TriniTuner.com  |  Latest Event:  

Forums

The Religion Discussion

this is how we do it.......

Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods

bluefete
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 13261
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby bluefete » February 24th, 2022, 6:57 pm

MG Man wrote:one eye, can you cite scientific papers proving the ark works? I'd love to read any peer-reviewed work on the subject


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180950385/

https://soundcloud.com/university-of-le ... /noahs-ark

https://www.businessinsider.com/scienti ... ble-2014-4

bluefete
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 13261
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby bluefete » February 24th, 2022, 7:13 pm

matr1x wrote:
timelapse wrote:
matr1x wrote:Wait, to regret is to admit to making a mistake. This goes against the idea that God is perfect.



God is an idiot
That God sounds like a woman.Making huge decisions based purely off emotions

:D :) :lol:

For real. Angry if you do something with your free will. Sounds just like a woman


You two will be singing a very different tune just before you close your eyes for the very last time.

Isaiah 55:8-9
New King James Version

8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.

9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.

User avatar
timelapse
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 8113
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 7:13 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby timelapse » February 24th, 2022, 7:41 pm

bluefete wrote:
matr1x wrote:
timelapse wrote:
matr1x wrote:Wait, to regret is to admit to making a mistake. This goes against the idea that God is perfect.



God is an idiot
That God sounds like a woman.Making huge decisions based purely off emotions

:D :)

For real. Angry if you do something with your free will. Sounds just like a woman


You two will be singing a very different tune just before you close your eyes for the very last time.

Isaiah 55:8-9
New King James Version

8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.

9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
You can't be trying to preach to me with KJV...
I offended.

abducted
I LUV THIS PLACE
Posts: 939
Joined: April 10th, 2007, 9:35 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby abducted » February 24th, 2022, 10:01 pm

bluefete wrote:
MG Man wrote:one eye, can you cite scientific papers proving the ark works? I'd love to read any peer-reviewed work on the subject


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180950385/

https://soundcloud.com/university-of-le ... /noahs-ark

https://www.businessinsider.com/scienti ... ble-2014-4

He asked for evidence, nothing you posted there is peer reviewed, or scientific,

bluefete
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 13261
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby bluefete » February 25th, 2022, 4:02 am

timelapse wrote:
bluefete wrote:
matr1x wrote:
timelapse wrote:
matr1x wrote:Wait, to regret is to admit to making a mistake. This goes against the idea that God is perfect.



God is an idiot
That God sounds like a woman.Making huge decisions based purely off emotions

:D :)

For real. Angry if you do something with your free will. Sounds just like a woman


You two will be singing a very different tune just before you close your eyes for the very last time.

Isaiah 55:8-9
New King James Version

8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.

9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
You can't be trying to preach to me with KJV...
I offended.


LOLZ. I should use the Lost Books and Apocryphas, Gita and Qu'ran.

bluefete
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 13261
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby bluefete » February 25th, 2022, 4:03 am

[quote="abducted"][quote="bluefete"][quote="MG Man"]one eye, can you cite scientific papers proving the ark works? I'd love to read any peer-reviewed work on the subject[/quote]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180950385/

https://soundcloud.com/university-of-le ... /noahs-ark

https://www.businessinsider.com/scienti ... ble-2014-4[/quote]
He asked for evidence, nothing you posted there is peer reviewed, or scientific,[/quote]

He said any peer reviewed. Read the articles.

User avatar
MG Man
2NRholic
Posts: 23792
Joined: May 1st, 2003, 1:31 pm
Location: between cinco leg

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby MG Man » February 25th, 2022, 8:24 am

bluefete wrote:
MG Man wrote:one eye, can you cite scientific papers proving the ark works? I'd love to read any peer-reviewed work on the subject


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180950385/

https://soundcloud.com/university-of-le ... /noahs-ark

https://www.businessinsider.com/scienti ... ble-2014-4


I didn't listen to the sound cloud clip, but the other two are not peer-reviewed papers. It's basically an extra credit course for students to do
Furthermore, it simply concludes an empty box would in fact float. The paper draws no conclusions about the logistics of how many animals could actually fit, and based o their sheep gauge (rather ironic unit of measure), it's inconclusive, and does not factor the sheer mass of supplies needed to sustain every living critter on the boat
Not also, the study makes the distinction between a floating wooden box and a seaworthy vessel
So yeah a big wooden box floats, but nothing more

User avatar
timelapse
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 8113
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 7:13 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby timelapse » February 25th, 2022, 8:42 am

https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/a-flood-of-myths-and-stories/

While we on the topic of floods and arks.Christianity is the johnny-come-lately in the dance

User avatar
MG Man
2NRholic
Posts: 23792
Joined: May 1st, 2003, 1:31 pm
Location: between cinco leg

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby MG Man » February 25th, 2022, 8:59 am

timelapse wrote:https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/a-flood-of-myths-and-stories/

While we on the topic of floods and arks.Christianity is the johnny-come-lately in the dance


that Buddhist story sounds suspiciously trini-esque

User avatar
timelapse
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 8113
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 7:13 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby timelapse » February 25th, 2022, 9:53 am

Better yet
IMG_20220225_095314.jpg

User avatar
MG Man
2NRholic
Posts: 23792
Joined: May 1st, 2003, 1:31 pm
Location: between cinco leg

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby MG Man » February 25th, 2022, 9:56 am

R'amen

bluefete
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 13261
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby bluefete » February 25th, 2022, 2:42 pm

MG Man wrote:
bluefete wrote:
MG Man wrote:one eye, can you cite scientific papers proving the ark works? I'd love to read any peer-reviewed work on the subject


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180950385/

https://soundcloud.com/university-of-le ... /noahs-ark

https://www.businessinsider.com/scienti ... ble-2014-4


I didn't listen to the sound cloud clip, but the other two are not peer-reviewed papers. It's basically an extra credit course for students to do
Furthermore, it simply concludes an empty box would in fact float. The paper draws no conclusions about the logistics of how many animals could actually fit, and based o their sheep gauge (rather ironic unit of measure), it's inconclusive, and does not factor the sheer mass of supplies needed to sustain every living critter on the boat
Not also, the study makes the distinction between a floating wooden box and a seaworthy vessel
So yeah a big wooden box floats, but nothing more


You asked a very good question about the ability of the ark to float. But I find it most interesting how quickly you downplayed the findings of the students.

The link below answers the questions you asked above.

Yet when we look at all these anti-Ark arguments, we note a conspicuous lack of scholarly response to most of them, at least in any kind of concerted manner. Indeed, there never before has been a modern systematic evaluation of the alleged difficulties surrounding Noah's Ark.

https://www.icr.org/article/resource-fo ... noahs-ark/

MDtuner70
Sweet on this forum
Posts: 381
Joined: April 11th, 2020, 8:55 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby MDtuner70 » February 25th, 2022, 4:21 pm

bluefete wrote:
MG Man wrote:
bluefete wrote:
MG Man wrote:one eye, can you cite scientific papers proving the ark works? I'd love to read any peer-reviewed work on the subject


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180950385/

https://soundcloud.com/university-of-le ... /noahs-ark

https://www.businessinsider.com/scienti ... ble-2014-4


I didn't listen to the sound cloud clip, but the other two are not peer-reviewed papers. It's basically an extra credit course for students to do
Furthermore, it simply concludes an empty box would in fact float. The paper draws no conclusions about the logistics of how many animals could actually fit, and based o their sheep gauge (rather ironic unit of measure), it's inconclusive, and does not factor the sheer mass of supplies needed to sustain every living critter on the boat
Not also, the study makes the distinction between a floating wooden box and a seaworthy vessel
So yeah a big wooden box floats, but nothing more


You asked a very good question about the ability of the ark to float. But I find it most interesting how quickly you downplayed the findings of the students.

The link below answers the questions you asked above.

Yet when we look at all these anti-Ark arguments, we note a conspicuous lack of scholarly response to most of them, at least in any kind of concerted manner. Indeed, there never before has been a modern systematic evaluation of the alleged difficulties surrounding Noah's Ark.

https://www.icr.org/article/resource-fo ... noahs-ark/



This article is very interesting.

Woodmorappe seems to get very technical in his book concerning Noah and the global flood. Have you read the book ? The article you posted is a brief summary and marketing pitch for the book and how he attempts to solve the issues Noah faced during the global flood.

The article is still great on its own, I have never thought of the reality of this concept of Noah and the global flood. Woodmorappe came up with ~ 16,000 diff species of animals that were on the Ark.

However, check out the review below of Woodmorappe's book. This other author identifies many flaws in Woodmorappe's work.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html

User avatar
MG Man
2NRholic
Posts: 23792
Joined: May 1st, 2003, 1:31 pm
Location: between cinco leg

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby MG Man » February 28th, 2022, 8:39 am

comes back to peer-reviewed research papers
Added to that, citing evidence for creation from a creationist source brings us back to the Napkin Religion

bluefete
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 13261
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby bluefete » February 28th, 2022, 11:22 am

MG Man wrote:comes back to peer-reviewed research papers
Added to that, citing evidence for creation from a creationist source brings us back to the Napkin Religion


Ignoring the facts again. LOL.

But there has been very little peer-reviewed, double blinded studies on how the ark worked from a flotation perspective.

But there have been peer reviewed studies on other aspects of the ark.

Mammalian Collection on Noah's Ark: The Effects of Beauty, Brain and Body Size
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0063110

User avatar
timelapse
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 8113
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 7:13 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby timelapse » February 28th, 2022, 11:23 am

Side topic from other ched.
https://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/puranas/gp/gp.asp

Something that may interest you Mero

User avatar
MG Man
2NRholic
Posts: 23792
Joined: May 1st, 2003, 1:31 pm
Location: between cinco leg

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby MG Man » February 28th, 2022, 9:10 pm

bluefete wrote:
MG Man wrote:comes back to peer-reviewed research papers
Added to that, citing evidence for creation from a creationist source brings us back to the Napkin Religion


Ignoring the facts again. LOL.

But there has been very little peer-reviewed, double blinded studies on how the ark worked from a flotation perspective.

But there have been peer reviewed studies on other aspects of the ark.

Mammalian Collection on Noah's Ark: The Effects of Beauty, Brain and Body Size
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0063110


what facts did I ignore?

bluefete
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 13261
Joined: November 12th, 2008, 10:56 pm
Location: POS

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby bluefete » February 28th, 2022, 9:12 pm

MG Man wrote:
bluefete wrote:
MG Man wrote:comes back to peer-reviewed research papers
Added to that, citing evidence for creation from a creationist source brings us back to the Napkin Religion


Ignoring the facts again. LOL.

But there has been very little peer-reviewed, double blinded studies on how the ark worked from a flotation perspective.

But there have been peer reviewed studies on other aspects of the ark.

Mammalian Collection on Noah's Ark: The Effects of Beauty, Brain and Body Size
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0063110


what facts did I ignore?


Until someone decides to fully refute the arguments made bout the ark and its ability to float, we will have to go with those who have actually done some work on it.

Unfortunately for you, at this time, that only seems to be the "believers".

User avatar
MG Man
2NRholic
Posts: 23792
Joined: May 1st, 2003, 1:31 pm
Location: between cinco leg

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby MG Man » February 28th, 2022, 9:17 pm

what facts did I ignore?

User avatar
Duane 3NE 2NR
Admin
Posts: 27140
Joined: March 24th, 2003, 10:27 am
Location: T&T
Contact:

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby Duane 3NE 2NR » February 28th, 2022, 9:25 pm

bluefete wrote:
MG Man wrote:
bluefete wrote:
MG Man wrote:comes back to peer-reviewed research papers
Added to that, citing evidence for creation from a creationist source brings us back to the Napkin Religion


Ignoring the facts again. LOL.

But there has been very little peer-reviewed, double blinded studies on how the ark worked from a flotation perspective.

But there have been peer reviewed studies on other aspects of the ark.

Mammalian Collection on Noah's Ark: The Effects of Beauty, Brain and Body Size
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0063110


what facts did I ignore?


Until someone decides to fully refute the arguments made bout the ark and its ability to float, we will have to go with those who have actually done some work on it.

Unfortunately for you, at this time, that only seems to be the "believers".

When making a claim, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
So it’s not up to someone to refute the claim nor is something fact until someone refutes it.
This goes for all claims.

User avatar
MG Man
2NRholic
Posts: 23792
Joined: May 1st, 2003, 1:31 pm
Location: between cinco leg

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby MG Man » February 28th, 2022, 9:37 pm

yup, because there's a man wearing a pink thong, swimming in my septic tank. This is fact. I have heard him shouting 'come to my poopie party' at 11:58 every thursday night

User avatar
zoom rader
TunerGod
Posts: 27300
Joined: April 22nd, 2003, 12:39 pm
Location: Grand Cayman

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby zoom rader » February 28th, 2022, 10:11 pm

Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
bluefete wrote:
MG Man wrote:
bluefete wrote:
MG Man wrote:comes back to peer-reviewed research papers
Added to that, citing evidence for creation from a creationist source brings us back to the Napkin Religion


Ignoring the facts again. LOL.

But there has been very little peer-reviewed, double blinded studies on how the ark worked from a flotation perspective.

But there have been peer reviewed studies on other aspects of the ark.

Mammalian Collection on Noah's Ark: The Effects of Beauty, Brain and Body Size
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0063110


what facts did I ignore?


Until someone decides to fully refute the arguments made bout the ark and its ability to float, we will have to go with those who have actually done some work on it.

Unfortunately for you, at this time, that only seems to be the "believers".

When making a claim, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
So it’s not up to someone to refute the claim nor is something fact until someone refutes it.
This goes for all claims.
I remember when Habit7 use to run rings around you, yet still Habit7 could not answer me when I asked him for proof of the Bible stories.

User avatar
timelapse
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 8113
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 7:13 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby timelapse » March 1st, 2022, 6:33 am

MG Man wrote:yup, because there's a man wearing a pink thong, swimming in my septic tank. This is fact. I have heard him shouting 'come to my poopie party' at 11:58 every thursday night
Oho, you does hear me.So is just ignore you does be ignoring me then.I will stop inviting you.
You have been cancelled

User avatar
MG Man
2NRholic
Posts: 23792
Joined: May 1st, 2003, 1:31 pm
Location: between cinco leg

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby MG Man » March 1st, 2022, 8:25 am

timelapse wrote:
MG Man wrote:yup, because there's a man wearing a pink thong, swimming in my septic tank. This is fact. I have heard him shouting 'come to my poopie party' at 11:58 every thursday night
Oho, you does hear me.So is just ignore you does be ignoring me then.I will stop inviting you.
You have been cancelled

nah I does only get excited if you shout in dubstep

User avatar
timelapse
TriniTuner 24-7
Posts: 8113
Joined: June 20th, 2012, 7:13 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby timelapse » March 1st, 2022, 9:37 am

You are cancelled milligram man . Cancelled!

Bad Dog
3NE 2NR for life
Posts: 233
Joined: February 5th, 2013, 5:15 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby Bad Dog » March 1st, 2022, 5:03 pm

The oldest bibles Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus are priceless. Scholars who have had the opportunities to study the Codices have identified almost 15,000 differences from today's KJV. I think that as we go along we make adjustments and tweak the things we like and eliminate the things we don't like. We even write new version and edit the new versions to newer versions. So is the original message lost?

Kasey
I LUV THIS PLACE
Posts: 1013
Joined: March 2nd, 2005, 10:54 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby Kasey » March 1st, 2022, 11:53 pm

Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
bluefete wrote:
MG Man wrote:
bluefete wrote:
MG Man wrote:comes back to peer-reviewed research papers
Added to that, citing evidence for creation from a creationist source brings us back to the Napkin Religion


Ignoring the facts again. LOL.

But there has been very little peer-reviewed, double blinded studies on how the ark worked from a flotation perspective.

But there have been peer reviewed studies on other aspects of the ark.

Mammalian Collection on Noah's Ark: The Effects of Beauty, Brain and Body Size
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0063110


what facts did I ignore?


Until someone decides to fully refute the arguments made bout the ark and its ability to float, we will have to go with those who have actually done some work on it.

Unfortunately for you, at this time, that only seems to be the "believers".

When making a claim, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
So it’s not up to someone to refute the claim nor is something fact until someone refutes it.
This goes for all claims.

This 'Burden of Proof' concept has been in and out of this thread countless times since the days of Megadoc, DSpike, Habit7, and even Bluefete also was around that time too. But it seems he still does not get this concept.

User avatar
zoom rader
TunerGod
Posts: 27300
Joined: April 22nd, 2003, 12:39 pm
Location: Grand Cayman

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby zoom rader » March 1st, 2022, 11:59 pm

Kasey wrote:
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
bluefete wrote:
MG Man wrote:
bluefete wrote:
MG Man wrote:comes back to peer-reviewed research papers
Added to that, citing evidence for creation from a creationist source brings us back to the Napkin Religion


Ignoring the facts again. LOL.

But there has been very little peer-reviewed, double blinded studies on how the ark worked from a flotation perspective.

But there have been peer reviewed studies on other aspects of the ark.

Mammalian Collection on Noah's Ark: The Effects of Beauty, Brain and Body Size
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0063110


what facts did I ignore?


Until someone decides to fully refute the arguments made bout the ark and its ability to float, we will have to go with those who have actually done some work on it.

Unfortunately for you, at this time, that only seems to be the "believers".

When making a claim, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
So it’s not up to someone to refute the claim nor is something fact until someone refutes it.
This goes for all claims.

This 'Burden of Proof' concept has been in and out of this thread countless times since the days of Megadoc, DSpike, Habit7, and even Bluefete also was around that time too. But it seems he still does not get this concept.
None of those tuners have ever supplied Burden of Proof on the Bible stories

migos23
Riding on 13's
Posts: 3
Joined: March 20th, 2016, 9:13 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby migos23 » March 2nd, 2022, 1:41 am

Bad Dog wrote:The oldest bibles Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus are priceless. Scholars who have had the opportunities to study the Codices have identified almost 15,000 differences from today's KJV. I think that as we go along we make adjustments and tweak the things we like and eliminate the things we don't like. We even write new version and edit the new versions to newer versions. So is the original message lost?


Interesting point; imo the original message appears to be salvation and the redemption of man, so tweaks to laws and rules can be seen as inconsequential, as salvation is received by grace and no amount of works can achieve salvation.

migos23
Riding on 13's
Posts: 3
Joined: March 20th, 2016, 9:13 pm

Re: The Religion Discussion

Postby migos23 » March 2nd, 2022, 2:11 am

There is archaelogical evidence for some of the Bible "stories", including the Great Flood. A copious amount of world history is recorded and accepted by many individuals. However, there seems to be inconsistencies on the amount of evidence needed to support various beliefs. What is the clear-cut evidence for the big bang? I have yet to be provided with evidence that something can be generated out of nothing, but I am not here to judge anyone's view or standpoint. Personally, i believe if you are looking for God, you will not find him in peer-related reviews. I have experienced situations in my life where I can attest for a fact that it was God(Jesus Christ, for me) 100% answering me, without question. I am not saying this to debate anyone, this is my personal experience and from what I have experienced, if you want a relationship with God, he can speak to you if you are willing to draw close to him and listen. However, I cannot say how or where a non-believer can find God; as every individual's situation is different, but I have seen God work in ways that I could never have imagined. If an individual wants to find God, genuinely try and you will.

Edit: A person cannot see WiFi signals, but if you use an electronic device correctly you can prove its existence to yourself; in the same way, learn how to use the bible effectively and you will be able to prove God's existence to yourself. The same way Wifi isn't forced on you, God never forces himself on anyone, it is your choice.

Advertisement

Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 81 guests