Greetings!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Y'all can have at this troll all you want.  I'm done here.

[Joshpantera]

On 3/2/2019 at 8:43 AM, Justus said:

That statement indicates that you really don't have a clue how science works. 

 

I know that how science works, completely undermines Genesis's creation myth being true in any way. And that's all I need to know at the moment considering our discussion. Science and Genesis's creation account(s) do not gel at all. Which is what you haven't been able to refute so far. To refute my claim you would need to show that Genesis can be shown to be true in terms of the formation of the earth and cosmos. You have yet to establish such a thing. 

 

On 3/2/2019 at 8:43 AM, Justus said:

But, if you are confident then what can I say, you're confident.   Of course one can be confident when they run a shell game.   But why only 99.9% confident and not a 100% confident one might ask, seeing that a person picking the shell would have a 1 in 3 chance of picking the shell with the pea under it, their odds or confident would be 33.3%

 

While there are two of three shells which the pea wouldn't be under, those two shells would give the dealer a 66.6% chance that one of them would be the one that the player would pick, then a honest dealer of the shell game could not claim to have any more that 66.6% confidence that the player would fail to choose he shell with the pea under it,

 

Why not 100% confidence? It's simple. No one can be 100% certain of just about anything to do with ultimate reality, or existence itself. The real big questions transcend all knowledge - technically even by religious standards. That's why the most well informed thiests, are agnostic theists - not claiming 100% knowledge, but believing in god regardless of the admitted lack of absolute "knowledge." That's why Richard Dawkins claims to be a 6.9 out of 7, on a 1-7 scale of belief to anti-belief. He's an agnostic atheist, because he's smart enough to know that he can't claim 100% certainty.

 

And none of this admission of uncertainty gives a leg up to some one trying to argue that Genesis is true. The person trying to argue that Genesis is true can never have 100% certainty in the claim, for one thing. And secondly, not having an alternative to how the earth and it's life came to be does not even play into it. It doesn't matter whether we know or don't know how the world and it's life got here. All that matters is that the person claiming that it certainly got here via a seven day creation myth that contradicts itself, and all that we know through modern science, can be shown as demonstrably wrong with their own claim making. And wrong in the specific ways that we've already outlined in detail previously. 

 

On 3/2/2019 at 8:43 AM, Justus said:

So it doesn't surprise me that you are 99.9% confident which is why I have 0% doubt they you don't know of any plausible theory for abiogenesis seeing that living matter can not evolve from non-living matter.

 

Justus, thanks for playing along here. 

 

Like I said above, having an alternative knowledge of certainty in contrast to peoples claims of certainty about Genesis, is really a non issue. It may seem like an issue to you right now, but it really isn't my friend. The fact is that we just don't know exactly how life evolved and that's ok. It's a work in progress that we're still trying to figure it out and put it together. And science does not claim that it knows the answer absolutely or certainly. There are various working hypothesis's and the jury's still out. 

 

But we can go through and start eliminating bad claims based on their own merit. And Genesis's creation account(s) are bad claims for the specific reasons stated. So what I was looking for you to do is to take the claims of Genesis one and by one and try your best to justify those claims. And then come together and see if we can agree on which claims can be ruled out as true or false, one by one. 

[Joshpantera]

12 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Y'all can have at this troll all you want.  I'm done here.

 

He's a silver level subscribing apologetic member. I get your frustration, but I'm not inclined to call Justus a troll. He's part of the gang as far as that goes. We just happen to disagree with his christian belief system. And everyone can play their respective roles in the controversy. And Justus is welcome to recognize the error in his ways and switch camps if he has a flash of revelation and sees the darkness for what it is - a deceptive religious belief masquerading as if it were "light" and "truth." When it clearly is not, which, is what I'm establishing here. 

[midniterider]

2 hours ago, Justus said:

 

Why the insistent desire to label people?

 

Why the insistent desire to produce word salad?

[sdelsolray]

On 2/17/2019 at 5:10 PM, sdelsolray said:

 

Poster Justus is a coward.  He attempts to project an air of mystery and special knowledge (of which only he holds), but then runs away from direct questions with one of two infantile and vacuous tactics:  (i) refusing to respond or (ii) responding with more mystery and riddles.

 

16 hours ago, Justus said:

You do know that if I fail to respond to a question it might be that I didn't see the question or got sidetracked.  But apparently you would rather judge first and inquire later.  However I do reserve the right to refuse to answer the assumption of someone who assumes that their interpretation of scripture is the correct interpretation while acknowledging there is no truth in it. 

 

But let's see, exactly what is your question?   So did you have something to say regarding the two great lights or did you post this because just wanted to say something?  

 

For the other members and lurkers, here is a short trip down memory lane with links to four earlier threads on this Forum in which poster Justus participated.

 

1)  “An Appeal For Justus”

 

- from 2014-2015

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/66240-an-appeal-for-justus/

 

2)  “Just for Baa”

 

- from 2016

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71796-just-for-baa/

 

3)  “Unrepentant Baptist Liar For Jesus - Six Years On And Still Lying”

 

-  from 2016

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71678-unrepentant-baptist-liar-for-jesus-six-years-on-and-still-lying/

 

4)  “Earth’s Water-Origin”

 

-  from 2015

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/69667-earths-water-origin/

 

This last thread contains the following post from Justus where he actually explains how water came to be on the Earth:

 

Poster Justus claimed:

 

“While I am intentionally omitting some things, the simple premise is that the water found on earth originated from the primordial atom within the earth.”

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

We just happen to disagree with his christian belief system.

How can we disagree with his beliefs, when he so rarely lays them out plain for us?  It's always mind games, word salads, and peas.

[mwc]

     I'm told need to be taught spelling from someone who is illiterate.  It's no wonder they refuse to spell things out for me.  If they change their mind and decide to give some spelling lessons...I'm around.

 

          mwc

 

[Justus]

So if it a trial you want, then it will be a trial you get.

18 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

For the other members and lurkers, here is a short trip down memory lane with links to four earlier threads on this Forum in which poster Justus participated. 

So Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, the Prosecutor (that's you sdelsolray ) accuses me of being a troll and cites thread after thread [See sdelsoray Indictment attached below] where he claims I trolled on this forum, as if in the scheme of things this has any relevance to what is relevant in life but I have anything going at this morning, or at least until the sun comes up at which point it will be drone time, so I thought I would humor him with a response written in the light .  

 

18 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

For the other members and lurkers, here is a short trip down memory lane with links to four earlier threads on this Forum in which poster Justus participated.

 

1)  “An Appeal For Justus”

 

- from 2014-2015

 

 

 

2)  “Just for Baa”

 

- from 2016

 

 

 

3)  “Unrepentant Baptist Liar For Jesus - Six Years On And Still Lying”

 

-  from 2016

 

 

 

4)  “Earth’s Water-Origin”

 

-  from 2015

 

 

 

This last thread contains the following post from Justus where he actually explains how water came to be on the Earth:

 

Poster Justus claimed:

 

“While I am intentionally omitting some things, the simple premise is that the water found on earth originated from the primordial atom within the earth.”

So other members and lurkers, let me begin by begin by warning you of the Prosecutor who present the data they want without disclosing all the data in order to obtain the verdict he desires. 

 

By offering as evidence as a couple of pieces of data, this Prosecutor covers the data he doesn't want to see by placing with the tons of posts which he knows you are not going to sort and sift through which inside is just as effective as if he didn't disclose it all since either way you won't examine it.  Only this way he appears innocent of any deception, which is transgression he has committed with his false allegations against the one they call Justus.

 

And in such, face which this cunningly crafted allegation which would take more time than it would be worth to respond to, the accused will suggest that for brevity's sake that we simply use this thread in making a determination of whether the accused is a troll or not since a troll would troll and if therefore was the intent of the accused to troll then not knowing he was going to be accused of trolling then it the guilt or innocence should evident within this thread since it would be the impartial data indicative of the motivations of the one accused would they not?

 

 I know you are right when you say they would, and the reason I know you are right is because the do!   So being agreed lets examine the accused first post in this thread.

 

Quote

The reason they aren't responding to the 'stumbled' reference is probably because scientism defines a day as being 24 hours.

 

I posted this comment in hopes that anyone who read it would catch the 'stumbled' reference the OP had made by referring to the 24 hour day which anyone familiar with the scriptures could associate with the passage in which Jesus said are there not 12 hours in day.

 

Thus,  if any man walks in the day he stumbles not because he sees the friggin convergence of light which becomes the divergent bands of EMS  from this center point of our physical world.  And if any man walks in the night he stumbles because there is no light in him. 

So I was simply showing those members or lurkers who were reading the thread was to connect the dots between the comment made by the OP referring to stumbling and the stumbling  reference passage regarding 12 hours in a day.  So in my own way I was telling the OP not to get carried away with his inferences regarding the light within this forum.

 

18 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

Poster Justus is a coward.  He attempts to project an air of mystery and special knowledge (of which only he holds), but then runs away from direct questions with one of two infantile and vacuous tactics:  (i) refusing to respond or (ii) responding with more mystery and riddles.

I'll put it like this, I listen to the instruction of men wiser than me so if you care to tell me the meaning of the  term 'rend' then I will show you it what it means when you don't know that you don't even know me. 

 

So if anyone wants to know why I don't respond to the questions asked by some members then I would aver to the advice of my counsel, see Matthew 7:6.  So in conclusion, judge me all you want its drone time for me.

 

P.S. 

[mwc]

     If these are the lessons I'm never going to learn to spell.

 

          mwc

 

[LogicalFallacy]

@Justus

 

So I'm still confused. You asked me why I keep referring to you as a Christian - see response below.

 

On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 10:54 PM, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Using the generally accurate rule, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck.... even though I thought the duck was a little off. You are citing scripture and arguing bible verse as if you are a Christian... why wouldn't I assume you are one?

 

If you aren't a Christian what are you? 

 

I guess that would then lead to what are your general beliefs surrounding the bible, God etc?

 

 

[midniterider]

He's not a Christian. He just likes the holy spirit and defending the bible ... for some reason.

 

Maybe he's like those other Christians that say they aren't Christians. "They just worship Jesus." *wink. That will totally fool people.

 

Like I was born in the USA, raised in the USA, have a birth certificate from a state in the USA .... but don't call me a US citizen.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

.

[pantheory]

Justus,

 

 " ......I have 0% doubt they you don't know of any plausible theory for abiogenesis seeing that living matter can not evolve from non-living matter."

 

There are a great many different theories of abiogenisis. Nearly all mainstream related theories relate to life first evolving here on Earth roughly 3.8 billion years ago. The oldest fossilized microbial life was determined to be about 3.6 billion years old. The Earth itself has been determined to be about 4.543 billion years old. The most well known abiogenisis theory involves life forming from organic compound chemistry such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, water (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, etc.and other hydrogen compounds, the precursors of lipids (fatty cell walls), carbohydrates, (sugars, cellulose), amino acids (protein metabolism), and nucleic acids, the basis of RNA life -- viruses are a prime example. In some classifications viruses are not life because they cannot intake food or replicate without parasitic metabolism and proliferation inside cellular DNA life. 

 

The oldest abiogenisis theories related to life evolving in relatively quiet tidal pools having all the necessary chemistries of the oceans and atmosphere in those beginning times here on Earth.  Some of these compounds accordingly rained down from atmospheric interactions involving lightning and combinations of atmospheric gases that do not exist in today's atmosphere. There are many variations of this theory. Another theory involves life evolving around volcanic vents involving sulfur and water, either on land, or in the ocean. These are a more modern theories.

 

The abiogenisis theory that I think is more likely involves life forming off the Earth within large comets, or inside matter within interstellar clouds, the precursors of the sun. The advantage of these theories is that it allows much more time, billions of years longer, for life to have evolved within these clouds so that beginning life already would have been long established in its most elementary form before it rained down on Earth.

 

Another interesting abiogenisis theory that I like involves another planet the size of Mars pre-existed the solar system in interstellar space. It would have been a primarily icy planet on its outside. Here life accordingly could have formed in its interior in a warmer region of interstellar clouds. It could have been a planet from a stellar system much older than the sun. The material from which it came coalesced  to form our sun and solar system. Because this planet was far older than Earth, life could have first evolved on it, which could allow possibly twice as long for life to form and evolve in the first place. In the formation of our solar system this planet could have collided with the newly forming Earth, raining down its water and life onto the volcanic Earth surface creating much of the surface oceans and seeding it with beginning life. The material from this collision formed the moon. Such a collision of a Mar's sized planet with the early Earth is the prevailing theory concerning the formation of the moon. If this theory is valid evidence for early life should also exist on the moon's interior, far enough away from its surface where the sun's unblocked radiation would destroy it. Such evidence should also be found on the interior of Mars because it too is close enough to have been bombarded with some of this beginning life from such a relatively nearby collision. At that time Mars had water oceans and a thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide, fruital grounds for beginning  DNA microbial life.

 

Even though possibly many theories in modern biology and physics may have flaws in them or be generally wrong, when you look at the odds for one of the major and minor theories being valid concerning abiogenisis, the odds go up greatly that a version of one of them would be correct. 

 

The god of the gaps just does not cut it.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

https://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html

[Justus]

16 hours ago, midniterider said:

He's not a Christian. He just likes the holy spirit and defending the bible ... for some reason.

So are you a Catholic since you are promoting the Catholic doctrine for the origin of the species.   

Quote

Maybe he's like those other Christians that say they aren't Christians. "They just worship Jesus." *wink. That will totally fool people.

Well let's see, as an Ex-Christian you must have admitted as a Christian that you were a sinner right?  So do you believe you were sinner or were you lying?  

Quote

Like I was born in the USA, raised in the USA, have a birth certificate from a state in the USA .... but don't call me a US citizen.

From a state in the USA? 

Wow, you ought to read "A Man without a Country."   

The US is a state of the United Nations pursuant to the treaty ratified by the US Senate shortly after WWII.    Ever hear the song Won't get fooled again? 

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

I guess you didn't get the invite. 

 

 

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, Justus said:

So are you a Catholic since you are promoting the Catholic doctrine for the origin of the species. 

 

Am I promoting Catholic doctrine for the origin of the species? Please elaborate. If I say "Fuck Catholicism" does that help my case? 

 

3 hours ago, Justus said:

  

Well let's see, as an Ex-Christian you must have admitted as a Christian that you were a sinner right?  So do you believe you were sinner or were you lying?  

 

I said I was a sinner, yes and became a Christian. I think I kind of half assed admitted I was a sinner but feel free to choose whatever you like from the false dichotomy you presented. Later though I decided the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, church, and the bible was just nonsense, which kind of negates either truly believing I was a sinner or lying (from an earlier time). 

 

3 hours ago, Justus said:

From a state in the USA? 

Wow, you ought to read "A Man without a Country."   

The US is a state of the United Nations pursuant to the treaty ratified by the US Senate shortly after WWII.    Ever hear the song Won't get fooled again? 

UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

I guess you didn't get the invite. 

 

 

 

Yawn.

[midniterider]

So, Justus, do you love Jesus?

[Justus]

8 hours ago, pantheory said:

There are a great many different theories of abiogenisis.

 

Let me start by saying that I don't consider that you are illiterate for misspelling the word abiogenesis, but rather indicates that you probably didn't copy and paste what you posted which is way better than someone who can't comprehend what is written.

 

While you have every right to believe that Catholic doctrine of evolution is real science but that doesn't make it any less a Catholic doctrine.  However, the fact that the doctrine of evolution originated from the interpretation of scripture and not from the observation of nature  which is apparent by the simple application of the scientific method.  If it isn't apparent to you then why would even make a difference if it was.  

 

Of course the doctrine of evolution has no relation to the Big Bang theory, which isn't a Catholic doctrine based upon the interpretation of Biblical scripture published in a scientific form.  But it is interesting that if you work for the Pope you get to retain the Intellectual Property Rights, which is kinda ironic considering that vow of poverty clause, but at least the Priest is credited with his creation and was able to continue teaching  at the Catholic University of Science where they teach the two great lights are the sun and the moon, and evolution too.  How bizzare.

 

So in conclusion I have no interested in arguing the subjective beliefs of the objective believers who are offended by the fact I breath.  Not saying your one of them, but if you don't want to hear something that doesn't affirm your divinity then hopefully I haven't offended you and if I did oh well.

 

 

[Justus]

2 hours ago, midniterider said:

So, Justus, do you love Jesus?

 

If you won't even answer your own question first then please don't pester me with your unsolicited questions.  

[Justus]

3 hours ago, midniterider said:

Am I promoting Catholic doctrine for the origin of the species?

If you have to ask then you don't know then.

Quote

Please elaborate.

I can't since that would require you to first know what you were doing.

Quote

If I say "Fuck Catholicism" does that help my case? 

Depends upon what your case is.  

[LogicalFallacy]

I'm so confused right now. I really don't know what to think. Evolution being a Catholic doctrine is new to me. Make me wonder why they fought it so hard for so long... some of them still do. I don't think even Ken Ham claims its a Catholic doctrine.

 

Lewis Black: "Anytime someone tells me the earth is 6,000 years old I hold up a fossil and say fossil... and if they continue talking I throw it over their head."

 

(Also it's not actually Catholic doctrine. It's a theory they (mostly) accept. To my knowledge (and I must caveat this) but to my knowledge you won't find evolution written down in their creeds, their dogma, or required belief's. It's not like the doctrine of the trinity or the pope is god on earth kind of thing.)

[midniterider]

According to Wikipedia , Catholics have been given permission to either believe an Adam/Eve type of doctrine or a limited evolution type doctrine. 

 

 

[disillusioned]

[LogicalFallacy]

28 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

I can help you with that

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I am reminded of something my grandmother used to say.  "Much a do about nuttin."

 

This thread started that way, and likely will end that way.

[midniterider]

20 hours ago, Justus said:

 

If you won't even answer your own question first then please don't pester me with your unsolicited questions.  

 

Which question do I need to answer? Oops, that was another unsolicted question, wasn’t it? (<- and so was that!!! OMG) My bad.