Jump to content

Peanut Gallery for DarkBishop vs. Pittsburghjoe


Recommended Posts

  • webmdave locked and unlocked this topic

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

@WalterP,   To begin with, no one has the right to be here on this website.  Not yourself, not either of the joes, not even the Prof thy Mod.  This is a personal, privately owned and operate

Oxygen is formed via nucleosynthesis within stars.  Indeed, all atomic elements (except hydrogen, some helium and some lithium) were formed (i) within a star's normal life, (ii) by reason of a superno

Well, his inability to participate in rational discourse could (for the most part) simply be due to religious indoctrination coupled with little, if any, education in or experience with critical think

Posted Images

  • Moderator

Joe broke rank and tried to start without allowing DB the first word as the debate was determined by moderation. We have Joe's post hidden until DB initiates the debate. 

 

Here's a teaser from the hidden post for peanuts to analyze over here outside of the debate: 

 

If we are NOT in a fallen reality, why does something have to be wave collapsed to decay? Locality and Decoherence is the name of the game we are in. Locality allows uniqueness. Physical uniqueness allows us to be about ourselves ..sin.

 

Our brains are physical but we are using our soul to operate it for thinking. A physical brain by itself is only good for animal instincts.

 

Shouldn't Satan originally having a claim on everyone tell you he is a bigger deal than you care to admit to? Jesus takes that away from him, but not for those that don't see the light. Unbelievers need to understand that this beast owns them.


1 Corinthians 15:50
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
God's Kingdom doesn't want anything to do with this fallen place.

2 Corinthians 5:21
Does "For our sake he made him to be sin" mean Jesus was made in a way that could interact with this fallen reality?

'Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!' (Rev. 18:2).
Does God/angel call this physical fallen reality "Babylon" at the end before Judgment Day?

2 Corinthians 4:18
For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. 
Is this talking about wave-particle duality?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

1) If there is decay in the material universe, then that means the universe is a fallen reality. 

 

That is a massive logic leap. For all we know we exist within one of an infinite number of universes called a multiverse. And that labels every single physical universe, which are potentially infinite, as an infinite number of "fallen universes." Who's to say that decay equals fallen in the first place? Why is it not simply 'the natural order of existence', exactly the way it's always been and always will be? Universes will always decay, and new universes will continuously arise, forever. Over and over again. Not a one off event like the "fall of man" in the bible.  

 

2) If the bible speaks about a theology of the 'fall of man', that means that it's referring to the scientific issue of 'decay in the universe.' 

 

The massive logic leap widens! As mentioned, claim or premise number 1 isn't established as true. There's good reason to call it false or not conclusion at best. It doesn't automatically follow that the universe is a fallen reality or that it operates any differently than any number of other universes out there. The whole thing, including my evaluation, is SPECULATION and OPINION!!!

 

Joe starts off building his castle on a foundation of unproven, and unsupported speculation and opinion as his first building blocks for his belief system. Not good. Not smart. And not very convincing. 

 

We're off to a horribly framed and illegal start to this debate....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
25 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

2 Corinthians 4:18
For the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. 
Is this talking about wave-particle duality?

 

Highly doubtful. For myriad reasons. 

 

But mainly because the bible was written in a pre-scientific setting. The cosmology of Genesis was that of a round, flat disc shaped earth with a multilayered "heavens" above the earth. Which was the contemporary cosmology of the near east at the time. Paul speak of going up to through the heavens, revealing it's presence through the NT writing periods. The creation myth and the NT literally were written by people who didn't even know the truth about about our own solar system, let alone the galaxy, let alone the local cluster and beyond. The were scientifically illiterate in that way. 

 

How then do they suddenly write cryptic passages about the particle - wave duality which wasn't discovered until the 20th century????

 

If they had 20th century knowledge of physics, why didn't they have 20th century knowledge of cosmology????

 

The only "Babylon" going on here is the confusion going on in Joe's mind where he lacks the comprehensive ability to apply logic and reason to his own theories. He hasn't bothered to try and weigh out the pro's and con's. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

The only "Babylon" going on here is the confusion going on in Joe's mind where he lacks the comprehensive ability to apply logic and reason to his own theories.

Don't confuse Babylon with babbling.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 confusion going on in Joe's mind where he lacks the comprehensive ability to apply logic and reason to his own theories. 

 

BINGO!  That is exactly what is going on.  He lacks the ability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna be pissed if he does one of his patented 2 sentence rebuttals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
8 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

.

Wait a minute... I never said that!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

I'm gonna be pissed if he does one of his patented 2 sentence rebuttals. 

The evidence (e.g., over 500 posts from Joe) strongly indicates Joe is not capable of rational discourse.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sdelsolray said:

The evidence (e.g., over 500 posts from Joe) strongly indicates Joe is not capable of rational discourse.

Yep. There is obviously something wrong with Joe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok @TheRedneckProfessor,

 

This debate is over. I was really hoping Joe would put up more of a fight. You can shut it down now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Yep. There is obviously something wrong with Joe. 

 

Well, his inability to participate in rational discourse could (for the most part) simply be due to religious indoctrination coupled with little, if any, education in or experience with critical thinking.

 

On another point, your posts in the actual debate thread with Joe are quite good...thorough, rational and instructive.  Joe doesn't address them but simply bleats another assertion.

 

Also, in your discussion of "major flaws" in Genesis 5 eq seq, there's an earlier one that is quite significant.  It deals with water and timing.  Water contains oxygen, which is only formed in stars and only expelled to other parts of space in supernova explosions (small amounts are expelled by other star end-of-life events).  In the first several chapters of Genesis, water exists before the stars are created.  This is incorrect.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @sdelsolray,

 

I didn't know that. I will have to look into it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
17 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Ok @TheRedneckProfessor,

 

This debate is over. I was really hoping Joe would put up more of a fight. You can shut it down now. 

My wish is your command.  Let me know if there's anything else you can do for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

My wish is your command.  Let me know if there's anything else you can do for me.

 

Sure 👍  I could bring ya a beer for the super bowl just DM me lmao. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

Thanks @sdelsolray,

 

I didn't know that. I will have to look into it. 

 

You don't have to look far.  According to the myth, the stars are not created until the fourth day, yet water exists on the first day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

You don't have to look far.  According to the myth, the stars are not created until the fourth day, yet water exists on the first day.

 

I mean I didn't know stars expelled oxygen. Thats what I was going to look up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
10 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

You don't have to look far.  According to the myth, the stars are not created until the fourth day, yet water exists on the first day.

 

All of these atoms, H20 and all, are obviously matter. Material existing before the fall of man. The fall of man apparently creating matter when waves become particles. This guy is far gone. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

I mean I didn't know stars expelled oxygen. Thats what I was going to look up. 

 

Oxygen is formed via nucleosynthesis within stars.  Indeed, all atomic elements (except hydrogen, some helium and some lithium) were formed (i) within a star's normal life, (ii) by reason of a supernova (iii) when neutron stars merge.

 

Added:  These processes occurred for about 9 billion years before out solar system was formed.  This is why all 92 natural elements exist in our solar system, including Earth.  This was a necessary prerequisite for the development of carbon based life on Earth.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

All of these atoms, H20 and all, are obviously matter. Material existing before the fall of man. The fall of man apparently creating matter when waves become particles. This guy is far gone. 

Hopefully Joe is reading the peanut gallery. Good points!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DarkBishop said:

Hopefully Joe is reading the peanut gallery. Good points!!

 

I suspect Joe doesn't do facts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sdelsolray said:

 

I suspect Joe doesn't do facts.

 

From my experience trying to debate him i guarantee he doesn't do facts. Lol 😆 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

All these apologists who look for ways of trying to read modern science into ancient creation myth fail. It's not possible that their theories will ever work out because the writers had literally zero knowledge of 20th and 21st century cosmology or physics. And if it's said that a god inspired them to write it down, the god apparently didn't understand 20th and 21st century cosmology and physics either. Because the order of events NEVER lines up. It doesn't work as symbolic of the literal universe. It doesn't work as literal of the literal universe. It doesn't work out at all. 

 

Hence my previous debate position that Genesis is demonstrably false. All of this adds more depth to that previous debate. It reveals more contradictions. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator

Well folks, looks like I missed the best week of it. Ah well.

 

@sdelsolray Thanks for that gem about water appearing before stars. I did not know about it forming in stars. Something else to add when I debate folks about a literal interpretation of Genesis.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Transferring this over from the Hierophant vs Pittsburgh peanut gallery...

 

Hmmm... I have a further thought about the term and conditions you've outlined above Josh, but since I've committed myself to yielding, watching and waiting, I'll keep my counsel until afterward. Walter.

 

Here's my thought, Josh. (Not so much of a thought, as a concern.)

 

As you know I'm concerned about the following scenario.  Before people register here they usually spend some time lurking and carefully reading what's on offer here.  This means that they can read everything and anything posted by people like Brothermario and PittsburghJoe.  As I mentioned before, it would be both tragic and bitterly ironic if these vulnerable and fragile lurkers were deflected from registering by what they read from these bozos.  We want the lurkers to make the next step and register here so that they can share and get help, right?

 

So, how can we balance the right of the Joe's (Mello & Pittsburgh) to post here against protecting the lurkers from them?

 

I'm currently stumped.

 

Any ideas?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.