Advertisement

Author Topic: Adam and Eve?  (Read 8181 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Visualmon

  • Sr. Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 6591
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +366
    • View Profile
Re: Adam and Eve?
« Reply #30 on: March 18, 2020, 03:50:13 PM »
I don't think we are on the same page. You bring up pee pee, but we are made with it. Belly button, you enforce it that it's real on Adam to which it doesn't. The probability of having one is ZERO! You can gamble for this, but my statement has a better probability to point out that it's going to be more truer than having one.

Adam and Eve don't have a belly button. They were not born; they were made. We were born from them, which explains WHY we have them. If you debate this with a scholar, they will agree with me a lot more because my logic is pretty plain simple to understand that the chances of a belly button on these two great-grandparents don't have one. Eve has boobs and a vagina to procreate as we are the seeds to plant her. God did say, "Let humanity be fruitful." Did He not?

Let me remind you that phrase, "let humanity be fruitful", literally means be serving others gracefully.  ;D ;D

Did your yolkism ever mentioned the passage about "multiplying as duplicating" from Eve? I'm sure your NIV book do have it but your mind interpret something else entirely.  :-\



Like this post: 0
There's no need for you to hide. I already saw you.

Adverstisement

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Adam and Eve?
« Reply #31 on: April 02, 2020, 09:20:57 AM »
I don't think we are on the same page. You bring up pee pee, but we are made with it. Belly button, you enforce it that it's real on Adam to which it doesn't. The probability of having one is ZERO! You can gamble for this, but my statement has a better probability to point out that it's going to be more truer than having one.
What's your probability in which you based of from? Based off of Adam and Eve, then the probability of them having belly button high. The probability that the offspring having the same body parts as the parents are high.

Adam and Eve don't have a belly button. They were not born; they were made. We were born from them, which explains WHY we have them. If you debate this with a scholar, they will agree with me a lot more because my logic is pretty plain simple to understand that the chances of a belly button on these two great-grandparents don't have one. Eve has boobs and a vagina to procreate as we are the seeds to plant her.
Being made instead of being born has no bearing on having or not having a belly button. And that's flaw in your logic.

God did say, "Let humanity be fruitful." Did He not?

And that answers the question. "Let humanity be fruitful," so in other words, "Let humans produce more humans." Humans have bellybuttons, unless if they're born with a deformity. Adam and Eve are humans, therefore must also have it in order for them to be called humans, unless if they were deformed, otherwise the first human would be Cain and not Adam and Eve. So there you have it, even your god agrees that they had a bellybutton. So unless you believe that Adam and Eve were made with imperfections, there's no logical reason for them not to have a bellybutton.



Like this post: 0

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Adam and Eve?
« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2020, 11:24:37 AM »
Were they made in a test tube or were they made out of mud? God has never put anybody in a tube that wired them. A belly button, like I said before, requires birth. Adam was not born; Adam was made; therefore, Adam had never gotten a belly button. Made things don't have a belly button.

An assertion without evidence to support the claim is nothing but a bald assertion.

So what you are saying is that your god cannot create two humans with belly button? This where your reasoning is flawed. Birth into this world is required for a human to exist. And yet, you claim that Adam and Eve wasn't born, they were made. So if they were made with having two arms, two legs, and each with different sex organs, then it is also possible for them to be made with a bellybutton.



Like this post: 0

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Adam and Eve?
« Reply #33 on: April 03, 2020, 11:32:02 AM »
Describe to me how a baby is born? Do they have a belly button? Why yes! What about Adam? Was he born? It's self-evident of the probability for Adam to have a belly button is zero chances. Adam wasn't born; Adam was made. Where in the bible verse that said literally Adam was born? Because I can prove to you in literal words from the verse that he was made by God.

Describe to me how Adam and Eve was created without having a belly button. If your argument can be use to argue against your own argument, then it fails to be a valid and sound logical argument.

Show me the verse where it says "god created Adam without a bellybutton." There is no such verse, therefore the probability is very low, next to zero. The probability for having a belly button is high because us humans without birth defects have it. We also have two arms and two legs.



Like this post: 0

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Adam and Eve?
« Reply #34 on: April 03, 2020, 09:10:02 PM »
Where on EARTH did deformity came into play? Now your adding pseudoscience with this, which is not bible correlated.
Because it shows that all normal and healty humans have a bellybutton, the rare occasion when it is absent, is in a baby being born with deformity. And it is your claim that bellybutton must come from being born. And I showed you that you are wrong.

Since you brought up pseudoscience, let's compare and see who is the one that's actually doing pseudoscience. First, the difference. Science consists of a hypothesis with evidence to support it by doing research and experiments. The objective of science is an attempt to demonstrate that what is being claim is true by providing evidence to support that claim.

Now as for pseudoscience, a hypothesis is presented, followed by information that are thrown out as being evidence, when it is not. Those so called "evidence" are actually opposing information about an entirely different hypothesis and/or idea that is usually in opposition to the one presented by the pseudoscientis t.

So, you made an argument with no scientific evidence to support it. You gave reason that they were created and not born because a bellybutton comes from being born. I made the counter argument that they had one because humans have it, except those born with deformities. I used evolution to support my argument, as being a human one inherit the genetic traits of their parents. I disputed your argument while providing evidence to support why it's true. You, on the other hand, are disputing some other idea while ignoring mine and have nothing to show why your initial argument is true. You are practicing pseudoscience by trying to debunk something then with no evidence at all, claim that your argument is true.


Adam was made, not born. Cain and Abel had a belly button; however, their parents did not! You're playing with your words without any logical chances of evidence to point out that they have a belly button. My chances are much higher for someone who is not born but made. You're confusing the difference between born vs. made. Made things don't have a belly button. It's useless and provide nothing for Adam and Eve alone. For their children, may be because it requires food, blood, and fuel of air for them to breathe.
Wrong again. Here you are doing the opposite of what you claim to be, which is,  a philosopher that knows how to think. If you would have read what I said, you would realize that your argument about being born does not help you at all. It's actually irrelevant to my point. This scenario is about Adam and Eve, that's why I was arguing that god created them with a bellybutton, therefore passing that down to their offsprings. I supported it with scientific evidence. This is why my other point is having something to compare with to conclude a probably rate. Which it shows why having a belly button has high probability and not having one is low if not zero.

Adam is a perfect man and a perfect man does not need a belly button. Again, I don't see how your logic is standing because it doesn't make any sense. Made things don't need a belly button--PERIOD!

I'm still waiting for your evidence to support that claim. But I also had in mind the idea that Adam was a perfect being. That's why I brought up the deformity. So god created Adam as the perfect man having a belly button and told him to be fruitful. And being fruitful means having offsprings, hence giving birth. Adam would not have been perfect if his offsprings were not also perfect. And being perfect, therefore does not require further adjustments.

But I know what you're thinking. After original sin and the fall of man, Adam and Eve and/or humans are no longer perfect. I had that in mind as well. They are no longer perfect, that's why one of the imperfections came in the form of birth deformities for the baby, not having a belly button.

And that's critical thinking and logical reasoning for you. Don't kick yourself too much for coming up an illogical argument, nobody is perfect. Open, listen, learn and move on.  Just stay away from pseudoscience, it's one of the reasons  as to why someone have illogical reasoning.



Like this post: 0

Offline theking

  • Elite Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 58889
  • Respect: +1322
    • View Profile
Re: Adam and Eve?
« Reply #35 on: April 08, 2020, 01:38:47 PM »
So the EPIC FAIL has been tucking and running all these months from her challenge..I mean NOT even a legit quote to prove her LIE and now she's crying about this.. ;D ;D ;D:

I'm still waiting for your evidence to support that claim.



Like this post: 0

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Adam and Eve?
« Reply #36 on: April 10, 2020, 08:49:26 PM »
As empirically, we both don't have. As for logically, my chances are more since as an artist or painter, I don't buy shiet that are useless for my drawing.

Saying that you are an artist and painter doesn't make it logical. And a belly button is not useless. It's needed as a prerequisite for passing it down to their offsprings. Now, tell me, how many paint brushes, pencils, papers and erasers do you have? If not just one, then why do you need all those for?

Speaking of things not needed, what about wisdom teeth, the appendix, the tailbone, etc. And let's not forget, body hair. It's obvious that we can survive without body hair for warmth, so why do some humans have it and others don't?



Like this post: 0

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Adam and Eve?
« Reply #37 on: April 10, 2020, 09:46:38 PM »
Well, my logic still stand while hers, I don't know much. Because I bet you understand me about "The Artist Format," where you only need what you need, not what you want, then she as herself (dogmai), don't have a good arguments for Adam and Eve. The chances of having a belly button is zero to none. Therefore, Adam and Eve don't have a belly button.

Hahaha.

That's what you consider as logic? No wonder you came to such an irrational conclusion. So far, between the two of us, I'm the only one who actually did give good arguments with rational reasoning for it. You on the other hand, has given your only one argument, "they were created." And your reasoning behind it? Because you need them to not have belly button so it can fulfill your want of them not having belly button. I've given scientific evidence to support my argument and rebutted your argument. In response, you just threw in fallacies or straight up ignored them.

And I'm still waiting on those bible verses that you claimed about.



Like this post: 0

Offline dogmai

  • Jr. Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 2846
  • Respect: +87
    • View Profile
Re: Adam and Eve?
« Reply #38 on: April 10, 2020, 11:18:51 PM »
I asked you for the word born in the verses. Where is born?

 I used your failed argument about them being created to show how easily it is to refute it. I said that they were created with a belly button. So just because you couldn't think of any counter arguments, you've decided to throw in a strawman. Where did ever say that Adam and Eve were born?

I couldn't make it; I said that He doesn't want to. It's useless. A belly button would require born. For Adam, it's useless. He can tend not to choose like how He chooses to ignore certain people's prayer because they are assssholes.
So since he wanted Adam and Eve to have a bellybutton so they can pass it down to their offsprings, he created them with a bellybutton. It's useless for Adam to have nipples since there's no need for him to breastfeed their babies, that part falls solely on Eve. So why was Adam created with such useless things? And he can choose too, just like how he choose to answer prayers from assssholes.

Do you have a belly button? If you do, then you are born, not made. Period! Every babies have a belly button. The percentage is high.
Correct, babies that are born have a bellybutton because they are the offsprings of parents who have one. Cain and Abel had one because they're the offsprings of parents who were created with one. So show us babies that are made that doesn't have a bellybutton.

So you believe that God created humans to have a belly button? For what use? I already told you why.Because as a artist like me who draws, there is no need. I draw things that are required, not wants and just to waste time. Do you buy things that doesn't benefit you? I don't.
No, you draw things that you want to draw. I buy things that things that benefit me. That is why I buy a lot of food and drinks whenever I go grocery shopping. I don't just buy the food and drinks that are needed in order to satisfy my hunger at that very moment. Those extra food benefit me later on.

Where's the bible verse that said he had it? We both don't have the empirical evidence for this, but to rely on philosophy. Again, as an artist or a painter, why buy things that doesn't benefit your art? For example, you bought dumbbells rather than paint. Why? What's the use for that for your drawing?
See, you want your strawman argument to benefit you, but it doesn't. Only evidence that are needed can and will benefit you. If you decide to do an oil paint of a scenery, you buy oil paint. You cannot just put acrylic paint on your palette and have it miraculously be oil paint whenever you want to.

And that's also why I presented my version of your argument back at you to show how irrational it is. And without that, you have nothing except for your baseless assertions.

As empirically, we both don't have. As for logically, my chances are more since as an artist or painter, I don't buy shiet that are useless for my drawing.


Nope. You used assertions as your reasoning and simply just continuously repeating the same things over, while ignoring the objections that are presented. You make  claims based on your ignorance of evolution, and by this, I'm referring to even just the most basic form of it. With no evidence to support your claims, they're nothing but bald assertions. And imagining philosophers that agree with you, is not evidence. I, on the other hand, used empirical evidence to support and explained my arguments. I addressed your points by showing why your arguments are illogical and explained those fallacies that you've made.

Probably your worst argument is your ridiculous take on the the probability you've came up with. News flash, one cannot come up with the probability if there is nothing to compare it with. I have humans to compare along with the reality in nature.

Before you can even start to claim that a useless thing is impossible, you first must demonstrate why that particular thing is useless.
I asked you for the word born in the verses. Where is born?

 I used your failed argument about them being created to show how easily it is to refute it. I said that they were created with a belly button. So just because you couldn't think of any counter arguments, you've decided to throw in a strawman. Where did ever say that Adam and Eve were born?

I couldn't make it; I said that He doesn't want to. It's useless. A belly button would require born. For Adam, it's useless. He can tend not to choose like how He chooses to ignore certain people's prayer because they are assssholes.
So since he wanted Adam and Eve to have a bellybutton so they can pass it down to their offsprings, he created them with a bellybutton. It's useless for Adam to have nipples since there's no need for him to breastfeed their babies, that part falls solely on Eve. So why was Adam created with such useless things? And he can choose too, just like how he choose to answer prayers from assssholes.

Do you have a belly button? If you do, then you are born, not made. Period! Every babies have a belly button. The percentage is high.
Correct, babies that are born have a bellybutton because they are the offsprings of parents who have one. Cain and Abel had one because they're the offsprings of parents who were created with one. So show us babies that are made that doesn't have a bellybutton.

So you believe that God created humans to have a belly button? For what use? I already told you why.Because as a artist like me who draws, there is no need. I draw things that are required, not wants and just to waste time. Do you buy things that doesn't benefit you? I don't.
No, you draw things that you want to draw. I buy things that things that benefit me. That is why I buy a lot of food and drinks whenever I go grocery shopping. I don't just buy the food and drinks that are needed in order to satisfy my hunger at that very moment. Those extra food benefit me later on.

Where's the bible verse that said he had it? We both don't have the empirical evidence for this, but to rely on philosophy. Again, as an artist or a painter, why buy things that doesn't benefit your art? For example, you bought dumbbells rather than paint. Why? What's the use for that for your drawing?
See, you want your strawman argument to benefit you, but it doesn't. Only evidence that are needed can and will benefit you. If you decide to do an oil paint of a scenery, you buy oil paint. You cannot just put acrylic paint on your palette and have it miraculously be oil paint whenever you want to.

As empirically, we both don't have. As for logically, my chances are more since as an artist or painter, I don't buy shiet that are useless for my drawing.


Nope. You used assertions as your reasoning and simply just continuously repeating the same things over, while ignoring the objections that are presented. You make  claims based on your ignorance of evolution, and by this, I'm referring to even just the most basic form of it. With no evidence to support your claims, they're nothing but bald assertions. And imagining philosophers that agree with you, is not evidence. I, on the other hand, used empirical evidence to support and explained my arguments. I addressed your points by showing why your arguments are illogical and explained those fallacies that you've made.

Probably your worst argument is your ridiculous take on the the probability you've came up with. News flash, one cannot come up with the probability if there is nothing to compare it with. I have humans to compare along with the reality in nature.

Before you can even start arguing that a useless thing is impossible, you must show why that particular thing is, in fact, useless. If you can do that, you can then argue as to why it is impossible for a useless thing to not exist. If you cannot demonstrate this, your argument falls to being nothing but your own opinion.



Like this post: 0

 

Advertisements