Originally posted by dadudemon
How do you know that? How have you come to that conclusion? In a perfect world inhabited by perfect creatures....hmmm.....maybe that is the key.We were NOT perfect creatures when we were created by God. In fact, I posit that God created our spirits imperfect. We come here on Earth to grow as spiritual beings.
It should read...
"Imperfect beings in a perfect environment will inexorably violate their perfect environment." "Perfect" therefore, would have to be defined because "perfect" is relative.
Would that not cause the perfect environment to be no longer perfect?
Also, wouldn't our pre-mortal spirit's awareness actually circumvent our currently damned temporal consciousness? (In other words, no concept of time when we were with God before...everything was one eternal now when we were with God before, as it should be IF we dwelt with God.) So how did our spirits "awareness" become confined into a temporal awareness and end up on Earth? I guess its not "important" for my salvation but these types of things bother me.
Also, Draco69, I will post some more of my reply tonight. I am at work right now.
Exactly.
Because everthing should be "one eternal now" for God.
actually shaky's and my point right there was that god set people up to fail. he pre condembed them when he made them. therefore he is inherently a douchebag
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And of course, because god knows all, the god of the bible knew this would happen.
Yes, God knew in advance that His creatures would rebel against Him. Does this make Him responsible for creating them? Yes. Does it make Him the author of sin? No. And how do we know this? Because He said so. God is holy, and thus incapable of sin [Leviticus 19:2].
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Yes, God knew in advance that His creatures would rebel against Him. Does this make Him responsible for creating them? Yes. Does it make Him the author of sin? No. And how do we know this? Because He said so. God is holy, and thus incapable of sin [Leviticus 19:2].
That is illogical. If the god of the bible created all, and sin is something that exists, then the god of the bible created sin. However, all this really is an indication of is the fact that humans created the bible and the god of the bible.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
My point was, that the animal detected it and it wasn't just some from of subconscious, out-of-their-control drive.It happens all the time in the wild: a cougar senses the mating pheromones of a deer in heat, and the hunt is on.
But did the animall decide it was hungery just for funsies, or was needing food a factor of it's existence?
Originally posted by Draco69
Again, no. Wrong.You simply don't have the knowledge of the complexity of our endocrine system much less the CNS.
LOL!!! 😆
You'd like to think that so that you can feel that you won an internet debate, right?
Originally posted by Draco69
You're foolishly assuming that feelings and emotions can influence the CNS' day to day activities. There are thousands of types of neurotransmitters and only a small handful have any connection to "moods" or reactions to stress.
Wait wait wait....are you really Devil King trying to sound like they what you are talking about?
I didn't say the "emotions can influence the CNS' day to day activities.
Lemme show you what I said:
Originally posted by dadudemon
The body is a complex organ system of synergistic mechanisms that can almost all be influenced in a slight way by the mind.
So in MY words, do you deny that the happenings of the "mind" cannot affect almost all parts of the body in a "slight" way?
Originally posted by Draco69
If our moods could influence the entire CNS like you would like it to believe, we could stop hearts with a thought. We could interuppt kidney tissue production.
We can most certainly slow our heart down with our mind. Your second sentence is absurd and you know it.
Originally posted by Draco69
Think about it. If our "moods" and emotions were as powerful as you say, we could wreck havoc with bodily functions.
DUH!! That is what I was trying to tell you...but it is all an irrelevant tangent. Not just moods and emotions, but thoughts and will as well. Not in the psuedo-science part either.
Originally posted by Draco69
Feeling sad? Well that may cause gluconeogenesis to halt.
You mean glycolysis. When a human goes on a ketonic diet, their body starts to run on gluconeogenesis for energy, or as I like to call it, glyconeogenesis. (Because the latter sounds cooler.) For the first 3-5 days of a ketonic diet, the body is in a transition from glycolysis to gluconeogenesis and you can feel drained of energy during this transition. So really, you could say, "Because glycolysis is coming to a halt, you feel sad or run down."
You probably just used this word because it sounded quite awesome...you really should have chosen glycolysis because that makes much more sense.
Originally posted by Draco69
Feeling happy? Well that may cause the body to stop producing white blood cells via leukotrienes.
Why wouldn't you call white blood cells leukocytes? And also, you may have it backwards....sort of. Leukocytes are not produced via leukotrienes. Leukocytes are produced in the friggin' bone marrow. If you wanted to actually pontificate and succeed, you would have said, "Well, that may cause the body to stop hematopoiesis via hemocytoblasts." I learned that in highschool anatomy. 😐 "Yeah, definitely definitely hemocytoblasts."
Originally posted by Draco69
Again, you're clearly delving into psychosomatic medicine. You're clearly a stanch believer in the "mind over body" approach which has no scientific basis either than the misunderstanding of biology.
How can you profess to know what psychosomatism is? You said it was shit. Then you said it was primarily related to stress. Now it looks like you are referring to homeopathic medicine mixed with mediation (Mind over body mixed with a statement about "no scientific basis"😉. You clearly are forgetting about the stuff you are looking up as you type this, aren't you? Damn it , dude. If you really knew as much as you are trying to lead on, you would have called it holistic medicine. I figured you would have been able to label it correctly since you like to pontificate so much.
Originally posted by Draco69
Again, with the psychosomatic medicine.
No. I just covered what I was talking about. You can't wiggle your way out of this one. You really didn't know I was referring to holism, did you?
Originally posted by Draco69
You clearly believe that the mind controls the body.
Last time I checked, it most certainly did. Yes yes, I know, you are referring to involuntary and automatic functions.
Originally posted by Draco69
That the consciousness controls the unconscious.
No, the conscious can most certainly influence the unconscious and vice versa. But neither controls the other. Why else would they be called conscious and unconscious, right? If one could control the other, then there wouldn't be a means of differentiating them.
Originally posted by Draco69
That you can 'will' cancer or AIDS away if you keep a positive attitude.
Well no you've lost me. A bit too far with this one. 😄
Originally posted by Draco69
Emotions and moods can only affect so much of our bodily activities.
Agreed. Had you read my previous post correctly, the word "slight" should have given that away.
Originally posted by Draco69
Our heart will beat regardless of our moods.
But how it beats in relation to our mood is what I was getting at. I don't know how you could have missed that.
Originally posted by Draco69
Protein synthesis will occur regardless of how positive or negative we feel.
Not if you're dead. Ever hear of suicide? 😆
Originally posted by Draco69
Yes, I'm sure your time in ICU was shortened by your incredible mind powers.....
I haven't spent much time in any ICUs, but it looked like you could use some time in an ICU because "things" seemed to escape your mind.
Originally posted by Draco69
Yes, I've just said numerous times, that serotonin was a monoamine. I didn't say it was the ONLY one.
In your defense, you are correct.
Originally posted by Draco69
Mood is influenced by serotonin, which acts as host to various other signal activities as well.
But that wasn't my point. You seemed to have narrowed it down to just serotonin and everything else stems off from it...then later in your post you happen to change your mind and mention that serotonin can have many parallels in the "family" of monoamine neurotransmitters.
Originally posted by Draco69
I'm the one arguing that there are thousands of neurotransmitters, after all.
*looks over Draco69's posts*
Liar. 😐 You "argued" about there being thousands of hormones. Pwnt 😄
Originally posted by Draco69
Serotonin is simply the most abundant and relevant however.
Can't argue with you there. 😉
Originally posted by Draco69
Yes.These are called steroid hormones.
Do you really, really think that a passing hormone can just react to pheromones even it has no function regarding to it?
Hormones or rather chemical signals like androstadienone are like Legos or puzzle pieces.
They can only fit with certain chemical signals and with certain cells.
Androstadienone, a male pheromone, a derivative of testosterone, a steroid hormone, is only detected by steroid hormones because they can only "fit" with steroid hormones.
Phermones have to do with sex. And sex really only pertains to a handful of hormones.
WTF????
No. Just no.
Last time I checked, a sex hormone was not a nerve. The pheromones is smelled via the olfactory system which triggers a response in the brain. This response is what is being debated. (or rather, where the response occurs.)
Of course we won't stop "smelling" the pheromone. You should have taken this path as your thesis for debate because it would have been much more logical to assume that that is what I meant...but nooooo, you had to go on and make yourself look like a forum expert and fail. Of course, I didn't mean that we stop smelling pheromones. Here we are, debating for ego's sake.
Originally posted by Draco69
This is coming from the "Cure cancer if you feel positive!" psychosomatic advocate....?
Great job on recognizing what I was talking about.
Originally posted by Draco69
Speculation being the key word.Vast, vast amounts of speculation based on known but incredibly misinterpreted scientific information...
This, coming from an "expert" on pheromones.
Originally posted by Draco69
No, it's basic biology. Like high school biology.It's also common sense.
Riiiight...that must be why everyone is debating about it becaasue “it’s…common sense.”
Originally posted by Draco69
Specific hormones can only emit certain chemical signals and can only react or detect certain chemicals in the body.
Whaaat? Hormones emit chemical signals? I thought they attached to specific receptors on cells and then a signal transduction path is activated. So when are hormones supposed to be doing this "detecting" that should be CNS' job?
Originally posted by Draco69
There are literally thousands of hormones with different functions.And these functions are assigned to specific roles to play.
Originally posted by Draco69
Phermones are only detected by certain hormones because that's what they're made to do.
Riiiiight. heh heh.
Originally posted by Draco69
A parathyroid hormone wouldn't even register phermones much less react to it.
Wow. Thanks for the irrelevant lesson. But I don't know if I can trust the information given to me by you on pheromones when you think that hormones "detect" pheromones and you also, despite what EVERYONE else is doing, continue to misspell the word "pheromone".
Originally posted by Draco69
You mean like you "cited" your psychosomatic medicine rant.
I don't know what you are talking about. Seriously.
Originally posted by Draco69
Which is smart. Your cites wouldn't be reliable.
What does this sentence even refer to? I didn't say I wasn't NOT going to cite a resource...so why would you make a statement like that? I asked YOU to cite the resource.
Originally posted by Draco69
As for my cite, type in "pheromones" or "androstadienone" in wikipedia or even google.Or you know, just read up on biology.
No...sorry. That doesn't address/satisfy your statement. Let me show you...
Ahem..
Originally posted by Draco69
They're called monoamine neurotransmitters which cannot influence sexuality or for that matter the activities of steroid hormones.
So, do you know of a study or resource that shows that monamine neurotransmitters cannot influence sexuality. (IMO, that does NOT refer to sexual orientation. If it does, you still need to cite a source.) Also, monoamine neurostransmitters cannot influence the activities of steroid hormones? At all? Can you really not think of any ways?
Originally posted by Draco69
Apparently "mood" is the only word you can use to describe your pseudo-science which doesn't exist.
Again with the homeopathy reference? 😕
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is illogical. If the god of the bible created all, and sin is something that exists, then the god of the bible created sin. However, all this really is an indication of is the fact that humans created the bible and the god of the bible.
Originally posted by Devil King
So, why are you mentioning my name, if it isn't to insult me by accusing Draco of being me? It's all out of innocent debate, right?
Oops. Sorry, dude. I didn't want to put that in there. I was going to erase that before I clicked submit. As you can tell, that reply took a while...I read over it one time to check for mistakes but even that was a quick skim. I was going to delete it because it was needless and you don't deserve to be antagonized by me. Also, I forgot to type the word "know" in there...as you can tell...it still doesn't sound right. I wanted it to say this....
"Wait wait wait....are you really Devil King who is trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about?"
Meaning he is putting words in my mouth while trying to come off as medically educated. It really is insulting to you to compare you two like that; I am sure you wouldn't pretend to be an expert.
Also, just like I was telling you in the other thread, you can eventually tell if someone is a fraud when they pretend to be someone they are not. They eventually slip up. He tried to pretend to know intricate details of neurology but slipped up at fundamental levels...no doubt he is a "Wiki-spert". I have yet to catch Queeq make fundamental mistakes when he gets serious about his field of study...but this is how one can tell. I don't have the expertise in his field of study to really catch him on a fundamental mistake...but I know more than enough in that field to smell bullshit.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oops. Sorry, dude. I didn't want to put that in there. I was going to erase that before I clicked submit. As you can tell, that reply took a while...I read over it one time to check for mistakes but even that was a quick skim. I was going to delete it because it was needless and you don't deserve to be antagonized by me. Also, I forgot to type the word "know" in there...as you can tell...it still doesn't sound right. I wanted it to say this...."Wait wait wait....are you really Devil King who is trying to sound like he knows what he's talking about?"
Meaning he is putting words in my mouth while trying to come off as medically educated. It really is insulting to you to compare you two like that; I am sure you wouldn't pretend to be an expert.
Also, just like I was telling you in the other thread, you can eventually tell if someone is a fraud when they pretend to be someone they are not. They eventually slip up. He tried to pretend to know intricate details of neurology but slipped up at fundamental levels...no doubt he is a "Wiki-spert". I have yet to catch Queeq make fundamental mistakes when he gets serious about his field of study...but this is how one can tell. I don't have the expertise in his field of study to really catch him on a fundamental mistake...but I know more than enough in that field to smell bullshit.
so, you didn't mean to do it, but you'd like to propogate the intention behind it; which is that i put words in your mouth. (which you've already said you realized I had not done)
Originally posted by Devil King
so, you didn't mean to do it, but you'd like to propogate the intention behind it; which is that i put words in your mouth. (which you've already said you realized I had not done)
Uhhh...that was just one point that I had realized that you weren't just making up off the way accusations for an inference. Which, by the way, your inference was still wrong even AFTER I figured out what you meant.
Originally posted by queeq
The guy apologised.
Yup. I can't be a dick all the time...its not really me...I get tired of it after a while.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
actually shaky's and my point right there was that god set people up to fail. he pre condembed them when he made them.
You say that like it's a negative thing. But isn't failure one of the best learning tools possible? God could have just left us in heaven, but would you rather remain in the spirit form for an eternity with limited knowledge and abilities or get a chance to go to earth, mess up and come back to heaven and learn more? I think that is worth a few scratches.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
therefore he is inherently a douchebag
😂