Dust
Posted 11-16-2009 at 08:46 PM by lokelake
For we are dust, and dust we will return, but our souls goes back to God.
Total Comments 19
Comments
-
But... that means... Dust mites are the true rulers of earth!!Posted 11-17-2009 at 08:45 AM by Jacques 
-
If you want to get technical, we're actually an assembled mass of sub-atomic particles held together by magnetic and gravitic force fields (I know it's more complicated than that, but gimme a break here!).
In a way, 'ashes to ashes, dust to dust' echoes the physics principle elaborated by Antoine Laurent de Lavoisier: "Rien ne se perd, rien ne crée, tout se transforme."Posted 11-17-2009 at 03:04 PM by interesting
-
God made Adam from a handful of dust, so now everyone who is born, came from dust as well since Adam came from dust, and also because we are all descendants of Adam.Posted 11-17-2009 at 03:55 PM by lokelake
-
(Warning: My comments here sound condescending but they are meant to be sarcastic - they are not meant as an offence though their meaning might be seen as such.)
We are therefore children of incest. We are also the product of in-breeding.
After all, Eve was made from Adam's rib, therefore she shares his DNA. Adam therefore mated with a female version of himself to produce his children.
And it follows that Adam and Eve's children mated together to spawn their own offspring, since there were at that time no other humans around but their offspring.
No wonder humanity is so screwed up!Posted 11-17-2009 at 04:23 PM by interesting
-
Yes, Eve does share his DNA, but I think she shares some of his DNA. Since she shares some of of his DNA, ladies also gets hair on their bodies, but, since she only shared half of his DNA, her and ladies in general, their body hair does not grow as fast as men's.
Now, the only reason why Eve gets body hair also, was because God made Adam and men in general to have body hair.
So, thats how we all got body hair, not because of some fictional story made up by Charles Darwin.Posted 11-17-2009 at 06:02 PM by lokelake
Updated 11-17-2009 at 06:11 PM by lokelake -
So she was made from his rib- yet has only half his DNA? Where exactly do you think the other half came from?
I'm kind of getting you have no understanding of genetics, or anthropology, or would realise how absurd your last post sounds.
You're trolling and trying to start another debate on evolution- which is pointless because you don't listen to what anyone who disagrees with you says.Posted 11-17-2009 at 06:24 PM by Jacques
-
So just because atheists can come and say that the bible is a fictional story, Christians cant come and say that evolution is fictional?
And you used the word "trolling" the wrong way.Posted 11-17-2009 at 06:27 PM by lokelake
-
Taken from wikipedia "Troll- a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Your post above did not even comment 'Interesting's' post, which was about the idea that since eve was taken from adam, all humans are the product of incest, instead you made an irrelevant, rambling post about body hair, then ended by putting in bold a comment about Charles Darwin and evolution- which weren't topics. I'd say my use of 'trolling' was entirely appropriate.Posted 11-17-2009 at 06:42 PM by Jacques
-
No, because it is my blog topic, so I can talk about whatever I want. I think it is not against the rules to go off-topic in your own blog.
I did respond to Interesting's post, that post about the body hair and DNA. However, I will agree with you, that the Charles Darwin statement is separate from my response.Posted 11-17-2009 at 06:46 PM by lokelake
-
So I can say an athiest is trolling because of this?
"the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Oh but wait, athiests are super, they cant possibley troll!!Posted 11-17-2009 at 06:50 PM by lokelake
-
Debate, yes.
Healthy, not so much.
Lokelake, you have to give Jacques some credit in this: he does have a point when he says that your posts are going to create waves of argument. You know your beliefs are part of the minority here, on Getdare, and I do respect you for them, but I don't share them. That doesn't mean we can't have a debate, and I often find it interesting to present you with a counterpoint to your arguments. But whenever you claim things as absolutes (you, or anyone else for that matter), it can create dissension and conflict. The 'bashing' you sometimes suffer occurs because you seem (emphasis on the conditional) incapable of accepting any other belief structure than your own - and when arguments are presented that contradict or demean your belief system, you avoid adressing the issues presented, as the above example of 'incest'.
I've said this before, a thousand times. Belief and science do not mix. Science is speculation based on quantifiable observations, and it is built upon experimentation and works in a logical structure of understanding. Belief is speculation based on non-quantifiable observations, and is built on interpretation of these observations through a spiritual lens.
Is one better than the other? Not per se. But all the technological advances that have been made in human evolution have been based on science, not faith. Faith has a tendency to contradict factual science (such as when the people believed the Earth was flat, or the Sun revolved around the Earth). Without this science that gave us DNA understanding, without Darwin's contribution to the understanding of where we come from, there would be no modern medicine. You have to accept the fact that the science fits the model of reality we are stuck with, as opposed to the belief system, which is not based on a recognizable model of reality.
But as far as your faith, or belief is concerned, that is yours and no one can take it away if you don't let them. Just don't disregard their assumptions because they don't fit your bill.
Christian faith is in decline, statistically speaking. Perhaps if the Christian dogma allowed for the possibility of science, then it would not be so hard for Christians to reconcile the science and the faith. Perhaps the truth is in the middle, but as long as the Christians refuse science (and the science refuses God), I can assure you that the debate will go on.Posted 11-17-2009 at 10:01 PM by interesting
-
Interesting, while I do joke around with my religion to some people, most notably to depp, I still choose my words carefully, and if I feel that if a joke presented to me by either you or anyone else that if I was to joke back, is not going to be good of me, then I simply ignore it. An example was with your "incest" joke. I would love to spread the jokes around to more than just depp
but that one (incest) I am afraid, I didn't want to delve further.
However, I will agree, that some arguments I do avoid. I would love to give an argument back, but, sometimes I don't know how to respond to an argument.Posted 11-18-2009 at 09:24 AM by lokelake
-
That was very well said, Loke.
Admitting an inability to answer adequately is not admittance of error, nor is it wrong. Ignorance is acceptable, so long as it's stated. Ignorance is the start of knowledge. Once you are able to admit that there some answers that you can't provide at this time, that's when you begin to show real insight. The next logical step, after that, is to find the answers elsewhere, from a teacher, a friend, so that the new knowledge supplements the old one and builds upon it. I'm not afraid to say that I only have a glimmer of knowledge of genetics, but what little I know has convinced me of what I believe in, said evolution. Perhaps the questions brought up are covered in the theological teachings of your church. You should look them up, and bring them to the forefront. The more questions you ask, the more enlightened you can become, and isn't that the goal of any life, to become better, greater, to become more and more than we initially were? Without evolution (in a sense of transforming one's self here), there can be no progress. If you do find the answers, please, bring them back to us. I'm interested in knowing what your faith handles the debate across genetics. Does it simply claim it to be a lie, despite the empirical scientific evidence, or does it postulate an alternate theory that could fit within observational parameters?
Never be afraid to ask questions. If people refuse to answer, it's because they either don't know or they don't want you to know (in which case you should question their motives).
And I can understand your reluctance to open a huge debate on the topic of 'incest'. It does bring up a whole lot of negative connotations, whatever beliefs you have!Posted 11-18-2009 at 12:45 PM by interesting
-
I'm too lazy to even read this. All I know is that it's irritating.Posted 11-18-2009 at 12:50 PM by BettyBoop
-
My faith states, which I am sure you know, is that God created Adam and Eve, and then they had offspring, and all that continued thru-out the 6000 year history, so evolution had nothing to do with it.
Now, I cannot debunk evolution for the life of me, lol, but my dad can do a fantasic job at debunking that and the big bang. One time, my dad stumped his science professor by saying stuff like, "what was there before the big bang?" "Why did the dot suddenly exploded?" "How did the dot get there?" "what caused the dot to explode?"
And if science now claims that there was no dot, just masses of stuff that exploded, then the above questions is still relevant, just don't use the word dot.Posted 11-18-2009 at 12:55 PM by lokelake
-
But it's the same with God. Where did he come from? How'd he get there?
Okay, so he was always there. You can believe that.
But we can believe that matter and anti-matter (or whatever) were always there too. It's still a belief, even if it's the science one not the God one.
No?Posted 11-18-2009 at 05:01 PM by Slenderman - Doctor
-
Hmmm, good one Marvin, I should run that by my dad to see what he says about it.
Posted 11-18-2009 at 05:04 PM by lokelake
-
I do see your point but it’s still not a valid argument. You simply can’t debunk the big bang with that sort of silly reasoning. To do so shows a lack of understanding of science, and if a professor was stumped by that reasoning he was simply not worth his salt.Quote:Originally Posted by lokelake
Now, I cannot debunk evolution for the life of me, lol, but my dad can do a fantasic job at debunking that and the big bang. One time, my dad stumped his science professor by saying stuff like, "what was there before the big bang?" "Why did the dot suddenly exploded?" "How did the dot get there?" "what caused the dot to explode?"
The hot big bang theories that exist today do not postulate the beginning of everything, so to say what happened before the big bang is a pointless non scientific argument.
The big bang right or wrong is actually based upon the expansion (rapid) from a singularity upon the surface of a 4D hyper sphere. It assumes that the sphere is unbounded in accordance with the Copernican principle.
You have the right to challenge the theories; all true scientific theories have to be falsifiable. However the argument of what came before the big bang only shows a lack of understanding of the theory and is not a scientific challenge.
Also there are theories of what was before the big bang, such as the collision of baines.
In conclusion the Hot BB theory may well be wrong. BUT if you want to debunk a scientific theory you have to use proper scientific reasoning, or else your arguments will be meaningless and you only serve to do an injustice to your faith.Posted 11-18-2009 at 07:07 PM by theone
Updated 11-20-2009 at 05:59 PM by theone -
Well, I am not good at debunking the big bang, but my dad is. And, my dad does know alot about the big bang. He has way more arguments and they get more sophisticated than the ones that was stated above.
Posted 11-18-2009 at 07:21 PM by lokelake
