Circular Reasoning?

Originally posted by finti
so in other and easier words you really dont know what the fu*ck you are talking about either like most religious people

You know what yeah, what have you contributed to this forum except making smart ass remarks?

Are you one of those black metallers who get heathenism mixed up with satanism or whatever?

You know what I find really insulting? You said one one post that you pray to Thor then on some other post you dont belive in anything.

Im not telling you that you have to pray to Thor but at least have some respect for other asatruers who make the time and effort to study Norse Lore. Have some respect for those people who died trying to fight for Heathenism.

Im sorry its bloody annoying. Most people on this forum regardless of what they belive in can have a reasonably intellignet discussion.

You have contributed nothing to this forum but smart ass remarks.

Originally posted by ThePittman
I have to say that is a new one I’ve never heard before.

Here is the Scripture that supports what Sonnet has truthfully stated:

John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

So this dispels the whole "Fatherhood of God, brotherhood of man" fallacy. We are either children of God or children of the devil. The Lord Jesus told the scribes, Pharisees, and other Jews that He conversed with that they were of their father the devil. Here is the instance:

John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

I actually talked about this subject in one of my first posts on this site way back when. Let me see if I can locate that post. Ah, here it is. Here is Urizen's post and immediately following is my reply.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 You seriously are a nutcase !

No intended insult here, dude, you need help ! And FAST !

Facts about me:

1) I was raised a Christian.
2) I often do pray to God.
3) We are all God's children, that includes me buddy !
4) I contain no Hatred, no judgemental, no bias, and therefore no evil.
5) I am probably the least selfish person you ever met.
6) Also am one of the most rational.

I will waste no more time on such a pointless and brainwashed argument. I suggest you get some psychiatric help bro. People like you slow this world's progress down ! ✅

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

lord Urizen, the ONLY Lord I know is Jesus the Christ.

Now, is this a resume or are you trying to convince yourself of something?

"We are all God's children...."

Urizen, no we are NOT ALL God's children. You see, according to the Holy Bible--my source and that upon which I base everything that I write--states that there are in essence only two groups of people. There are those who are saved and then there are those who are not saved.

That is it.

There isn't any other groups of people. You are either a child of God or you are a child of satan. Now to refute your assertion that, "We are all God's children...."

Let me preface this with first saying that I believe one of the reasons that there is so much controversy going back and forth on this forum about Who Jesus is, the Bible, other religions and so forth is that many people do not want to come to terms with the fact that the Bible IS God's Word. And, hence, we ought to base everything that we write on this premise. But I do not see many people doing that. I see people basing their posts on OPINIONS, FEELINGS, EMOTIONS, SUPERSTITION, LEGEND, FOLK LORE, TRADITION--everything but the B-I-B-L-E.

Now, back to my message. I have been maligned repeatedly for doing this but folks this is where I stand out from most of you. I do not base my writings on any of those things except the Bible. So, I will not deviate. I know who I am in Christ, what I have in Christ, what I can do in Christ, and where I am in Christ. I know what God called and ANOINTED me to do: teach and preach the Word of God--the Holy Bible.

So, that said, I QUOTE:

John 1:12
But as many as RECEIVED HIM (JESUS CHRIST), TO THEM He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
Did you get that Urizen? Only those who have received Jesus Christ were given the right to become children of God; only those who have been given this right AND who believe in HIS NAME. I submit to you that only those who fit this description are children of God. Not everyone has received Him. To receive Him means to confess Him as your Lord, trusting Him for salvation from your sins. This is what is meant by this passage. Many people on this forum and abroad throughtout the world don't even believe that Jesus Christ ever existed, let alone that He is Lord. So, no, unless you have bowed your knee to Jesus Christ, in essence asking Him to be your Lord and Savior, then it doesn't matter whether you were, raised Christian, pray to God, contain no hatred, are not judgemental, not biased, or evil. It does not matter that your are probably the least selfish person that I ever met or whether or not you are one of the most rational.

None of those things matter. If Jesus Christ is not your Lord and Savior, then you, yes you, are not a child of God.

Check yourself out by the Scriptures don't base your relationship with God--or lack thereof on anything except God's Word--the Holy Bible.

I don't mean to reprove you but I want you to be sure so that you don't miss Heaven because you think that you have a relationship with God that you base on those so-called facts of yours. They don't mean a thing to God. God will look in the Lamb's Book of Life for your name. Guess what if it ain't there, then you ain't God's child.

Folks, it is that simple.

Originally posted by Trickster
That's like me saying "If I'm right, and I am, then we must all argue from this basic truth. Anything I say is right, is right."

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Here is the Scripture that supports what Sonnet has truthfully stated:

[B]John 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

So this dispels the whole "Fatherhood of God, brotherhood of man" fallacy. We are either children of God or children of the devil. The Lord Jesus told the scribes, Pharisees, and other Jews that He conversed with that they were of their father the devil. Here is the instance:

John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

I actually talked about this subject in one of my first posts on this site way back when. Let me see if I can locate that post. Ah, here it is. Here is Urizen's post and immediately following is my reply. [/B]

Listen buddy...If God does exist, and created us all, then we are ALL GOD's CHILDREN. I will NOT refute that argument, because GOD CREATED US ALL...therefore, LOGICALLY, there is NO OTHER conclusion to make other than we are all his children.

SATAN is God's child as well, for God CREATED SATAN....

If you have your own children, and they disobey that does NOT mean they are no longer your son or daughter. Even if you disown them, they are STILL your child because you gave them birth and life.....

God gave me birth and life, therefore if he exists, I am his child...whether I like it or not, whether HE likes it or not, or whether YOU like it or not. ✅

The Bible is not a source of any reliable valid truth. Until the Bible is universally accepted as absolute Truth, it is NOT FACT and is only as useful as the Torah, Quran, Vedas Books of Wisdom, and some comic books....

BTW, you never answered my PM....about circular reasoning....whats taking your ass so long ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
[b]Listen buddy...If God does exist, and created us all, then we are ALL GOD's CHILDREN. I will NOT refute that argument, because GOD CREATED US ALL...therefore, LOGICALLY, there is NO OTHER conclusion to make other than we are all his children.

SATAN is God's child as well, for God CREATED SATAN....

If you have your own children, and they disobey that does NOT mean they are no longer your son or daughter. Even if you disown them, they are STILL your child because you gave them birth and life.....

God gave me birth and life, therefore if he exists, I am his child...whether I like it or not, whether HE likes it or not, or whether YOU like it or not. ✅

The Bible is not a source of any reliable valid truth. Until the Bible is universally accepted as absolute Truth, it is NOT FACT and is only as useful as the Torah, Quran, Vedas Books of Wisdom, and some comic books....

BTW, you never answered my PM....about circular reasoning....whats taking your ass so long ? [/B]

I have a question for KMC members, namely you buddy ole pal Templares. Imperial Samura I look forward to your great mind as well (I am being sincere. You put more though into what you say than many forum members who just seem to post for no other reason than to insult me and other Christians).

Which is more complicated males or females? Folks bear in mind that females have a reproductive mechanism if you would but males do not. Okay so you all admit that the female is more complex. Now, which takes longer to evolve? (All moderators are welcome to respond to these questions as well.) Most (if not all) honest scientists concur that the more complicated of the two takes longer to evolve. So then how did they (male and female) both evolve at the same time in order to reproduce?

I welcome all well-thought-out, rational, intelligent, sensible--but if possible concise responses. Thanks in advance for your responses folks and good luck at coming up with the most plausible answer.

🙂 😉 😄 😎

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I have a question for KMC members, namely you buddy ole pal Templares. Imperial Samura I look forward to your great mind as well (I am being sincere. You put more though into what you say than many forum members who just seem to post for no other reason than to insult me and other Christians).

Which is more complicated males or females? Folks bear in mind that females have a reproductive mechanism if you would but males do not. Okay so you all admit that the female is more complex. Now, which takes longer to evolve? (All moderators are welcome to respond to these questions as well.) Most (if not all) honest scientists concur that the more complicated of the two takes longer to evolve. So then how did they (male and female) both evolve at the same time in order to reproduce?

I welcome all well-thought-out, rational, intelligent, sensible--but if possible concise responses. Thanks in advance for your responses folks and good luck at coming up with the most plausible answer.

🙂 😉 😄 😎

No brave takers?

Did you fall asleep during biology sessions at school?

Men have a reproductive system., They have a rather vital part of that system, in case you hadn't noticed.

Women have the part of the system that handles the delivery. That doesn't make them more complex.

So you have made an assumption for everyone, by saying we all admit that women are more complex, which simply does not pan out.

A very foolish example indeed.

Incidentally, even if you are right, evolution works to a point where something is fit for purpose, and more evolution would not always mean more complexity.

So totally wrong on all areas, really.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Did you fall asleep during biology sessions at school?

Men have a reproductive system., They have a rather vital part of that system, in case you hadn't noticed.

Women have the part of the system that handles the delivery. That doesn't make them more complex.

So you have made an assumption for everyone, by saying we all admit that women are more complex, which simply does not pan out.

A very foolish example indeed.

Incidentally, even if you are right, evolution works to a point where something is fit for purpose, and more evolution would not always mean more complexity.

So totally wrong on all areas, really.

Next!

Just kidding Ushgarak I just don't think that this answer is adequate.

I think you will find people won't be very willing to engage with badly phrased and ill-reasoned postulations. Post something that makes sense and people might show more interest.

Incidentally, please don't bump a thread like you did there.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I have a question for KMC members, namely you buddy ole pal Templares. Imperial Samura I look forward to your great mind as well (I am being sincere. You put more though into what you say than many forum members who just seem to post for no other reason than to insult me and other Christians).

Which is more complicated males or females? Folks bear in mind that females have a reproductive mechanism if you would but males do not. Okay so you all admit that the female is more complex. Now, which takes longer to evolve? (All moderators are welcome to respond to these questions as well.) Most (if not all) honest scientists concur that the more complicated of the two takes longer to evolve. So then how did they (male and female) both evolve at the same time in order to reproduce?

I welcome all well-thought-out, rational, intelligent, sensible--but if possible concise responses. Thanks in advance for your responses folks and good luck at coming up with the most plausible answer.

🙂 😉 😄 😎

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I have a question for KMC members, namely you buddy ole pal Templares. Imperial Samura I look forward to your great mind as well (I am being sincere. You put more though into what you say than many forum members who just seem to post for no other reason than to insult me and other Christians).

Which is more complicated males or females? Folks bear in mind that females have a reproductive mechanism if you would but males do not. Okay so you all admit that the female is more complex. Now, which takes longer to evolve? (All moderators are welcome to respond to these questions as well.) Most (if not all) honest scientists concur that the more complicated of the two takes longer to evolve. So then how did they (male and female) both evolve at the same time in order to reproduce?

I welcome all well-thought-out, rational, intelligent, sensible--but if possible concise responses. Thanks in advance for your responses folks and good luck at coming up with the most plausible answer.

This is incorrect and based on serious misconception. Besides, I wouldn't go around flausting science since you've clearly demonstrated that you are both uncapable of using it correctly and ignorant of scientific fact 99% of the time.

This is the best answer you're going to get on the issue, because I'm one of the best authorities on this on the forums...but I doub't you'll read it, you're probably still ignoring me.

1. Evolution is not a string of increasing complexities. On a specific level, a more complex system does not necessarily evolve later.

2. Male and female genders did not evolve seperately, they evolve together, through organisms that have the capbility to reporduce both asexually and sexually. Eventually regulation between male and female in a single individual became so extreme that sex became permenant.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I have a question for KMC members, namely you buddy ole pal Templares. Imperial Samura I look forward to your great mind as well (I am being sincere. You put more though into what you say than many forum members who just seem to post for no other reason than to insult me and other Christians).

Which is more complicated males or females? Folks bear in mind that females have a reproductive mechanism if you would but males do not. Okay so you all admit that the female is more complex. Now, which takes longer to evolve? (All moderators are welcome to respond to these questions as well.) Most (if not all) honest scientists concur that the more complicated of the two takes longer to evolve. So then how did they (male and female) both evolve at the same time in order to reproduce?

I welcome all well-thought-out, rational, intelligent, sensible--but if possible concise responses. Thanks in advance for your responses folks and good luck at coming up with the most plausible answer.

🙂 😉 😄 😎

I found this, and it seems to be plausible, sorry about the typo's:

Some guy using the alias Tastyfish
Exchanging DNA is good as it creates a greater oppertunity for beneficial mutations to be passed on much faster than pure mitosis. Early sex is going to be more like a few bacteria do today - kill everything around you and assimilate bits of their DNA or via phages accidently copying section of host DNA into themselves and then passing them on.

After a while the bacteria develop a way of injecting DNA into each other and the exchange of DNA becomes common, spreading fast.

Eventually as organisms get more complex it suddenly becomes advantageous to produce the bare minimum gamete you can (as it lets you create more chances for your DNA to meet a partner as less resources are being devoted to each individual one - they are taking advantage of their unevolved fellows). As this trend continues another strategy emerges, to devoute a large amount of resources to be able to cope with any of the smaller gametes fusing with you (rather than pumping as many smallish gametes out and hoping you find a gamete large enough to form a viable zygote, especially when you have been busy selecting yourself for smaller and smaller gametes). Both strategies are beneficial in the extreme, whilst something in the middle in not a advantage (too small to cope with half the gametes, and not numerous enough to find the large ones).

This goes on you have just selected two sexs. Now bare in mind that one of the varients has to devote a lot of resources to just one gamete at a time (or along those lines) compared to hundreds, you start to get sexual dimorphism based off advantageous behaviour and new phenotypically advantages).

Few gaps (there is probably spores in there somewhere between proper haploid gametes and the pure exchange of DNA buts it gets complicated the more details you get into), but its the simplified version that gives you the vague idea how it could develop.
Bacteria do have sex even though they are very different from what we think of as male and female (one receives new DNA, other has a 'injector' to put it in the other- ok not that different but they can switch and the actual processes are totally different other than in general prinicple, think they alternate it other generations to reduce inbreeding)

Human XY business is all due to where the sex determining sections are and is more recent that the fundamentals of sex (its the other way round in birds I think, some fish have it our way, others don't have sex chromosomes at all) and is based on the fact a the homozygous chromosome appears a lot more than the one with the sex determining factor on it. Genes on the (human) female chromosome, X, replicate faster if it can get rid of the Y gene as its not as essential and there are ways round the mess this causes (i.e not having to become haploid). Y genes benefit by losing as much of the excess sequence on the chromosome that the X might use to recognise and use to target with its anti Y chromosome things. Right now, Y is about as small as it can get and so is no longer really selected against, not entirely sure but I think once it reachs a certain size there is a reasonable chance (well in billions or so or whatever) that the sex determining factors end up on another chromosome and the whole things starts again (hence the erractic system of sex determination)
Its not a definite theory but it is a possibility, though how widely accepted I'm not sure

Originally posted by Regret
Exchanging DNA is good as it creates a greater oppertunity for beneficial mutations to be passed on much faster than pure mitosis.

Which some people should take into consideration when they profess we all descended from two people.

What do you do again Alliance?

He's a janitor for the local school system.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Which some people should take into consideration when they profess we all descended from two people.

Originally posted by Regret
If the initial two were near perfect, if not perfect, such is irrelevant.

Within a few generations of inbreeding, there will not be enough genetic variation for the DNA to successfully combine; the integrity of the initial DNA sequences has little to do with it.

Originally posted by debbiejo
He's a janitor for the local school system.

Oh! You've got me.

Originally posted by crazy
What do you do again Alliance?

I'm a student, at the University of Wisconsin - Madison.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Within a few generations of inbreeding, there will not be enough genetic variation for the DNA to successfully combine; the integrity of the initial DNA sequences has little to do with it.

My science teacher told me that when one looks for someone to have sex with, they look for someone who looks like them so then the kids look like them.

So how could what i have heard be true if the DNA wouldn't even combine when they meet? 😖 what if the DNA is almost that similar? 😖