Total Posts:190|Showing Posts:181-190|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Guys, you can stop now.

Evidence
Posts: 1,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2017 3:42:19 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 2/7/2017 4:54:34 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/7/2017 8:48:56 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 2/2/2017 3:43:05 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/1/2017 9:00:52 PM, Evidence wrote:

You have been indoctrinated by Pastor Dawkins preaching's on Evolution , where he reduced the humanus-apus to not only a mindless moron ape, or rat that relies on his environment to tell "it" what to do, but that "it" has no "free will". That the humanus-apus only thinks it has free will, but that's really the effects of its environment and the food/banana it consumed.

Strawman.

Tell it to Dawkins.

Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. It simply doesn't follow from the premises.

How else would you have come up with this answer unless you had a mind separate from your brain? Did seeing the sequence of the letters in my above words 'influence' your answer? No, you reasoned opposing to what I have written.
You don't seem to realise that the brain and what you call the "mind" have exactly the same function.
Don't you see why the Bible says that with God (your mind) all things are possible?

BBIIBBLLEE.

Any objections?

It is a question of 'what is reality?', .. or "what is real and what is imagined?" You should be able to figure it out with that experiment.

Precisely; and the conclusion has nothing to do with your movement.

Movement is irrelevant, once the info is in your mind.

Not that type of movement, E.

Visual angle? That would be a good topic on how Mother Nature selected and selected till we were able to make the objects far away smaller and smaller with distance don't you think?
My question would be; How was the environment able to influence biological life to evolve eyes, and then to keep getting it better and better?
What does 'better' mean for purposeless and careless Mother Nature I wonder?
What made her even want to evolve eyes for the animals, it wreaks of plan and intelligent design. Now I don't want to say "God did it", but when I read about black holes, I understand how the human eye evolved over millions and billions of years.

Precisely; unless it can be done outside the mind as well.

That's what I am trying to show you, that the 'outside physical reality' is defined by God, but once you capture that image with your eyes and send the info into your brain, and analyze it with your 'mind', Gods physical rules/laws no longer apply.

So you say.

Try it.

I did, and found nothing.

You can't manipulate objects in your mind?

You can actually make people to believe that the earth is a spinning globe through an imaginary space, spinning, twisting through an imaginary solar system with imaginary planets, and THAT becomes our reality.

Conspiracy crap.

I'm glad you agree, .. a soul robbing conspiracy that has been going on long enough.

Okay, E.
What I am hoping to open your spiritual eyes to is the True Reality, which is our un-created Infinite Creator God, and you/we have Him in us, which makes us "us", .. or "living souls/beings".

Because you say so.

Would you rather be an animal, the result of tectonic plate movement? Well, if that's what you want to "believe"!?

Oh, so what we want to believe has effect on reality now? Fancy that. E, just becuase you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean it's false.

Of course it has. Not only false, but look how degrading the Evolution story is, and both Hitler and Communism shown how devastating and detrimental to human lives such religious ideas can get.

Go home, E., you're drunk. Conspooratard nonsense can convince only the dishonest, yourself, for example.

Spoken like a true religionist scientist/physicist, or like I call them "Sci-Fientists"

Further stenrgthening my point.
What, of dishonesty?

Nope, of your conspiratardicy.

Don't you get tired of using the same old argument; conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory, .." Prove it's a conspiracy theory. We have shown the conspiracy in both the Big Bang and Evolution stories, and how many lives it caused over the years, and how it stupefied us and now our children, besides all the moral decay.

Black holes don't lead to parallel universes; that's a false strawman that no respectable physicist claims is actually fact. And you blankly asserting that space does not exist is just pathetic; we can SEE space.

Please at least try to keep up with Sci-Fientology physics:
N.G. News - According to a mind-bending new theory, a black hole is actually a tunnel between universes"a type of wormhole. The matter the black hole attracts doesn't collapse into a single point, as has been predicted, but rather gushes out a "white hole" at the other end of the black one, the theory goes

National Geographic is a crap source of actual information; it's pop-sci. Go read some peer-reviewed journal and then come back to me.

show me? I might read the wrong ones.

Most are good, yet you can come to me if you have any doubts.

You mean like this one?
http://www.noblackholes.com...

or
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

and that's coming from a man who has studied a lot of black holes, Steven Hawking's himself.
Oh darn it, that is National Geography too!? That artist rendering is probably a doo-doo being flushed down the toilet in Australia (going by the direction of the swirl)

You can SEE space?? Can you please explain?

Ever heard of telescopes?

(And space, for this matter, is the collection of objects in space; i.e. galaxies, stars and other sh*t.)

You mean "other bull sh*t" don't you? Like the ISS, satellites around earth, imaginary rovers on planet-Mars, NASA Satellites around Mars, Klingons ready to attack earth etc.

And yet you don't address my point; nice red herring, E (along with asserting your conclusion, again).
https://www.youtube.com...

Really Kthulhu, you can stop now!

This video is irrelevant and unreliable.

Can you show me some authorized "reliable" ones that is not in a National Geographic magazine/film?
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 1,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2017 3:16:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 2/7/2017 7:31:15 PM, Evidence wrote:
...

Alright, it's become apparent to me that your debate tactics are thoroughly dishonest, as you keep on ignoring my evidence and putting words into my mouth to make me sound ridiculous.

To prevent that, we'll stick to one, I repeat, ONE reply chain, and only regard relevant subjects; anything unrelated to the specific subject debated will be ignored, as will strawmen.

You've completely ignored the conclusive evidence I have presented; and so to fix that, I will hence ignore your "skull&bones" strawmen.

So just to be completely clear, this is the evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org...

...

(Given that the following is a different subject altogether, I'll host a separate chain for it.)
I'm sure you heard of Schr"dinger's cat thought experiment right? Well mine is way simpler and reveals a reality we can associate with.

Irrelevant.

OK, then do Schrodinger's cat experiment without using your mind, .. just from the outside like the box with the cat and the poison in it!?
Soon as you open the box, the experiment failed.
Then, try with your brain, that should be interesting? Just don't hurt yourself.

It's irrelevant because the Schrodinger's cat "experiment" isn't actually an experiment, it's an explanation, or visualisation, if you will, of quantum mechanics.
Wait, didn't you say you believe the brain creates the mind? In that case, you would never be able to differentiate between the table you see outside, from the one you imagine.

I never said that.

.. ah, didn't you say; the mind is the result of the brain? Or is your mind like you believe Infinite is, .. don't exist?

The mind is [one of] the functionality[ies] of the brain, not created by it.
See above (and this was unrelated).

Again, so for your mind, the table you see with your eyes and the one you imagine is not the same?
Where is it different? What, the texture? All you have to do is imagine that same texture, color etc.

One comes from neural transmitters in the eyes, one does not. It's simple enough.

OK, fine, so one comes from the neural transmitter, .. It's the one that does not that I'm interested in. Where does THAT come from?
It comes from this thing: https://en.wikipedia.org...

(And is connected to a couple other parts.)
Can fMRI determine the difference between what we see and what we dream?

Probably.
Thanks again Kthulhu.

You're welcome.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 1,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2017 5:15:57 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 2/9/2017 12:40:06 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 2/7/2017 4:54:34 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/7/2017 8:48:56 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 2/2/2017 3:43:05 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/1/2017 9:00:52 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 1/30/2017 3:11:21 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 1/30/2017 2:45:01 AM, Evidence wrote:

Try looking up the words before you use them, instead of relying on your 'priest/professor' or whomever did the indoctrination on you!?

You presumptive scum.

Well just read your own responses, is that debating?

Contrariwise, is that debating? All you do is assert that I was somehow indoctrinated, what "debating" is needed?

It's to make you aware that you're responses at times have nothing to do with reality. You are convinced it does, and yet you refuse to do the simple mind experiment.
Can you prove that statement? No. And that's why it's anecdotal, not scientific.

Was the statement that you just made anecdotal, or scientific? Can you prove your above statement?
I don't have to do so, it's a negative claim. It is you whom has to prove your statement.
We can do this all day, unless you start responding to my actual statements.
So you expect me to respond to your statements without you presenting a shred of evidence in favour of them? Pathetic.
Oh, sorry I was raised like an unwanted dog in a third world country and kept out of school, but I am learning. I admit I lack education, so I look up things, words, the least you could do is point out where I fail providing evidence.

I did.
How can you be so sure of things that don't even exist, yet not even consider contrary evidence of things you don't believe in; Like Infinite/God?

There you go again, asserting your conclusions and lying as always.

Do you believe in the Evolution story that claims man evolved over millions and billions of unobserved years starting from muddy puddles that came from a sweaty rock, which gave birth to simple life forms, and that through speciation of these life forms which not only has NEVER been observed, but even Evolutionists say it cannot happen, nor can they find any living 'common ancestors' that could be observed speciating, which eventually through accidental un-purposed mutations caused monkeys to become humans?
Or not?

Irrelevant.
O, really? A scientific experiment? What parameters am I measuring?

Exactly!! Once the table is in your mind (whether from your eyes, or imagined) you set the parameters. You can go by a tape measure (for instance) sitting on the table, but once in your mind, you have total control of what you see.
This is how we believed in a non-existent expanding universe, and if you have studied the theory, even if the parameters are none existent, you can still give me all kinds of accurate info as if it was real.

Go back to middle school, those aren't the types parameters used in scinetific experimentation.

do they teach you how to spell in middle school?
Here is something about perimeters:
- If you were an ecologist working in a forest, you not only would look at the organisms but you also would be interested in the many physical parameters of the forest such as rainfall, sunlight, and temperature.

Show me the actual data of the perimeters, .. example; numerical or other measurable factor forming one of a set that defines a system or sets the conditions of its operation. collected of the universe (vacuum of this what they call 'space') that is supposed to be beyond our obvious dome that is over our earth? You can start with the perimeters collected on gravity in outer-space!?

You still haven't answered my questions.
I've done it, and found nothing. Because I have found nothing, the conclusion is that there is no infinite "mind"; but I cannot demonstrate it to you, and neither can you to me. How is that scientific? How is that NOT anecdotal??

Just because you refuse to believe you have a mind and imagine things doesn't mean it's none existent, you forget we all have minds.

Assertion, no evidence.

I see your problem, which again is indoctrination. I looked up the word 'mind' so I can show you what it is, and the first synonym for mind was 'brain'.
Semantics, semantics...
Mind:
noun
the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
synonyms: brain, intelligence, intellect, intellectual capabilities, brains, brainpower, wits, understanding, reasoning, judgment, sense

Here is a picture of your mind
http://science.nationalgeographic.com...
Oh wait, once again it's a National Geographic picture, so it's probably not even a brain, right?
Anyways, if you have been MK-ultra'd to believe this is your mind, I can see we will never get anywhere, unless we live in the same environment and eat the same foods for a few thousand generations where the environment and foods influences could evolve our brain to be of one-mind/understanding.

And you've been MK-ultraed to believe that your mind is infinite; see that this reasoning can be applied both ways?
If our brain created our mind, we could never learn anything, which is exactly what the NWO is hoping to do to the population. Implant chips in our brain with pre-programmed information, so people would no longer use their minds.

Strawmen and lies.

It's public info, all one has to do is Google it.

False, unless you can demonstrate that (simply asserting "it's public info" is never enough).
The whole idea of this Evolution brainwashing is to rob humanity of their soul/mind. You are almost there even without the chip, because MK Ultra, aka religious indoctrination does the same thing, and I have never seen this more clearly than today, with Eds Flat Earth Revelation.

Further misrepresentation.

Again, it's now public information

Okay, now you're talking out of your arse.
The actual pole does not shrink; our perception of it, however, does; it's a physical construct in our brain, yet not the pole itself.

If it was a physical construct, how is it that I can imagine the poles getting smaller (or bigger if I wish) without even moving?

I explained in my previous post (regarding the difference between imagination and perception).

You said there was a difference, I don't remember you pointing that difference out?

Look again. ("The presence of the table outside...")
- Although no one has ever seen or demonstrated a cell assembly, evidence is accumulating.
The neuron that is activated will be activated whenever the subject sees the same object, but not other objects. The neuron will also fire when the subject thinks about the object.


So how do you tell what is perceived and what is imagined?
It's regarding a different neuron.
Doing these awesome experiments from an Evolutionary perspective IMHO is extremely dangerous, especially planning to implant chips in the future. The whole concept is robotizing the population, stealing their mind/soul, while selling it off as some cure, .. prove it's not?

You believe a lot of nonsense; mind proving your assertions?
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 1,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2017 5:28:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 2/9/2017 3:42:19 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 2/7/2017 4:54:34 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/7/2017 8:48:56 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 2/2/2017 3:43:05 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/1/2017 9:00:52 PM, Evidence wrote:

You have been indoctrinated by Pastor Dawkins preaching's on Evolution , where he reduced the humanus-apus to not only a mindless moron ape, or rat that relies on his environment to tell "it" what to do, but that "it" has no "free will". That the humanus-apus only thinks it has free will, but that's really the effects of its environment and the food/banana it consumed.

Strawman.

Tell it to Dawkins.

Show me where he says that, then.
Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. It simply doesn't follow from the premises.

How else would you have come up with this answer unless you had a mind separate from your brain? Did seeing the sequence of the letters in my above words 'influence' your answer? No, you reasoned opposing to what I have written.
You don't seem to realise that the brain and what you call the "mind" have exactly the same function.
Don't you see why the Bible says that with God (your mind) all things are possible?

BBIIBBLLEE.

Any objections?

BBBIBIBIBBBLBLLBLLELELELELLLEE........
It is a question of 'what is reality?', .. or "what is real and what is imagined?" You should be able to figure it out with that experiment.

Precisely; and the conclusion has nothing to do with your movement.

Movement is irrelevant, once the info is in your mind.

Not that type of movement, E.

Visual angle? That would be a good topic on how Mother Nature selected and selected till we were able to make the objects far away smaller and smaller with distance don't you think?
My question would be; How was the environment able to influence biological life to evolve eyes, and then to keep getting it better and better?
What does 'better' mean for purposeless and careless Mother Nature I wonder?
What made her even want to evolve eyes for the animals, it wreaks of plan and intelligent design. Now I don't want to say "God did it", but when I read about black holes, I understand how the human eye evolved over millions and billions of years.

A red herring.
Precisely; unless it can be done outside the mind as well.

That's what I am trying to show you, that the 'outside physical reality' is defined by God, but once you capture that image with your eyes and send the info into your brain, and analyze it with your 'mind', Gods physical rules/laws no longer apply.

So you say.

Try it.

I did, and found nothing.

You can't manipulate objects in your mind?

I can and I did; then found absolutely no infinite "mind", got a problem with that?
What I am hoping to open your spiritual eyes to is the True Reality, which is our un-created Infinite Creator God, and you/we have Him in us, which makes us "us", .. or "living souls/beings".

Because you say so.

Would you rather be an animal, the result of tectonic plate movement? Well, if that's what you want to "believe"!?

Oh, so what we want to believe has effect on reality now? Fancy that. E, just becuase you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean it's false.

Of course it has.
Bullsh*t. Prove it does.
Not only false, but look how degrading the Evolution story is, and both Hitler and Communism shown how devastating and detrimental to human lives such religious ideas can get.

Argument from consequence. I mean, come on, E; this one's easy.
Go home, E., you're drunk. Conspooratard nonsense can convince only the dishonest, yourself, for example.

Spoken like a true religionist scientist/physicist, or like I call them "Sci-Fientists"

Further stenrgthening my point.
What, of dishonesty?

Nope, of your conspiratardicy.

Don't you get tired of using the same old argument; conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory, .." Prove it's a conspiracy theory. We have shown the conspiracy in both the Big Bang and Evolution stories, and how many lives it caused over the years, and how it stupefied us and now our children, besides all the moral decay.

Me saying it's conspiracy nonsense is basically the same thing as me calling it out for showing no evidence, as you never actually back those claims.
Black holes don't lead to parallel universes; that's a false strawman that no respectable physicist claims is actually fact. And you blankly asserting that space does not exist is just pathetic; we can SEE space.

Please at least try to keep up with Sci-Fientology physics:
N.G. News - According to a mind-bending new theory, a black hole is actually a tunnel between universes"a type of wormhole. The matter the black hole attracts doesn't collapse into a single point, as has been predicted, but rather gushes out a "white hole" at the other end of the black one, the theory goes

National Geographic is a crap source of actual information; it's pop-sci. Go read some peer-reviewed journal and then come back to me.

show me? I might read the wrong ones.

Most are good, yet you can come to me if you have any doubts.

You mean like this one?
http://www.noblackholes.com...

Looks alright; haven't yet read the whole thing, though.
or
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

This is the source: https://arxiv.org...
and that's coming from a man who has studied a lot of black holes, Steven Hawking's himself.
Oh darn it, that is National Geography too!? That artist rendering is probably a doo-doo being flushed down the toilet in Australia (going by the direction of the swirl)

Given the reliable source, I'd say it's actually fine.
You can SEE space?? Can you please explain?

Ever heard of telescopes?

(And space, for this matter, is the collection of objects in space; i.e. galaxies, stars and other sh*t.)

You mean "other bull sh*t" don't you? Like the ISS, satellites around earth, imaginary rovers on planet-Mars, NASA Satellites around Mars, Klingons ready to attack earth etc.

And yet you don't address my point; nice red herring, E (along with asserting your conclusion, again).
https://www.youtube.com...

Really Kthulhu, you can stop now!

This video is irrelevant and unreliable.

Can you show me some authorized "reliable" ones that is not in a National Geographic magazine/film?

One supporting the existence of UFOs? And a reliable one? I'm afraid not.
Evidence
Posts: 1,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2017 12:02:00 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 2/9/2017 5:28:22 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/9/2017 3:42:19 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 2/7/2017 4:54:34 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/7/2017 8:48:56 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 2/2/2017 3:43:05 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/1/2017 9:00:52 PM, Evidence wrote:

You have been indoctrinated by Pastor Dawkins preaching's on Evolution , where he reduced the humanus-apus to not only a mindless moron ape, or rat that relies on his environment to tell "it" what to do, but that "it" has no "free will". That the humanus-apus only thinks it has free will, but that's really the effects of its environment and the food/banana it consumed.

Strawman.

Tell it to Dawkins.

Show me where he says that, then.

https://www.youtube.com...

Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. It simply doesn't follow from the premises.

How else would you have come up with this answer unless you had a mind separate from your brain? Did seeing the sequence of the letters in my above words 'influence' your answer? No, you reasoned opposing to what I have written.
You don't seem to realise that the brain and what you call the "mind" have exactly the same function.

So perception and dream is both created by the brain?

Don't you see why the Bible says that with God (your mind) all things are possible?

BBIIBBLLEE.

Any objections?

BBBIBIBIBBBLBLLBLLELELELELLLEE........

LOL It's ok, relax I'll try not mention The Book by name next time.

Not that type of movement, E.

Visual angle? That would be a good topic on how Mother Nature selected and selected till we were able to make the objects far away smaller and smaller with distance don't you think?
My question would be; How was the environment able to influence biological life to evolve eyes, and then to keep getting it better and better?
What does 'better' mean for purposeless and careless Mother Nature I wonder?
What made her even want to evolve eyes for the animals, it wreaks of plan and intelligent design. Now I don't want to say "God did it", but when I read about black holes, I understand how the human eye evolved over millions and billions of years.

A red herring.

Have you done dog training in another life, .. hunting-dogs in particular?

You can't manipulate objects in your mind?

I can and I did; then found absolutely no infinite "mind", got a problem with that?

Oh no, .. no problem my friend, it happens, you lost it. Look, even Dawkins feels he had it, just don't know where he put it!?

I keep telling people to get out of religion or it will mess you up. Can you check if you still got your 'free will'?

If not, then your refusal to believe in God has nothing to do with lack of evidence for God, but like Dawkins said in the video (time 0:25)
https://www.youtube.com...

"You have no choice"

.. so no evidence in the world could change your 'belief/brain' it took millions and billions of years to get you to think that way, right? So maybe a change in your environment, or food, I don't know??

Oh, so what we want to believe has effect on reality now? Fancy that. E, just becuase you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean it's false.

Of course it has.
Bullsh*t. Prove it does.

Have you ever dreamed up a small project for your wife, and before you know it she's kissing you and thanking you for it!?
It's exactly how God does it, He comes up with an idea, then builds it, makes it with His hands just as we do.
We dream up an idea and use our body to make it, God uses His Son Words body, and Angels or whatever he can use as tools in creating it.

Not only false, but look how degrading the Evolution story is, and both Hitler and Communism shown how devastating and detrimental to human lives such religious ideas can get.

Argument from consequence. I mean, come on, E; this one's easy.
Yes, consequence. Like if a bad friend of your children teaches them to sniff glue, then gasoline, the consequences can be deadly. Same with teaching the BB-Evolution stories as facts, it has killed billions since its invention.

Nope, of your conspiratardicy.

Don't you get tired of using the same old argument; conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory, .." Prove it's a conspiracy theory. We have shown the conspiracy in both the Big Bang and Evolution stories, and how many lives it caused over the years, and how it stupefied us and now our children, besides all the moral decay.

Me saying it's conspiracy nonsense is basically the same thing as me calling it out for showing no evidence, as you never actually back those claims.

I did and you know it. Only (as I have pointed this out to you many times before) your interpretation of certain words differs from reality.
Like when I say the word 'God', your brain interprets that as: "Not real. All gods are created by religions and have to be taken on 'blind faith', with no proof or evidence, otherwise it's not 'True-faith' !
So some brainwashed religionist with a degree writes this in his otherwise very good dictionary, and now it becomes law:
God=religion
religion requires their god/gods to be taken on 'blind-faith' I mean just look at the simpleminded (I was going to say idiotic) definition for "faith"

Faith
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
optimism, hopefulness, hope
"he justified his boss's faith in him"


This is all cool and dandy, complete confidence in someone BECAUSE and the synonym hints why: "this restores one's faith in politicians" so whatever "this" was, it justified the "faith" in the politician.
But now look at when it comes to 'God':

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

and then look at the rest of the synonyms:

synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine

.. what the hell do these have to do with the definition of "faith"? Religion?? .. church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine ??
So going to a Muslim ISIS Musk is where we can build on our faith? See what I mean?
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 1,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2017 12:25:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 2/10/2017 12:02:00 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 2/9/2017 5:28:22 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/9/2017 3:42:19 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 2/7/2017 4:54:34 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/7/2017 8:48:56 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 2/2/2017 3:43:05 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/1/2017 9:00:52 PM, Evidence wrote:

You have been indoctrinated by Pastor Dawkins preaching's on Evolution , where he reduced the humanus-apus to not only a mindless moron ape, or rat that relies on his environment to tell "it" what to do, but that "it" has no "free will". That the humanus-apus only thinks it has free will, but that's really the effects of its environment and the food/banana it consumed.

Strawman.

Tell it to Dawkins.

Show me where he says that, then.

https://www.youtube.com...

He clearly states that he has no certain opinion; and even then, it's a matter of definition. Moreover, he also states that there is no difference between there being free will, and us only thinking we have free will.
Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. It simply doesn't follow from the premises.

How else would you have come up with this answer unless you had a mind separate from your brain? Did seeing the sequence of the letters in my above words 'influence' your answer? No, you reasoned opposing to what I have written.
You don't seem to realise that the brain and what you call the "mind" have exactly the same function.

So perception and dream is both created by the brain?

Yup.
Don't you see why the Bible says that with God (your mind) all things are possible?

BBIIBBLLEE.

Any objections?

BBBIBIBIBBBLBLLBLLELELELELLLEE........

LOL It's ok, relax I'll try not mention The Book by name next time.

Not that type of movement, E.

Visual angle? That would be a good topic on how Mother Nature selected and selected till we were able to make the objects far away smaller and smaller with distance don't you think?
My question would be; How was the environment able to influence biological life to evolve eyes, and then to keep getting it better and better?
What does 'better' mean for purposeless and careless Mother Nature I wonder?
What made her even want to evolve eyes for the animals, it wreaks of plan and intelligent design. Now I don't want to say "God did it", but when I read about black holes, I understand how the human eye evolved over millions and billions of years.

A red herring.

Have you done dog training in another life, .. hunting-dogs in particular?

Do you even know what a red herring is?
You can't manipulate objects in your mind?

I can and I did; then found absolutely no infinite "mind", got a problem with that?

Oh no, .. no problem my friend, it happens, you lost it. Look, even Dawkins feels he had it, just don't know where he put it!?

I keep telling people to get out of religion or it will mess you up. Can you check if you still got your 'free will'?

If not, then your refusal to believe in God has nothing to do with lack of evidence for God, but like Dawkins said in the video (time 0:25)
https://www.youtube.com...

"You have no choice"

It was only a joke on his part, you know.
.. so no evidence in the world could change your 'belief/brain' it took millions and billions of years to get you to think that way, right? So maybe a change in your environment, or food, I don't know??

False, all you'll need is one good scrap of evidence to convince me, but thing is, you haven't even got a scrap.
Oh, so what we want to believe has effect on reality now? Fancy that. E, just becuase you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean it's false.

Of course it has.
Bullsh*t. Prove it does.

Have you ever dreamed up a small project for your wife, and before you know it she's kissing you and thanking you for it!?
Nope, and bear in mind that such a piece of evidence would be anecdotal.
It's exactly how God does it, He comes up with an idea, then builds it, makes it with His hands just as we do.
We dream up an idea and use our body to make it, God uses His Son Words body, and Angels or whatever he can use as tools in creating it.

Not only false, but look how degrading the Evolution story is, and both Hitler and Communism shown how devastating and detrimental to human lives such religious ideas can get.

Argument from consequence. I mean, come on, E; this one's easy.
Yes, consequence. Like if a bad friend of your children teaches them to sniff glue, then gasoline, the consequences can be deadly. Same with teaching the BB-Evolution stories as facts, it has killed billions since its invention.

You don't seem to understand. Even if what you said was true (and it most definitely isn't), the consequences of a certain model have nothing to do with its validity.
Nope, of your conspiratardicy.

Don't you get tired of using the same old argument; conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory, .." Prove it's a conspiracy theory. We have shown the conspiracy in both the Big Bang and Evolution stories, and how many lives it caused over the years, and how it stupefied us and now our children, besides all the moral decay.

Me saying it's conspiracy nonsense is basically the same thing as me calling it out for showing no evidence, as you never actually back those claims.

I did and you know it. Only (as I have pointed this out to you many times before) your interpretation of certain words differs from reality.
Like when I say the word 'God', your brain interprets that as: "Not real. All gods are created by religions and have to be taken on 'blind faith', with no proof or evidence, otherwise it's not 'True-faith' !
So some brainwashed religionist with a degree writes this in his otherwise very good dictionary, and now it becomes law:
God=religion
religion requires their god/gods to be taken on 'blind-faith' I mean just look at the simpleminded (I was going to say idiotic) definition for "faith"

Faith
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
optimism, hopefulness, hope
"he justified his boss's faith in him"


This is all cool and dandy, complete confidence in someone BECAUSE and the synonym hints why: "this restores one's faith in politicians" so whatever "this" was, it justified the "faith" in the politician.
But now look at when it comes to 'God':

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

and then look at the rest of the synonyms:

synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine

.. what the hell do these have to do with the definition of "faith"? Religion?? .. church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine ??
So going to a Muslim ISIS Musk is where we can build on our faith? See what I mean?

TL;DR, please be more concise.
Evidence
Posts: 1,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2017 11:19:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 2/9/2017 3:16:03 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/7/2017 7:31:15 PM, Evidence wrote:
...

Alright, it's become apparent to me that your debate tactics are thoroughly dishonest, as you keep on ignoring my evidence and putting words into my mouth to make me sound ridiculous.

You see with all your schooling and book reading, you THINK you understand those articles/definitions you throw at me, but when I read it, I see what you take as fact (from what I read) was based on some Philosophers/mathematicians/scientist already established as Genius 'assumptions' like Galileo born in 1564, or Newton who was born in 1643. Just because they were the first in history to 'assume' these things (like gravity for instance) it does NOT have to be true, .. read what they said.

To prevent that, we'll stick to one, I repeat, ONE reply chain, and only regard relevant subjects; anything unrelated to the specific subject debated will be ignored, as will strawmen.

Strawmen? And who keeps doing that?

If you're going to present something like the subway-mosquito, don't give it to me as if it was fact, example; as part of the Evolution Story, because that is what the Evolution-theory is, assuming speciation happens over millions and billions of unobserved years, .. that there is a straw-man.

A statement that evolution/speciation happens over millions and billions of years IS an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defend than an opponent's real argument, like: "show me ONE actual observed evidence of a 'common ancestor' changing into two separate species?"

You've completely ignored the conclusive evidence I have presented; and so to fix that, I will hence ignore your "skull&bones" strawmen.

So just to be completely clear, this is the evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org...

WHERE in the article do you see This mosquito that was first discovered in Egypt in the late 18th century speciating into the mosquito that is found in the London underground?? By all means show me, point it out!? It is 'assumed' it did because they belong to the Evolution Religion.

Don't give me straw-man arguments about your Evolution Religion that you accept on blind faith, .. unless, like I said; you can show me ONE particular species from the 8 million we have on hand speciating into a completely different species?
Evidence, that's what I'm here for. I don't care what your religion teaches you to believe.

(Given that the following is a different subject altogether, I'll host a separate chain for it.)
I'm sure you heard of Schr"dinger's cat thought experiment right? Well mine is way simpler and reveals a reality we can associate with.

Irrelevant.

OK, then do Schrodinger's cat experiment without using your mind, .. just from the outside like the box with the cat and the poison in it!?
Soon as you open the box, the experiment failed.
Then, try with your brain, that should be interesting? Just don't hurt yourself.

It's irrelevant because the Schrodinger's cat "experiment" isn't actually an experiment, it's an explanation, or visualisation, if you will, of quantum mechanics.

Is quantum mechanics a subject on reality/physics? If so, then let's see you do it with your brain? I want to 'see' your brain doing it?

Wait, didn't you say you believe the brain creates the mind? In that case, you would never be able to differentiate between the table you see outside, from the one you imagine.

I never said that.

.. ah, didn't you say; the mind is the result of the brain? Or is your mind like you believe Infinite is, .. don't exist?

The mind is [one of] the functionality[ies] of the brain, not created by it.

One of the 'functionalities' of the computer is receiving then processing the input from the keyboard. Are you saying the computers functionality is also doing the typing, and coming up with the info that is being typed??

See above (and this was unrelated).

Again, so for your mind, the table you see with your eyes and the one you imagine is not the same?
Where is it different? What, the texture? All you have to do is imagine that same texture, color etc.

One comes from neural transmitters in the eyes, one does not. It's simple enough.

OK, fine, so one comes from the neural transmitter, .. It's the one that does not that I'm interested in. Where does THAT come from?
It comes from this thing: https://en.wikipedia.org...


I asked about the ones that don't come from the posterior parietal cortex!/brain? You know, the thing that hovers over the brain and creates order/sense from all the chaos/sparks going on over the brain that we can sense with fMRI!?

(And is connected to a couple other parts.)

Yes, .. like a computer Motherboard. But a mind has to use a body, hands fingers to type on the keyboard before that happens.

Can fMRI determine the difference between what we see and what we dream?

Probably.

Is that a straw-man answer?

Thanks again Kthulhu.

You're welcome.
KthulhuHimself
Posts: 1,097
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2017 5:44:27 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 2/11/2017 11:19:15 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 2/9/2017 3:16:03 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/7/2017 7:31:15 PM, Evidence wrote:
...

Alright, it's become apparent to me that your debate tactics are thoroughly dishonest, as you keep on ignoring my evidence and putting words into my mouth to make me sound ridiculous.

You see with all your schooling and book reading, you THINK you understand those articles/definitions you throw at me, but when I read it, I see what you take as fact (from what I read) was based on some Philosophers/mathematicians/scientist already established as Genius 'assumptions' like Galileo born in 1564, or Newton who was born in 1643. Just because they were the first in history to 'assume' these things (like gravity for instance) it does NOT have to be true, .. read what they said.

No rebuttal here; moving on.

To prevent that, we'll stick to one, I repeat, ONE reply chain, and only regard relevant subjects; anything unrelated to the specific subject debated will be ignored, as will strawmen.

Strawmen? And who keeps doing that?

If you're going to present something like the subway-mosquito, don't give it to me as if it was fact, example; as part of the Evolution Story, because that is what the Evolution-theory is, assuming speciation happens over millions and billions of unobserved years, .. that there is a straw-man.

You clearly don't know what a strawman even is.
A statement that evolution/speciation happens over millions and billions of years IS an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defend than an opponent's real argument, like: "show me ONE actual observed evidence of a 'common ancestor' changing into two separate species?"

Um... I did.
You've completely ignored the conclusive evidence I have presented; and so to fix that, I will hence ignore your "skull&bones" strawmen.

So just to be completely clear, this is the evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org...

WHERE in the article do you see This mosquito that was first discovered in Egypt in the late 18th century speciating into the mosquito that is found in the London underground?? By all means show me, point it out!? It is 'assumed' it did because they belong to the Evolution Religion.

In the main part and "description" part? You don't expect me to show you evidence of someone actually looking at this creature speciate for three hundred years, do you?
Don't give me straw-man arguments about your Evolution Religion that you accept on blind faith, .. unless, like I said; you can show me ONE particular species from the 8 million we have on hand speciating into a completely different species?
I did. And you still don't know what a strawman even is.
Evidence, that's what I'm here for. I don't care what your religion teaches you to believe.

Again, that I presented.
(Given that the following is a different subject altogether, I'll host a separate chain for it.)
I'm sure you heard of Schr"dinger's cat thought experiment right? Well mine is way simpler and reveals a reality we can associate with.

Irrelevant.

OK, then do Schrodinger's cat experiment without using your mind, .. just from the outside like the box with the cat and the poison in it!?
Soon as you open the box, the experiment failed.
Then, try with your brain, that should be interesting? Just don't hurt yourself.

It's irrelevant because the Schrodinger's cat "experiment" isn't actually an experiment, it's an explanation, or visualisation, if you will, of quantum mechanics.

Is quantum mechanics a subject on reality/physics? If so, then let's see you do it with your brain? I want to 'see' your brain doing it?

How can you "see" that? It's anecdotal until you test it outside your personal experience; and besides, it's not exactly possible to test within that "lab".
Wait, didn't you say you believe the brain creates the mind? In that case, you would never be able to differentiate between the table you see outside, from the one you imagine.

I never said that.

.. ah, didn't you say; the mind is the result of the brain? Or is your mind like you believe Infinite is, .. don't exist?

The mind is [one of] the functionality[ies] of the brain, not created by it.

One of the 'functionalities' of the computer is receiving then processing the input from the keyboard. Are you saying the computers functionality is also doing the typing, and coming up with the info that is being typed??

Nope. That's a misrepresentation you're using there.
See above (and this was unrelated).

Again, so for your mind, the table you see with your eyes and the one you imagine is not the same?
Where is it different? What, the texture? All you have to do is imagine that same texture, color etc.

One comes from neural transmitters in the eyes, one does not. It's simple enough.

OK, fine, so one comes from the neural transmitter, .. It's the one that does not that I'm interested in. Where does THAT come from?
It comes from this thing: https://en.wikipedia.org...


I asked about the ones that don't come from the posterior parietal cortex!/brain?
You mean the nonexistent ones?!
You know, the thing that hovers over the brain and creates order/sense from all the chaos/sparks going on over the brain that we can sense with fMRI!?

Back this, please.
(And is connected to a couple other parts.)

Yes, .. like a computer Motherboard. But a mind has to use a body, hands fingers to type on the keyboard before that happens.

No, I meant other parts of the brain.
Can fMRI determine the difference between what we see and what we dream?

Probably.

Is that a straw-man answer?

Eh... why would it... be?
Thanks again Kthulhu.

You're welcome.
Evidence
Posts: 1,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2017 6:02:06 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 2/13/2017 5:44:27 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/11/2017 11:19:15 PM, Evidence wrote:
At 2/9/2017 3:16:03 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/7/2017 7:31:15 PM, Evidence wrote:
...

Alright, it's become apparent to me that your debate tactics are thoroughly dishonest, as you keep on ignoring my evidence and putting words into my mouth to make me sound ridiculous.

You see with all your schooling and book reading, you THINK you understand those articles/definitions you throw at me, but when I read it, I see what you take as fact (from what I read) was based on some Philosophers/mathematicians/scientist already established as Genius 'assumptions' like Galileo born in 1564, or Newton who was born in 1643. Just because they were the first in history to 'assume' these things (like gravity for instance) it does NOT have to be true, .. read what they said.

No rebuttal here; moving on.

Exactly, even they admit it is their assumption, .. just like ANY and ALL of BB-Evolution, .. or whatever other magical creative power that has been invented by man as to what brought the world and humanity into existence. It is all based on assumptions since none of them could create gravity, or mutate a living organism from primordial soup, which we have plenty of right here on earth. All they have to do is 'remove all signs of biological life from the soup, put a camera on it and wait' The 'time' for it producing all sorts of life is ripe, it's been 4.2 BILLION years, so we should see 'life' coming into existence by the millions.

To prevent that, we'll stick to one, I repeat, ONE reply chain, and only regard relevant subjects; anything unrelated to the specific subject debated will be ignored, as will strawmen.

Strawmen? And who keeps doing that?

If you're going to present something like the subway-mosquito, don't give it to me as if it was fact, example; as part of the Evolution Story, because that is what the Evolution-theory is, assuming speciation happens over millions and billions of unobserved years, .. that there is a straw-man.

You clearly don't know what a strawman even is.
A statement that evolution/speciation happens over millions and billions of years IS an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defend than an opponent's real argument, like: "show me ONE actual observed evidence of a 'common ancestor' changing into two separate species?"

Um... I did.

You're showing me two different mosquitoes after their kind. I asked you to show me "speciation", not different 'kinds' of mosquitoes. I too, even with the little formal education that I had can make up a story of how these subway mosquitoes over tens of, hundreds of or millions of years evolved into that there other mosquito, then take an Eagle and say: "see, this is what the mosquito evolved into over BILLIONS of years" lol.

You've completely ignored the conclusive evidence I have presented; and so to fix that, I will hence ignore your "skull&bones" strawmen.

So just to be completely clear, this is the evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org...

WHERE in the article do you see This mosquito that was first discovered in Egypt in the late 18th century speciating into the mosquito that is found in the London underground?? By all means show me, point it out!? It is 'assumed' it did because they belong to the Evolution Religion.

In the main part and "description" part? You don't expect me to show you evidence of someone actually looking at this creature speciate for three hundred years, do you?

No my friend I don't. Just find me the 'common ancestor mosquito' IN the subway. Remember you can't show me a 'common ancestor' of ANY animal, so you give me "It happened over 300, or million or billions of years, .. really, see; here is a monkey and in the same family you see the gorilla'
https://www.youtube.com...
Time 0:21
where he is pointing, .. I don't see a picture, or even a fossil of that "common ancestor"?? Oh yeah, "blind faith" as in religions. "Trust me, I am a famous scientist!"

Don't give me straw-man arguments about your Evolution Religion that you accept on blind faith, .. unless, like I said; you can show me ONE particular species from the 8 million we have on hand speciating into a completely different species?

I did. And you still don't know what a strawman even is.

That's why I look it up:
Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1.Person A has position X.
2.Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3.Person B attacks position Y.
4.Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.


Is this correct?
If so, just because I sum up Evolution (position X) instead of following by the book explanation of Evolution does not mean my position is different (Y). Or because I ask for evidence for claims in evolution does not mean I'm not talking about evolution.

For instance here with Pastor Dawkins on one of his sermons (If you wish, I can prove he is preaching his 'beliefs' and not teaching science)

https://www.youtube.com...
time 0:21

He claims that a Gorilla over successive generations, living in the same continent, breathing the same air, eating the same food can wonder off from the main group, create two other never seen 'common ancestors which can cause its very molecules to mutate into chimps, bonobos and humans, yet there is absolutely no evidence of this happening. We don't see the common ancestor mutants, only the finished product, like the chimps, bonobos and the humans still living in the same area.

Did that "common ancestor" ape wonder off, give birth to two other 'common ancestors', .. who gave birth, or mutated into chimps, bonobos and humans, then die off? And then its offspring come right back to the same area breathing the same air, eating the same food?

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules. That's nice, now where is the evidence of apes changing into humans, chimps and bonobos?

4.2 billion years, we should see millions of animals between ape and human in every stage of its evolution. Hairless apes, still mating with other apes, then hairless apes NOT mating with other apes but mating with humans living in caves trembling in fear of the dark. Then hairless human-apes trying to build a fire, then those groups who are inventing languages etc. and so on, .. where are they?

Oh yeah, like in the video: "There they are, one line splitting into two, and the point in time is called "common ancestors" and this we have to accept as "scientific proof", where evolution is now fact.
Evidence
Posts: 1,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2017 5:35:01 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 2/10/2017 12:25:18 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/10/2017 12:02:00 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 2/9/2017 5:28:22 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/9/2017 3:42:19 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 2/7/2017 4:54:34 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/7/2017 8:48:56 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 2/2/2017 3:43:05 PM, KthulhuHimself wrote:
At 2/1/2017 9:00:52 PM, Evidence wrote:

You have been indoctrinated by Pastor Dawkins preaching's on Evolution , where he reduced the humanus-apus to not only a mindless moron ape, or rat that relies on his environment to tell "it" what to do, but that "it" has no "free will". That the humanus-apus only thinks it has free will, but that's really the effects of its environment and the food/banana it consumed.

Strawman.

Tell it to Dawkins.

Show me where he says that, then.

https://www.youtube.com...

He clearly states that he has no certain opinion; and even then, it's a matter of definition. Moreover, he also states that there is no difference between there being free will, and us only thinking we have free will.

No certain opinion? Here is his response: "The late Christopher Hitchens when asked 'does he believe in free will' replied; 'I have no choice'"

Also, if there is no difference between there being free will, and us only thinking we have free will, then 'evidence' is useless. How would your brain mutate what is real evidence from what you 'think' is evidence? Who decides which is what, .. your environment?
Besides, why would nature even question itself when in evolution everything is what it is?

BUT, .. making people believe that they really don't have free will, that they are just acting on the influence of their environment has a powerful religious implication, especially regarding morality. Like to the question: "What is truth?"
Evolutionist say there is no truth or lies, yet they force evolution on humanity!? Which shows an obvious free will, intent to deceive.

Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. It simply doesn't follow from the premises.

How else would you have come up with this answer unless you had a mind separate from your brain? Did seeing the sequence of the letters in my above words 'influence' your answer? No, you reasoned opposing to what I have written.
You don't seem to realise that the brain and what you call the "mind" have exactly the same function.

So perception and dream is both created by the brain?

Yup.

.. which is the influence of your environment and food you eat. So how can someone in the same sitting, eating the same food write a book? Wouldn't that animal have to have an earthquake that causes tectonic plate movements causing a change in its environment to change its mind? How does purposeless Mother Nature influence someone who stays at home to write a book? You know, like Hitchens says; he has no choice!?