Jump to content


Authentic Christian Believer
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Neutral

1 Follower

About Justus

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Canst say for sure, dam things keeps moving, but at least it keeps coming back to the same spot or I would be totally lost.
  • Interests
    Phasmalogy TM
  • More About Me
    How much does a scientist make per theory? Here's one on the scientific mystery regarding which came first, the chicken or the egg? My theory is the Cock, a doddle dew.... so to speak. TM

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    the Holy Ghost

Recent Profile Visitors

693 profile views
  1. Why would anyone use the data from a European patent search if the patent number is for a US patent? Just curious.... As far as I know, the only live virus from the coronavirus family of viruses that can be patented is one has been attenuated. If not mistaken a live attenuated cornavirus is a virus used for vaccines. But at least you made the effort to make inquiry, but the only reason viruses are created that aren't attenuated is for use as a biological weapon, so no nobody files a patent for creating a disease. I am not saying that the Convid-19 is a made man or anything of the sorts.
  2. Yet they never apologize for claiming that all mankind on earth originated from one woman, do they?
  3. Of course, a patent for a Coronavirus virus might suggest that shit doesn't just happen. Do the vaccines for these viruses just happen? Of course there is patent for a Coronavirus, it is a US patent # 10130701 and here is the link to the USPO to verify it. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=10130701.PN.&OS=PN/10130701&RS=PN/10130701 Do you know why they patent vaccines for infectious diseases?
  4. Of course everyone hears of an idea from somebody who had the idea originally. I don't know how far this website archives the post of members, yet I referenced the '120 years' being the days of man in posts on this website in 2015 and well before that on others. But that wouldn't prove anything because if posts can be added then then would be any reason to believe it validated anything. As I stated that I haven't heard one claim asserting that the LORD had set the days of man in the flesh at a 120 years and neither of those websites state that man's lifespan in the flesh upon earth was set at 120 years. If you had read on the neverthristy.org webpage you cited, they made the conclusion that the 120 years referenced in Genesis 6:3 referred to that time that the global flood would occur. LOL, please. If the interpretation, or hypothesis if you will, is that man does not live in the flesh over 120 years, then a falsiability of the hypothesis would be that if a person lives over 120 years then that "hypothesis' is untrue. And if data presents itself which shows the falsiability of the hypothesis, then it wouldn't make a difference to you whether it was true or not because you don't believe the hypothesis. But then again, it wouldn't make any difference to you would it Since people usually talk about what they consider to be true rather than what they don't consider true, at least productive people anyways, maybe you brought it up because you believe that death could be programmed into the human genome to occur at a given point of time if all other causation for death had failed, oh heck what am I saying. But who were you being sarcastic too?
  5. So the deity told you that when men began to multiply upon the face of the earth that everybody would be killed in a 120 years? Well shoot man, I wouldn't believe that deity either.
  6. Well, to begin with you are using a copyrighted Bible which means you one of those eternal mortals right? The last evolved translation of the ancient writings from their original language into the English language is found in the KJV translation where one would find that it is written in Genesis 6:3 ; "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." I would be interested in hearing where you heard it said that the maximum life span on humans is 120 years? I haven't heard of one account of anyone claiming that Genesis 6:3 refers to maximum life span of man. Besides is the 120 years the time that it would be until the great flood, you know the one where light refraction would be seen in the sky and that would be a sign that it repented the LORD that he made man on earth. Can I ask if you have examined the evidence used to substantiate the claim the lady actually lived to 122 years old? I am not sure that God's curse was aimed at her. That is the curse. I think you had an auditory hallucination, but at least you kept your mental facilities since you realized that if didn't hold up once then it was just a pink unicorn, do you really think you would even consider that 120 year principle could even possibly be true, naah, me neither. The Russian President , Vladimir Putin authorized the scientific review of the Calment claim and in 2019, Russian researchers concluded that Jeanne Calment's daughter assumed her identify after her death in the 1930's to avoid France's steep inheritance tax. In addition to peculiar facts such as the daughters husband remained with the mother-in-law, and never remarried and the death of the daughter there was the obscure 2007 French book, Insurance and Its Secrets, claimed that an insurer became aware of Calment’s identity theft but “the authorities did not make it public because the ‘elder of the French’ became a legend.” I think the final report was that science has no capability of reaching a definitely decision, and basically stated that the French scientists who validated her ask by asking her questions that only Jeanne Calment would know. Since she had all of her personal records destroyed prior to the validation process, then the fact she provided responses to the questions proves she was more than likely, actually probably was Jeanne Calment since they don't think he daughter would have been able to answer the questions. When asked if the knew the correct answer to questions in order to validate the accuracy of the responses given, the reseachers said 'no' that would be cheating. ' Christians haven ever heard that interpretation and once they do the deny it since they had been taught that the 120 years would be the time until the earth would flood.
  7. What did you want a relationship with? the Church or God?
  8. Nope, that is why he tells the married male and female to ask Him at home. 34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 1 Cor 14:34-35
  9. Humm, if the Spirit of truth wasn't a real entity, I guess I would rebel against him with words without knowledge.
  10. That is correct, in Genesis 1:1, the substance which formed the expanse of space in the beginning was created by Elohim, or the gods. The term 'gods' may very well have a different meaning than what is cited by man made doctrines, but then again believers can't believe all things. But I am sure you are aware, the Biblical term 'create' infers the act in which something is brought into existence that has never existed, in either nature or substance, prior to the time it is created. Whereas evolve infers the process by which an existent substance develops or is made into a new or different form having the same nature or substance from which it originated from. Thus, evolution and creationism are simply doctrines of ontological monism which reject the dualistic nature of matter.
  11. If you claim Truthseeker is a she then I believe you when you say you know she is, that is why I used the 'he' in the syntax of gender neutral because 'man' can be either a male or female. Yet ironically you never had a clue that child born unto a virgin would be a female or do you not believe that parthenogenesis is possible in humans and that a child born from a zygote formed without cell fusion between the gametes of a male and female are only known to produce an xx offspring in humans?
  12. You response is sufficient, if you can pick out what I meant otherwise I will let someone else explain it to you.
  13. If by origin you mean the the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived then my answer would be the beginning.
  14. If the identity of this 'who' is to be found in the Bible, then that's another invalid circular argument, Justus. Nope Justus is not 'who', but do you really think you would be able to find 'who' it is if it is in the Bible without hearing 'who' it is since a person doesn't know they don't even know something until they first learn of that which they didn't know. So how did you come to the knowledge that if you made a claim there was a onus upon you to substantiate your claim with evidence? If you claim that you had no idea that if you made a claim that the onus is upon you to substantiate that claim with evidence, then if the onus is upon you to substantiate a claim you make then where did you get the idea from that the onus was upon you?
  15. Yes it does and not they don't, and neither do they need to because the scriptures called them to repentance, not to faith. You are the one using the scripture to justify your belief that the word of God requires the believer to answer your question about why they believe. My response was merely citing the reason why I believe your circular argument is invalid. I didn't reply because I had to, but because I wanted to.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.