The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

def

Do not judge ,or you to will be judged Matt 7:1

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves .matt 7:15

But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down , the streams rose and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash. matt 7:26

When the Pharisees saw this , they asked his disciples,"Why does your teacher eat with tax collecters and sinners?" On hearing this Jesus said "It is not the healthy who need a doctor but the sick". But go and learn what this means: I desire mercy not sacrifice. For i have not come to call the righteous ,but the sinners .matt 9:11

This is why i speak to them in parables : "Though seeing ,they do not see ; though hearing they do not hear or understand. In them is fufilled the prophecy of Isaiah ...." matt 13:13

Jesus called the crowed to him and said, "listen and understand.What goes into a mans mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean " matt15:10

Beware of the teachers of law .They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the market places and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets .They devour widows houses and for a show make lengthy prayers .Such men will be punished most severely. luke 20:46

God makes the Earth yield healing herbs, which the prudent man should not neglect. Sirach:38:4

In later times, some shall...speak lies in hypocrisy...commanding to abstain from that which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. Paul: 1 Tim. 4:1

The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. genisis1:12

Now with all that said , in my opinion ,what I understand from the bible is that living your life with love ,comprimise and forgivness is what Christ was trying to get across.

There is a very obvious contradiction in the "teachings" of most churches,
they encourage the mistreatment of there fellow man ,children of god for among other things consuming cannabis .

Cannabis is pretty well researched now at this stage, from what i can see there is two options as to why it is, how it is :
1.It was created by god to meet mans needs ,cloths/sails/tents,oils/lamp feul/deisel,food,concrete/press board, rope/nets,plastics,paper and of course smoking and healing/help deal with pains of the mind,body and soul.

It could easily be the tree of life ,healing of the nations ,if only people would listen.

or 2.Man has evolved to live in a symbiotic relationship with the plant , in theory this plant could be responsible for civilisation as we know it , think for a moment , where and why do we belive civilisation first occured ,as in towns and citys? The middle east ,because of farming.

What do you think was the first plant cultivated?Cannabis is an option grown for at least 10,000 years ,it was in the neighbourhood at the time. Its very easy to grow (a weed). Its consumption (smoking) creates social units and promotes peace and so on and you must settle to farm.

But the most interesting part about cannabis is the way it effects the mind. It is not an intoxicant , the plant itself is completely non-toxic to human kind .We ,all humans, have Cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2) in the mind and body ,these require very specific molecules to allow an "attachment" ,like finding a key on the floor of a pub in town ,and while walking home you try it in any given door of any house and it just happens to fit and open the door.

How or why would this plant cannabis evolve to produce 200 or more cannabinoids ?Which serve no desernable use to the plant ,Only to the human who uses it to relax /meditate ,or remove a mole or wart or to treat pains etc .

It seems that SMOKING cannabis doesnt cause lung cancer .Maybe it even prevents lung,throat and mouth cancer .

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

The holy anointing oil is apparently supposed to contain cannabis ,lots of cannabis ,

heres are a few links for consideration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sula_Benet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(etymology)

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj018.htm

http://mrlunk.blogspot.com/2009/03/marijuana-bible.html

oh ,you should do a bit of reading up on the first pope to declare cannabis the stuff of heathens ,pope Innocent VIII , he was scummy to the core from what i can make out, innocent......what a name.

Personally I think that cannabis is more or less proof of "divine" orchestration , and that man kind can be very foolish and do evil works .

As for evolution ,theres nothing unwholesome about trying to figure out how and why were here .

So long as you dont worship the golden cow treat your fellow man with respect , love your work ,family and enemys and give thanks for being here you'll be alright , better to be a loving peacefull heathen than a vicious man with a collar ,

Fanny Cradock

ISAW wrote: »

You appealed to the mods??? You lodged a complaint then!
Well of the mods didn't deal with it then they probably viewed it as frivolous. But as I have stated i don't respect mods much on boards for their jobs . I feel many are biased.

And you aren't biased? Keep you quibbles to the help desk.

Fanny Cradock

def wrote: »

Now with all that said , in my opinion ,what I understand from the bible is that living your life with love ,comprimise and forgivness is what Christ was trying to get across.

There is a very obvious contradiction in the "teachings" of most churches,
they encourage the mistreatment of there fellow man ,children of god for among other things consuming cannabis .

Cannabis is pretty well researched now at this stage, from what i can see there is two opitions as to why it is how it is :
1.It was created by god to meet mans needs ,cloths/sails/tents,oils/lamp feul/deisel,food,concrete/press board, rope/nets,plastics,paper and of course smoking and healing/help deal with pains of the mind,body and soul.

It could easily be the tree of life ,healing of the nations ,if only people would listen.

or 2.Man has evolved to live in a symbiotic relationship with the plant , in theory this plant could be responsible for civilisation as we know it , think for a moment , where and why do we belive civilisation first occured as in towns and citys? The middle east ,because of farming.

What do you think was the first plant cultivated?Cannabis is an option grown for at least 10,000 years ,it was in the neighbourhood at the time. Its very easy to grow (a weed). Its consumption (smoking) creates social units and promotes peace and so on and you must settle to farm.

But the most interesting part about cannabis is the way it effects the mind. It is not an intoxicant , the plant itself is completely non-toxic to human kind .We ,all humans, have Cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2) in the mind and body ,these require very specific molecules to allow an "attachment" ,like finding a key on the floor of a pub in town ,and while walking home you try it in any given door of any house and it just happens to fit and open the door.

How or why would this plant cannabis evolve to produce 200 or more cannabinoids ?Which serve no desernable use to the plant ,Only to the human who uses it to relax /meditate ,or remove a mole or wart or to treat pains etc .

It seems that SMOKING cannabis doesnt cause lung cancer .Maybe it even prevents lung,throat and mouth cancer .

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

The holy anointing oil is apparently supposed to contain cannabis ,lots of cannabis ,

heres are a few links for consideration

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sula_Benet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(etymology)

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj018.htm

http://mrlunk.blogspot.com/2009/03/marijuana-bible.html

oh ,you should do a bit of reading up on the first pope to declare cannabis stuff of heathens ,pope innocent VII , he was scummy to the core from what i can make out, innocent......what a name.

Personally I think that cannabis is more or less proof of "divine" orchestration , and that man kind can be very foolish and do evil works .

Is this in response to someone?

Genghiz Cohen

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is this in response to someone?

Could be OT, been a while since I saw one of those....

def

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is this in response to someone?

Nope ,I just thought id throw in my two cents , some creationism and prophecy ,

Its an interesting conundrum for most hardcore christians ,god creates cannabis ,church frowns on it ,its apparently in the bible but no-one likes to talk about it ,often becoming anti-semetic in defense against the notion(Sula Benet and the hebrew university).

Up until the begining of the last century it was used for more or less everything but was replaced by petroelium based products solely for profit driven reasons then its deamonised the world over by polititions looking for easy brownie points.

In later times, some shall...speak lies in hypocrisy...commanding to abstain from that which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. Paul: 1 Tim. 4:1

One could assume this is a prophecy about cannabis , the potential tree of life

Most if not all studies done to "prove" the dangers of cannabis do the oppisite .Tabacco science and half truths are the cited reasons for its prohibition , lies ,,, prohibition is carried out supposedly to prevent mass immorality and disorder but instead it causes this just like alcohol prohibition did ...

such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. tim 1 ,4:2

Not a drop of love for their fellow man,or a shred of respect.

When a peer reviewed study comes along and shows cannabis is safer than peanuts or its oils have been used to cure brain tumers etc, the information is discarded infavour of some tripe , for example in trinity collage a study was done maybe two or three years back scanning the brains of heavy cannabis users while they performed various tasks , the tasks involed short term memory ,reasoning and hand eye coordination if the subject did well they were given an extra few euro if they did poorly they lost a few euro (participants began with ten euro vouchers).
The reviews of the study mention none of this ,they only stated that the fronal lobe was slightly smaller in heavy cannabis users who smoked heavily since a young age. Leaving out that the size of a brain has nothing to to with intelligence, women have smaller brains than men and yet there is no matching decrease in intelligence. A typical manipulation of information.

Ronald Reagan orginised a study where several monkeys were sufficated with cannabis smoke for several minutes every day until they suffered horrific brain damage.Yes cannabis smoke caused the damage but only because it was used to deprive oxygen ,if they had pumped smoke from oak leaves into the gas masks then they would have "proved" smoking oak leaves causes brain damage .Smoking cannabis does not kill brain cells. It was a long time before the methodoligy of they study was released.

And the relationship between man and the herb sujests that if god ever created anything in the natural world to help man kind this is it. The dead give away is the cannabinoid receptors in humans which undeniably link man and this plant and its a tricky one to explain with evolution. Whats the probability that this plant could produce not one but hundreds of almost perfect replicas of molecules found in the human brain? Its not very likely.
And whats more amazing is that they seem to serve no other purpose but to heal and get you "high".
And then the non drug uses of the plant! The kernels (proper discription of the seed) contains omega 3 and 6 fatty acids!! It satisfies hunger very well one small bread roll with some chesse and you'll work for hours,its like eating fish without the mercury , very good for brain development!
On top of that cloths ,deisel ,plastic ,the best paper and rope! concrete(just add lime) etc the list goes on at least twelve fruits.

If there was ever proof of a loving creater /orchestrater cannabis is it , truely a plant of renoun.

Can anyone else see this conection or am I just a nut with a bible and too much google time?

def

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Could be OT, been a while since I saw one of those....

Sorry but whats OT ?origional thought?

equivariant

def wrote: »

Sorry but whats OT ?origional thought?

Not on this thread, for sure

Zombrex

def wrote: »

Sorry but whats OT ?origional thought?

original topic or on topic

darjeeling

def wrote: »

Sorry but whats OT ?origional thought?

Old Testament: the early books of the Bible, in which people get righteously stoned.

Turtwig

Given cannabis's prophetic properties are we to assume that this part of the discussion is the eagerly anticipated (and long over due) Prophecy discussion?

def

Malty_T wrote: »

Given cannabis's prophetic properties are we to assume that this part of the discussion is the eagerly anticipated (and long over due) Prophecy discussion?

We sure can , Paul said some interesting things that can be related quite fittingly to cannabis prohibition

We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels ....for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine .1 tim 1:8,9,10

Now I feel its safe to say there is a lot of prejudice and lies involved in the prohibition of cannabis and to purport taking aways someones liberty or the fruits of their labour ,when they have harmed no other ,indeed not even themselves ,would this go against the teachings of the good doctrine?

An eye for an eye ,a tooth for a tooth .How can holding some plant matter be punished with loss of liberty or a fine and be considered proportionate or fair ?

Paul goes on to talk about good leadership in 1 tim 3- Overseers and deacons
-overseers...respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
-deacons ...worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not persuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with clear conscience.

If this were to be applied to Pope Innocent VIII would Paul consider him a suited absolute overseer of the faith?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_VIII

This man is where the persecution of cannabis users began, he blamed cannabis using heathens and witches for the mini ice age. If you "ratted out" a heathen ,you got a third of their property ,as did the "state" and the pope.I think this was more about the money than anything else.

in luke 20:46 Jesus says "beware teachers of the law."20:47 "they devour widows houses and for a show make lengthy prayers.Such men will be punished most severely"

but back to the Paul....in 1 Tim 4:3 -Instructions to Timothy here is the prophecy ,
"They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods(meats),which god created to be received with thanksgiving by those who beleive and know the truth.4For everything god created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it received with thanksgiving 5Because it is concecrated by the word of God and prayer"

7"Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives tales; rather train yourself to be godly"

Now if we remember back to genisis ,the fruits of trees and herbs/plants are to be as meat ,and were concecrated by God he saw they were all good and fit to be used.

It would appear that Paul says good overseers and deacons should be married and have but one wife(he even advises the wife shouldnt be a gossiper) also they must raise their children well , he could also be predicting the church imposing celebacy "forbid people to marry".

The myths and old wives tales could be the tripe being spoonfed to people about cannabis .

And when he says train yourself to be godly, he could mean keep an open mind, and use google. For is google not godly ?All seeing ,impartial open to all?

wolfsbane

doctoremma said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Hmm. You are also omniscient?
No.

You claimed to know what was in my head and what wasn't, so I naturally assumed...

I take it you are just telepathic?

J C

ISAW wrote: »

You just copied what the previous poster posted!



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity#Calculation_of_specified_complexity

A frequent criticism http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf is that Dembski has used the terms "complexity", "information" and "improbability" interchangeably...

When Dembski's mathematical claims on specific complexity are interpreted to make them meaningful and conform to minimal standards of mathematical usage, they usually turn out to be false. Dembski often sidesteps these criticisms by responding that he is not "in the business of offering a strict mathematical proof for the inability of material mechanisms to generate specified complexity".http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.08.Erik_Response.htm Yet on page 150 of No Free Lunch he claims he can prove his thesis mathematically: "In this section I will present an in-principle mathematical argument for why natural causes are incapable of generating complex specified information." Others have pointed out that a crucial calculation on page 297 of No Free Lunch is off by a factor of approximately 1065. http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/nflr3.txt

That being said
1. what specific claim did you make that anyone else said was a lie?
2. What list of other lies was flying around as you claimed and who else accused you of lying and on what specific claim?

Please read the thread

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The error you are making is the part in brackets, “after all calculations are complete”.

I am calculating a sum of CSI
CSI is expressed in bits so if the figures I am summing are not expressed in bits, I am not summing CSI
So why should I wait until the end to take the log?
You are calculating the CSI of a sum of probabilities, not a sum of CSI


You still haven’t explained why the first equation has several elements. Surely the CSI in a sentence is just:

-log_2( (1/m) ^n)

Under what circumstances would there be more than one element in the equation. Can you give me an example involving this equation?


Also, you told me quite a while ago that at the end of the equation I could take the log “if I wanted” and that the pre-log and post-log figures were “different ways of representing the same thing” so why are you now going to such great lengths to say that when you take the log is crucial? If they’re the same thing you should get the same answer either way, for example if I calculate a distance in miles or kilometers it’s the same distance.

And finally, you asked Wicknight to ‘stand up’ for his allegations of you quote mining and when he refused to on the basis that there was no point you branded him a liar. I asked you to reference where in Dembski’s book that you got each of the equations you use and you seem to have ignored the question. Can I now brand you a liar or are you going to provide the requested references?

Everything is explained in my previous posts and it is summarised here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64615417&postcount=21376

If you continue to disagree, all I can say, is that you have the right to be wrong!!!!

equivariant

J C wrote: »

Everything is explained in my previous posts and it is summarised here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64615417&postcount=21376

If you continue to disagree, all I can say, is that you have the right to be wrong!!!!

As usual, your reference or link does not in any way demonstrate the point that you claim it does. This pattern repeats over and over again in your posts.

1. You make a spurious claim in post X
2. Someone points out the obvious error.
3. You disagree, referring/linking to to post X as evidence in its favour.

I would call it circular reasoning, but in your case, the circle has radius 0, so it is probably better just to say that reason comes to a full stop in your case.

Sam specifically asked for a reference point in Dembski's work that corroborates your interpretation of CSI. As with your discussion of the Shallit/Elsberry paper, I guess that you will obfuscate and bulls**t for a few pages before you finally reveal through your posts that you actually don't even understand Dembski's nonsense.

equivariant

Or will you now claim that you are too busy with you creation 'science' to read Dembski's work on CSI?

J C

...some more words of wisdom for Evolutionists from an Evolutionist (Michael Ruse (b. 1940) Editor of the Cambridge University Press Series in the Philosophy of Biology.

"I think it's incumbent upon us who take this particular creationism - evolution debate seriously, to be sensitive to these facts, and not simply put our heads in the sand, and say, well, if we take this sort of stuff seriously, we're in deep trouble. Perhaps we are. But I don't think that the solution is just by simply ignoring them." Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993

...and for the 'fellow travellers' of Atheism on this thread, here is some food for thought:-
"And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may." Speech at 'The New Antievolutionism' symposium February 13,1993

"It is probably because I do have an intensely religious nature – using this term in a secular sense, as one might apply it to other nonbelievers like Thomas Henry Huxley -- that I was attracted toward evolution. Speaking in an entirely secular manner, I do not believe that people come to evolution by chance." Zygon March 1994 p.26

...and for those who claim that Evolutionism is compatible with Christianity here is some further food for thought:-
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post May 13, 2000

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And you aren't biased? Keep you quibbles to the help desk.

Whether I am or am not biased doesn't come into it! I am not a moderator. i am entitled to hold biased racist or all sorts of opinions. Inflicting them on others is a different thing. Also if I was a judge in a court and allowed those opinions to influence my decision that is a whole matter altogether. If for example a judge or jury had a secret meeting and discussed someone without telling them and later ignored or punished them for criticising the remarks of a "pal" of theirs or member of their club when they refused punish for even worse offences that is a wholly different matter. i have posted about a similar case on the thread on freemasonry.

It is a different matter as to whether or not a particular poster is right wrong misled biased or whatever.

I may have biased opinions but I try to never let it influence my judgement and if a past history or bias even seems to exist then I would remove myself from judgement in a case - it is a standard practice in law. Justice has to been seen to be done.

By the way, just to be clear, I don't refer to moderators on this forum but to ones in other fora on boards. I only say that to clarify and don't intend to go into the examples because you believe it is off topic. If someone raises that they believe they are being called a liar and nothing is being done then it is the topic! As regards me justifying any opinions about certain mods I have no problem with that I can cite chapter and verse but as you have suggested that probably is off topic.

ISAW

J C wrote: »

Please read the thread

That being said
1. what specific claim did you make that anyone else said was a lie?
2. What list of other lies was flying around as you claimed and who else accused you of lying and on what specific claim?

You claim 1 and 2 it isnt for me to find what you claim!

def

For all the "evolutionists" what exactly do you belive ? That its survival of the fittist? Do you include the possible lucky freaks? Is it solely chance and nothing more? No will power involved?

When I think of how could an orchid develop so only a specific type of bee can pollinate it or how some look and smell like female wasps, luring males over for an unsatisfing quicky,that will leave the FLOWER fertilised (so long as the wasps been tricked before) theres gotta be somthing more at play.

When I was younger I thought god or somthing must have had somthing to do with this, but lately ive been reading about experiments done with plants attahed to lie detectors. It seems that not only do plants have emotion but can sense intent! As in when you genuinely intend on causing a plant damage there will be a measurable reaction , this is inline with the talking with your plants ,playing them music etc

Apparently when any form of life is extinguished be it fungus or a spider the plant reacts "dispairs" ,it could be that plants could react to sexual intents of wasps and the hunger driven wants etc of other insects and animals.
Its a good idea to warn your grass and bushes there about to be trimmed so they can prepare and go into a non responsive state.

I have yet to aquire the equipment cause this i gotta see, but loving plants and for lack of a better phrase chilling with them or perhaps having a buzz, singing and so on does somthing . This spring get 3 plants,same soil,water and light, sing to one and love it , ignore the second and call the third names tell it the others are better etc .... seems to work,

Now when I hear someone saying stuff like fossils are planted to test faith I put my head in my hands.

The notion of ID is very vauge , I think loving orchestration could be a better term, I feel that there is somthing more though,some sort of will power. Bibles a good book ,but there was a lot of other books that just didnt make the cut and I imagine there was some editing done through the years , this lark about the calamus/ kaneth bosem for example.

The planet was here for a long time before us so was a lot of stuff, energy cant be destroyed or created(thought=energy)probably all life and everything that it does ,on this planet came indirectly or directly from the sun ,our planet was formed by the gentle pull/spin of the sun, the suns pull also gave us astroid impacts and the moon , lots of suff , but what gave us the sun ?the super massive black hole a the center of the universe? Its not who did it, its how it got done.It doesnt matter who did it,or if it was intentional at all, so long as your thankfull it happened.

I dont know or care, im perfectly happy just chillin here, thankfull for the birds and bees and all the rest ,the bible and boards.ie , hey its risky buisness thinkin you got the right answers ,its not a test ,but there will always be someone trying to "prove" there answers are "truth", if a god put you here I think he/she/it/they would get better kicks out of origionality and prefer openess to correction than absolute single answer belivers, or not?

What happens when at the end of the day it turns out you were wrong and the big boss is piss*d cause you made fun of all his/her/its/their other kids on the playground that is earth and didnt bother figuring out how he did all this cool stuff. He might make you go again. Fixed religion/set beliefs about the unknown(prejudice) .... risky buisness.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

Everything is explained in my previous posts and it is summarised here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64615417&postcount=21376

If you continue to disagree, all I can say, is that you have the right to be wrong!!!!

LOL. We've got another creationist circle going on

1. Give erroneous equations

2. Ignore response pointing out the errors in the equations, ignore request for a reference from the book to back them up and restate the equations

3. Once again ignore response pointing out the errors but this time, instead of ignoring the request for a reference from the book, give a reference to your own post where you first gave the erroneous equations as if that backs you up


Since this is now the third time you have refused to give a reference to those equations in the book, by your own standards we're at the branding you a liar stage k?

Sam Vimes

I am now going to prove by the rigorous standards set by creation science that Dembski gave a statement fully accepting Darwinian evolution by natural selection. I am going to provide a reference that fully supports everything I am saying. The quote is as follows:

"I, William Dembski, fully accept the theory of Darwianian evolution by natural selection. I acknowledge that my concept of complex specified information was erroneous and I realise that my desire to believe in it clouded my judgement. Evolution is a fact and Intelligent Design is vague, ill-defined, pseudo-science meant to sound impressive to lay people but it's all talk and no substance".


And here is the link to back me up, unequivocally proving that he said it:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64634690&postcount=21413

J C

ISAW wrote: »

That being said
1. what specific claim did you make that anyone else said was a lie?
2. What list of other lies was flying around as you claimed and who else accused you of lying and on what specific claim?

You claim 1 and 2 it isnt for me to find what you claim!

...there is no need for you to read the thread, if you don't want to.

I

J C

def wrote: »

For all the "evolutionists" what exactly do you belive ? That its survival of the fittist? Do you include the possible lucky freaks? Is it solely chance and nothing more? No will power involved?

When I think of how could an orchid develop so only a specific type of bee can pollinate it or how some look and smell like female wasps, luring males over for an unsatisfing quicky,that will leave the FLOWER fertilised (so long as the wasps been tricked before) theres gotta be somthing more at play.

When I was younger I thought god or somthing must have had somthing to do with this, but lately ive been reading about experiments done with plants attahed to lie detectors. It seems that not only do plants have emotion but can sense intent! As in when you genuinely intend on causing a plant damage there will be a measurable reaction , this is inline with the talking with your plants ,playing them music etc

Apparently when any form of life is extinguished be it fungus or a spider the plant reacts "dispairs" ,it could be that plants could react to sexual intents of wasps and the hunger driven wants etc of other insects and animals.
Its a good idea to warn your grass and bushes there about to be trimmed so they can prepare and go into a non responsive state.

I have yet to aquire the equipment cause this i gotta see, but loving plants and for lack of a better phrase chilling with them or perhaps having a buzz, singing and so on does somthing . This spring get 3 plants,same soil,water and light, sing to one and love it , ignore the second and call the third names tell it the others are better etc .... seems to work,

Now when I hear someone saying stuff like fossils are planted to test faith I put my head in my hands.

The notion of ID is very vauge , I think loving orchestration could be a better term, I feel that there is somthing more though,some sort of will power. Bibles a good book ,but there was a lot of other books that just didnt make the cut and I imagine there was some editing done through the years , this lark about the calamus/ kaneth bosem for example.

The planet was here for a long time before us so was a lot of stuff, energy cant be destroyed or created(thought=energy)probably all life and everything that it does ,on this planet came indirectly or directly from the sun ,our planet was formed by the gentle pull/spin of the sun, the suns pull also gave us astroid impacts and the moon , lots of suff , but what gave us the sun ?the super massive black hole a the center of the universe? Its not who did it, its how it got done.It doesnt matter who did it,or if it was intentional at all, so long as your thankfull it happened.

I dont know or care, im perfectly happy just chillin here, thankfull for the birds and bees and all the rest ,the bible and boards.ie , hey its risky buisness thinkin you got the right answers ,its not a test ,but there will always be someone trying to "prove" there answers are "truth", if a god put you here I think he/she/it/they would get better kicks out of origionality and prefer openess to correction than absolute single answer belivers, or not?

What happens when at the end of the day it turns out you were wrong and the big boss is piss*d cause you made fun of all his/her/its/their other kids on the playground that is earth and didnt bother figuring out how he did all this cool stuff. He might make you go again. Fixed religion/set beliefs about the unknown(prejudice) .... risky buisness.

... one is tempted to ask how the Hemp plant feels when it is told that it is going to be 'smoked' ... rather than living out an exciting life as a bag on some beautiful woman's shoulder!!!!:eek::):D

...if you keep on like this, you will give the vegetarians on the thread such pangs of conscience ... that they will turn into anorexics!!!!:):eek:

... and BTW, have you been smoking that stuff YOURSELF ... and are your current postings the result???:(:D

ISAW

J C wrote: »

...there is no need for you to read the thread, if you don't want to.

I think (and I hope) that the thread has returned to civility ... and we will all 'attack the topic ... and not the man'!!!

It isn't a question of me not wanting to. It is a question of you stating that you were called a liar and being asked WHERE. When I asked I saw a comment which I admit could be interpreted by you as being called a liar but others might not view it that way. You also claimed you complained and nothing was done about it which supports the last sentence.

Having said that, I respect your "let bygones be bygones" attitude and your interest in addressing the issue of creationism and evolution and I believe that people calling each other liars doesn't really get that debate moving on.

Having said that if in future you believe you are being called a liar I suggest you post wher you believe they are calling you that and you ask them directly if they are and ask them to be clear and to state for the record that they are not calling you a liar so that both of you can move on with the debate.

For me, a major problem for debate isn't whether people are nasty or personal ( which is a problem in itself) but that if everyone believes the other side is lying then there is no point in having a debate.

ISAW

def wrote: »

Nope ,I just thought id throw in my two cents , some creationism and prophecy ,

Its an interesting conundrum for most hardcore christians ,god creates cannabis ,church frowns on it ,its apparently in the bible but no-one likes to talk about it ,

genocide and slavery are "in the bible" . that does not make them right.
There are a lot of drugs which can be harmful if abused alcohol probably the leader of this and the problems associated with that are also in the Bible. it isn't really a proble as you outline. God creats iron and atoms and people use it to make swords and bullets and nuclear weapons. If the church "frown on" war there is no contradiction there!

Up until the begining of the last century it was used for more or less everything but was replaced by petroelium based products solely for profit driven reasons then its deamonised the world over by polititions looking for easy brownie points.

This is true. In fact I would suggest it was William Randolph Herst's need to dominate all levels of the the newspaper industry from paper making to newsstand which led him to put the high quality hemp paper business out of commission and replace it with the wood pulp paper business owned by him. And hemp was also used for ropes sails etc. So what? If you used opium for making bricks it would make no difference that it can be made into heroine!

One could assume this is a prophecy about cannabis , the potential tree of life

Waffle!
One could also assume it isn't.

Most if not all studies done to "prove" the dangers of cannabis do the oppisite.

Waffle! Care to produce "most studies" which show this?

Tabacco science and half truths are the cited reasons for its prohibition

Dealt with above... because some industries like paper or tobacco have political or economic reasons for their bias doesn't remove valid criticisms. And again more waffle!
Instead of OPINION would you mind citing some references and establishing FACTS?

, lies ,,, prohibition is carried out supposedly to prevent mass immorality and disorder but instead it causes this just like alcohol prohibition did ...

True and the very same argument can be used to say that if you legalise something that it becomes almost impossible to prohibit it after that. Look at "head shops" or prostitution in Amsterdam.

When a peer reviewed study comes along and shows cannabis is safer than peanuts or its oils have been used to cure brain tumers etc,

REferences?

If it has such properties then this has nothing to do with legalisation it had to do with using it as a medicine. Chemotherapy cures cancer but that does not mean it should be legalised does it? People who want drugs legalised want to get high. I have sympathy for those who need they for medical use however but again this is a DIFFERENT argument!

the information is discarded infavour of some tripe

Givewn allyou have supplied is waffle and opinion and no actual ciotation how are you any different?

, for example in trinity collage a study was done maybe two or three years back scanning the brains of heavy cannabis users while they performed various tasks , the tasks involved short term memory ,reasoning and hand eye coordination if the subject did well they were given an extra few euro if they did poorly they lost a few euro (participants began with ten euro vouchers).

Where was this published? what were the results?

The reviews of the study mention none of this ,

nor do you!

they only stated that the fronal lobe was slightly smaller in heavy cannabis users who smoked heavily since a young age. Leaving out that the size of a brain has nothing to to with intelligence, women have smaller brains than men and yet there is no matching decrease in intelligence. A typical manipulation of information.

You have not supplied ANY of the study nor even any evidence it was ever done!

Ronald Reagan organised a study where several monkeys were sufficated with cannabis smoke for several minutes every day until they suffered horrific brain damage.Yes cannabis smoke caused the damage but only because it was used to deprive oxygen ,if they had pumped smoke from oak leaves into the gas masks then they would have "proved" smoking oak leaves causes brain damage .Smoking cannabis does not kill brain cells. It was a long time before the methodoligy of they study was released.

Again yo provide no study and no example of an alternative study so we just don't know do we?

And the relationship between man and the herb suggests that if god ever created anything in the natural world to help man kind this is it.

Waffle what "relationship between man and herb" ?

Look up
"All Things Dull And Ugly" from Monty Python's Contractual Obligations Album

Indeed foxglove is deadly but it also gives us digitalis!

Can anyone else see this conection or am I just a nut with a bible and too much google time?

Do you feel it gives you the munchies for waffles?

liamw

I wondered how this thread could have over a thousand pages but I'm starting to see it's just a constant merry-go-round :pac:
J.C I'm getting dizzy

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I am now going to prove by the rigorous standards set by creation science that Dembski gave a statement fully accepting Darwinian evolution by natural selection. I am going to provide a reference that fully supports everything I am saying. The quote is as follows:

"I, William Dembski, fully accept the theory of Darwianian evolution by natural selection. I acknowledge that my concept of complex specified information was erroneous and I realise that my desire to believe in it clouded my judgement. Evolution is a fact and Intelligent Design is vague, ill-defined, pseudo-science meant to sound impressive to lay people but it's all talk and no substance".


And here is the link to back me up, unequivocally proving that he said it:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64634690&postcount=21413

...you are not just abridging or truncating quotes like monosharp ... you're 'going the whole hog' ... and making them up!!!:(:eek:

J C

liamw wrote: »

I wondered how this thread could have over a thousand pages but I'm starting to see it's just a constant merry-go-round :pac:
J.C I'm getting dizzy

... be STILL ... and know that Jesus Christ is Lord.:)

doctoremma

wolfsbane wrote: »

doctoremma said:


You claimed to know what was in my head and what wasn't, so I naturally assumed...

I take it you are just telepathic?

No. I just know you don't have any evidence for any god. Certainly not any that would be deemed scientific. Therefore, your claim that you have "evidence greater than any scientific speculation" is incorrect - you don't.