & those women each love a few men
according to your version of history

That too !!!:)

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

Which part of an average of a net 2 children per person ... i.e. 4 surviving children per couple ... do you not understand???

But that isn't a workable model because it is the women who produce children. The number of men is almost academic.

If there is one man and one woman then the population growth-rate through them will be same as if there were ninety-nine men and one woman; ninety-eight of the men are redundant and not reproducing.

No?

And your population formula equates to P=2(2^n)-1 where 'P' is population a 'n' is number of generations. We have to double 2^n and subtract 1 to account for the fact that no-one dies.