Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been banned from this forum so many times when I proclaim good natural health or promote God. I keep coming back but I do take some breaks in between.
Probably not from promoting health foods or your belief in a god. What is left is how you interact with others.
I have made claims that are not scientifically disputed.
Yes you have...every single claim that you have made is not an accurate representation of what the science says.
You are cherry picking and twisting the data just as creationist do in their futile attempts to try and prove their beliefs.
You have nothing but beliefs.
Not one thing you have touted is accurate or correct.
This thread should be closed based on that alone.
Creationism is not science.
If you are trying to prove something scientifically then follow the scientific method.
You have failed over and over to prove anything other than you are a desperate creationist....slandering science in one breathe and then inappropriately trying to use it to prove your lame hypothesis in the next breathe.
You have no proof.
Mods please close this thread or move it to the science forum.
I have made claims that are not scientifically disputed.
Others besides myself have politely explained that when you make a claim the onus is on you to back it. Any claim is not true until someone else does a study to test your claim. That is not it works. My example with the rhubarb is an example, I made a claim and according to your rules it is true until someone disputes it with a study. Why would anyone waste resources testing my claim. No, if one makes a claim it is up to that person to back the claim, not for others to test it for you. Using the same rules the rest of the world does may be helpful.
Others besides myself have politely explained that when you make a claim the onus is on you to back it. Any claim is not true until someone else does a study to test your claim. That is not it works. My example with the rhubarb is an example, I made a claim and according to your rules it is true until someone disputes it with a study. Why would anyone waste resources testing my claim. No, if one makes a claim it is up to that person to back the claim, not for others to test it for you. Using the same rules the rest of the world does may be helpful.
I claimed back that I'm not trying to prove anything to you and that there is no science that is refuting me. That is your problem, you need something ELSE to tell you what to believe because your not SEEING that there is PROOF by seeing what is NOT REPORTED or what is NOT acknowledged. Therefore your part of the HERD that is bound to the same philosophy indoctrinated into people from a child that is that someone ALWAYS needs to tell you how to think. This is why from elementary school until you graduate college - you had to be TOLD what to think and how to think it. And if someone higher than you didn't think it or tell you how to think it then it can't be true. Your indoctrinated to be the HERD.
The problem with your atheist (which is there is no such thing - since your god is the self), is that you don't see that what is silence is data, what is lacking is data. What is not reported is data.
If God gives reveals Himself to the Righteous then obviously He didn't reveal Himself to the unrighteous. If God is in charge and is 100% responsible for the salvation of the Righteous then He is also 100% responsible for state of the Unrighteousness. This type of thinking is lost on "Christians" also - not just the Atheists and the macroevo pushers.
Strawman, I don't say that this amazing concept proves that that creation is true. I don't even think I use the word Creation much. What I do assert is that these facts about Food should give great hope and assurance to Christians that their God designed it for them. I can care less about the pre-school of macro evolution. If you are insulted that call macro-evolution childish well it is because I hear this silly nonsense far to much.
Poetic. But you still changed the subject.
Your assertion at it's most basic level is that the environment was made for us. You back this up with natural foods being healthy for us. And that makes sense if that's all you factor in. But the environment isn't all that safe 100% of the time. Sure, of the terrestrial planets in our solar system, this is the only one we could survive on (without technological advances or terraforming, but let's not go into that), but the planet is hardly 'perfect.' Plenty of plants kill us if we eat them. Even some meats will kill us. Why would a creator, who I'm guessing is also omniscient in your view, put poisonous plants on the Earth? Sure, the food we have is nutritionally satisfactory, but without proper knowledge, you may accidentally consume a toxic plants and die or become very ill. Why did the creator put that plant there if he/she/it designed all of this specifically for us?
Evolution does explain this by the way. It's not an anthropocentric theory. All organisms evolved to be best suited to their environment. Some plants benefit from being poisons, some animals evolved to use toxins as a weapon, and some animals benefit form having superior strength (when compares to humans).
If there is a creator, none of this was made for us. It was just made. But with that in mind, it still proves your initial point untrue, as you're asserting that the food was made to be edible so we (humans) could eat it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibsonplayer
Yes, SILENCE the opposition. CRUCIFY HIM!!!!
The fact that people pointing out that your science is actually pseudo science causes you to think you're being silenced is enough to show us all that you aren't hear to discuss. Just to be validated.
The problem with your atheist (which is there is no such thing - since your god is the self), is that you don't see that what is silence is data, what is lacking is data. What is not reported is data.
If God gives reveals Himself to the Righteous then obviously He didn't reveal Himself to the unrighteous. If God is in charge and is 100% responsible for the salvation of the Righteous then He is also 100% responsible for state of the Unrighteousness. This type of thinking is lost on "Christians" also - not just the Atheists and the macroevo pushers.
That's not what an atheist is. Atheists do not recognize a god like being as existing. They don't view themselves as gods. Bare in mind, religious atheists do exists. Buddhists don't necessarily believe in a god. Many don't and focus on the self, which is more or less humanism. But this doesn't mean they worship themselves as gods.
Also, think about that last thin you said. 'God only reveals himself to the righteous.' If someone were to make that up, how powerful would that make them? For them to claim they know God, while others don't. If that person is lying, others will see that person as being different or special, thus also say they know God. But the reality is, each one lied in order to further substantiate that original lie.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
