Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(May 2, 2013 at 12:11 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: And if I were to go back to 400 b.c. and set off a bunch of fireworks...That would be percieved as supernatural, and since large groups of people thought that it was...it must be?
How do you know it’d be perceived as supernatural? Are you suggesting that people traveled back in time to Biblical times and used modern technology to perform miracles?
Quote: Justified how? Because I accept that the beans I just purchased are magic beans, i'm justified in believing they are in fact magic beans because the guy that sold him to me seemed to be on the up-and-up, nevermind not having any reason to believe that such beans existed anywhere...ever?
You’re just proving my point, Ryantology said you merely only have to accept the source of the information and you are therefore justified in that belief, I was reducing that to absurdity.
Quote: Well..That all depends on what attributes you claim your has. Please list any possible attributes that such a being would require, and i'd be happy to explain why it's not consistant with what we know about the universe. (example: Creation Ex Niliho, Omniscient, Omnipotent...)
I do not have to list any possible attributes, scripture is quite clear about what attributes God possesses and I do not see how any of them are inconsistent with the Universe.
Quote: Indeed, step on up to the plate and lets discuss the errors with God(s) with respect to scientific knowledge.
Is our scientific knowledge infallible? Yes or no.
Quote:
Worthless is an opinion, but in a minute you can decide...
Opinions do not prove anything, but I am sure you knew that.
Quote:
Lie isn't quite the right word. Unfalsifiable, yes. We'll address the worth of those types of claims shortly...
Ryantology asserted they’re lies, not me.
Quote: 1)All Toyota Cars are created at various Toyota assembley plants around the world. Toyotas can be identified by several numbers in various places within the assembley of the car.(evidence supports this claim, as every Toyota has identification numbers that can be traced back to any one of the several plants around the world, the results are consistant and there has never been a Toyota that could not be linked to a assembley plant using the numbers.)
You’ve examined all Toyota cars? That’s a lot of cars.
Quote: 3) My car was created at a Toyota assembley plant (logically follows)
Sure, but how do you know all Toyota cars that have this sticker indeed were created at a plant? Are you taking the word of Toyota on that one?
Quote: Both of the first two premises are true and backed by verifiable evidence with confirmed qualifying criteria, and the conclusion logically follows.
I am not sure how you know that all Toyota cars indeed have this sticker, and that all Toyota cars that have this sticker indeed got this sticker from the plant. It seems to me you’re merely taking Toyota’s word on this one.
Quote:
There is no "your logic". There is only logical and illogical. If you refuse to abide by the rules of logic when weighing claims, the conclusions you derrive are illogical. If the conclusions happen to be correct you should hardly be proud of the means of such a conclusion as it was luck at best.
Again, talk to Ryantology on that one, I was directly quoting his terminology. Is logic Universal and immutable?
Quote: Nope! But, if you wish to make an inductive inference based on rational intuition, the inference made cannot be irrational or unfounded. Looking at a car and inferring it was made, comes from knowledge of experience. There is no experienced knowledge of a God anywhere, and so there is no reason to simply plug it in because you want it to be true.
Is there experienced knowledge that life naturally arises from non-life? What about experienced knowledge that non-rational events can give rise to rational minds? What about experienced knowledge that all life on Earth comes from a single common ancestor? Please follow your own rules.
Quote:
Again...If I found some old artifacts in the ground during an excavation, say they were eating utensils (my first valid inductive inference) carved (second valid inductive inference) from wood. If I was going to begin to explain where they could have possibly came from, I would not need evidence to assert as a starting point that they were at the very least made by probably man. This would be a valid inductive inference, and an excellent starting point to my hypothesis of EXACTLY where they came from because of my knowledge of what sorts of things are common to creations of man. But all of this is only valid because of knowledge.
How do you know they are eating utensils? How do you know they are not merely eroded pieces of wood? Simply calling something a valid inference does not make it so.
Quote: The universe we have without a God is precisely the universe we could expect to not have a God.
How do you know what a Godless universe should look like?
Quote: There is no evidence of such things, and any attempt to logically assert such a capable being, cannot be validated inductively or deductively.
How do you know you can trust your ability to reason inductively and deductively?
Quote: A hypothesis must be falsifiable to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested or rationally accepted.
How can you falsify the hypothesis that “all meaningful hypotheses must be falsifiable”? Or is that claim itself not meaningful?
Quote:
an interesting qualifier open to interpretation.
It’s a valid qualifier. Can you give me an example of someone experiencing life arising from non-life in Nature?
Quote:
Please show this proof you speak of...
The existence of websites that deal with reconciling Biblical contradictions? Google them.
Quote:
The beleif that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is an assumption that drives our sciences. But this assumption is not blind. It stands very firmly on years of sophisticated testing and consistant unrelenting results. It continues to be challenged, and the more it is challenged, the more it is confirmed. If you are attempting to assert God as a hypothesis for how the universe came into existance, you do this by a series of connecting inferences to an unvalidated entity and the first rule of supporting the God hypothesis is-NEVER CHALLENGE IT. The second rule of the God hypothesis is-IF CHALLENGED, CONFORM IT TO FIT. There is no reason to attribute anything to a God because there is no evidence that God even exists!
How is any of this relevant to websites dealing with alleged Bible contradictions?
God is not something you reason to, God is something you reason from.
(May 2, 2013 at 12:52 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote:
Well, lets look at another famous "contradiction". (not really a contradiction per se but certainly unexplainable within the context of genesis.)
God creates adam and eve, they pork and have 2 sons. The sons are then sent off to far-away lands to "be fruitful and multiply".
Who, exactly did they multiply with?
This is not a contradiction in that one part of the bible says this and another part says that. It is a logical contradiction in that, according to the bible, there were only 4 people on earth at the time yet the sons were sent off and married to....who?
Genesis 5:4 says Adam and Eve had other children (both sons and daughters), and no that would not have led to any birth defects and no that was not a sin until later.
(May 2, 2013 at 4:19 pm)ThomM Wrote:
First of all you should actually read and understand what you've read before crying contradiction.
Sorry - but to claim that there are NO contradictions in the bible is just as MUCH a LIE as to claim some are - when there are explanations.
Now - there are a number of Major Contradictions of the bible- that cannot be explained away -
Among them - the two blood lines of the christ - in Matthew and Luke - BOTH cannot be true.(ANd worse - neither are true if you believe the christ is the son of god) But - it requires that we understand how the people of that time understood procreation. At that time - the bloodline ONLY went through MALES - father to son - because it was believed that the Father supplied the SEED of the male son - and the mother was only the "dirt" that the seed was planted in - and had no direct BLOOD relation to her son. This was to recognize that a babies blood supply is separate and can even be different type - than the mother.
Problem #1
The genealogy of Matthew descends through a CURSED line -Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and his father Jehoiakim were both cursed by God himself, who said that neither of these men would have any descendent on the throne of David. - so this line CONTRADICTS the curse from the Old Testament. (Jeremiah 22)
Problem #2
Both lines end in JOSEPH - who we KNOW by the story had NO blood relation to the christ at all. (The bible specifically states that they had NO marital relations before the birth of the christ) Even if you claim that one of them is really the blood line of MARY - the Jews did not consider a woman to be in the bloodline. (And of course - since MARY is not mentioned - that is another addition theists like to add)
Problem #3
Even if the blood line of Luke - is the blood line of MARY - then Jesus would have descended through Nathan, not Solomon, making the prophecies in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and 1 Chronicles 22:10 false.
Problem #4
If, using the genealogy in Luke, Jesus's claim to descent from David, of the tribe of Judah, is through Mary rather than Joseph then how can it be that Mary's cousin, Elizabeth, was descended from the house of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi (Luke 1:5)?
Problem #5
However - the biggest problem is that the christ is claimed to be the son of the god - and has NO bloodline connection to any male human.
There are many others
Why does the christ misquote the Old Testament - when it is supposed to be "his" word (One god supposedly)? 22 Matthew 4:10 versus Deuteronomy 6:13; Matthew 11:10 versus Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:16 versus Psalm 8:2; Luke 4:17-21 versus Isaiah 61:1-2.
Why are there clear conflicts in the bible stories (Especially genesis) - with reality?
How about the Luke and Matthew stories of the christ supposedly in the desert - and the devil took him to a HIGH place where he could see ALL the kingdoms of the world. As we know - and the christ would have to know - that is NOT possible. In fact - there is no such place on earth from where you could see all the kingdoms mentioned in the bible before that.
And the problem with those two stories is - where did Luke and Matthew get the story from - there were only two supposedly there.- the christ and the devil. Both of them would have known that there was NO such place.
IF the story came from the christ - why did he LIE about it. IF the story came from the devil - then we question the source of the bible as being the word of god.
More elephant hurling I see, which one of these do you believe is the best example of a contradiction? Please let me know and I will address it for you.
Why didn’t anyone address my reconciling of Genesis 1 and 2?
May 2, 2013 at 5:40 pm (This post was last modified: May 2, 2013 at 5:46 pm by A_Nony_Mouse.)
(May 2, 2013 at 1:19 pm)John V Wrote:
(May 2, 2013 at 1:10 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: Then please fill me in on the details I have wrong.
The command to be fruitful was given to A&E, the sons weren't sent away (although Cain did leave) for example.
Quote:To me it seems simple. Genesis gives no account of others being created so "only" is a perfectly logical assumption.
There's no requirement that every child born be mentioned. Your logic isn't simple, it's simplistic.
Remember what I said about mutually exclusive and contradictory? If not scroll back.
I will take your poorly thought out excuse fact. The OTHER children which you think you were clever to invent, living outside the garden, had already been expelled from the garden for no know reason.
Your problem is now to reconcile being kicked out, voluntarily leaving with the Tale of Two Trees. Please impress me with your creativity. I need something to keep my attention after all the lame crap so far.
(May 2, 2013 at 2:45 pm)Godschild Wrote:
(May 2, 2013 at 5:35 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: The same story with different detail. You can't get much more specific than changing which comes before the other in one and reversing the order in the other.
Now I know for sure the doctor dropped you on your head, so it's not your fault you not able to see the truth, however you should stay away from these simple debates and find something simpler, before you completely ruin your mind.
Care to explain how the Jews and the Christians missed you version until Saint Augustine the sex hater invented the original sin story?
How do you expect to be taken seriously when all of your (lame) responses are all predicated upon young earth creationism?
(May 2, 2013 at 2:52 pm)Godschild Wrote:
(May 2, 2013 at 1:33 am)Minimalist Wrote: I'm surprised you aren't locked up in a padded cell for your own protection.
If I were to be, I could be paroled to the sandbox where I would have to spend the rest of my days with you, and sir that would be hell.
Hell comes after rest of days. Please keep your theology straight.
(May 2, 2013 at 1:10 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: Then please fill me in on the details I have wrong.
The command to be fruitful was given to A&E, the sons weren't sent away (although Cain did leave) for example.
Cain seems to be a bit quicker on the uptake than you, Johnny boy.
Quote:10 The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”
13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”
15 But the Lord said to him, “Not so[e]; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod,[f] east of Eden.
Even fiction writers make it clear. Too bad fiction readers can't figure out what is being said.
May 2, 2013 at 5:51 pm (This post was last modified: May 2, 2013 at 5:57 pm by A_Nony_Mouse.)
(May 2, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Godschild Wrote:
(May 2, 2013 at 12:52 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: Well, lets look at another famous "contradiction". (not really a contradiction per se but certainly unexplainable within the context of genesis.)
God creates adam and eve, they pork and have 2 sons. The sons are then sent off to far-away lands to "be fruitful and multiply".
Who, exactly did they multiply with?
This is not a contradiction in that one part of the bible says this and another part says that. It is a logical contradiction in that, according to the bible, there were only 4 people on earth at the time yet the sons were sent off and married to....who?
First of all you should actually read and understand what you've read before crying contradiction. Able was killed by Cain, Able never married. Important fact you missed, and you are trying to use a dead man to come up with a contradiction, I'm not saying it is but it looks like a con being planned. Second the Garden of Eden was off limits to all humans, the curse of sin was brought into the world by Adam and Eve that caused this to be.
Now how do you know there were only four people in the world when Cain killed Able, scripture says Adam and Eve had many children, both male and female. We are not told anything about how old the brothers were when the murder took place.
Adam and Eve lived several hundred according to scripture and scripture says nothing about when their children were born. It does however point toward Cain and Able being the first two born.
With what the scriptures state we can only come to the conclusion that Cain married one of his sisters and actually the scriptures point to the brothers and sisters of Adam and Eve marrying and having children and those children were grown before Cain was sent away by God.
You seem to have missed the important fact that you are arguing for young earth creationism which, a priori, is the position of idiots.
Sorry to break it to you but it never happened. ALL FOUR of those people are myths. You are trying to explain away contradictions in stories about people and events which never occurred written by unknown people at unknown times for unknown reasons
Speaking of being dropped upon one's head ... how stupid can you get?
(May 2, 2013 at 4:14 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: Oh! Well that clears up everything. I think we all can agree that this has been settled. The bible has no contradictions. Thanks for clearing this up for us GC! Now we can move on to the other crazy bullshit that book is has in it.
"It's not the parts of The Bible I don't understand that bother me, its the parts I do understand!"
-Mark Twain
The bible has a very obvious contradiction, creation itself.
"Among them - the two blood lines of the christ - in Matthew and Luke - BOTH cannot be true."
As with so many things when you point that out the believers try to distract us, an usually are really distracting themselves debating the validity of which bloodline and why both are correct.
Sorry believers HERE is the one and only bloodline of Jesus for Christians, MARY. God has no blood. Mary was the only human involved. QED
(May 2, 2013 at 5:40 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: I will take your poorly thought out excuse fact. The OTHER children which you think you were clever to invent, living outside the garden, had already been expelled from the garden for no know reason.
What on Earth are you talking about? Genesis 5:4 clearly states that Adam and Eve had more kids later on. John V didn’t invent anything.
Quote: Care to explain how the Jews and the Christians missed you version until Saint Augustine the sex hater invented the original sin story?
Augustine didn’t invent original sin, it’s clearly taught in scripture by Paul.
Quote: How do you expect to be taken seriously when all of your (lame) responses are all predicated upon young earth creationism?
I believe that those whom he wants to take him seriously do take him seriously. I for one do not care whether someone who is ignorant enough to think that a blue whale, a bacterium, a mosquito, and a human are all blood relatives takes me seriously or not, in fact I’d be a bit worried if they did.
Quote: Sorry to break it to you but it never happened. ALL FOUR of those people are myths. You are trying to explain away contradictions in stories about people and events which never occurred written by unknown people at unknown times for unknown reasons
You’re really getting desperate aren’t you? First you claim there are contradictions in scripture and then when that claim gets destroyed you resort to tossing out fallacious red herrings like the one above. Keep things relevant and defend your original claim that there are contradictions in scripture.
Quote: Speaking of being dropped upon one's head ... how stupid can you get?
Why are you personally attacking him? He’s been destroying you in this debate, so calling him stupid only makes you look even worse.
Quote: The bible has a very obvious contradiction, creation itself.
What is logically contradictory about the idea of creation?
Quote: As with so many things when you point that out the believers try to distract us, an usually are really distracting themselves debating the validity of which bloodline and why both are correct.
They are both correct; Matthew refers to Jesus’s blood line through Mary while Luke is referring to Jesus’ bloodline through his adopted father Joseph. A person can have two different genealogies, one on their mother’s side and one on their father’s side? Imagine that!
Quote: Sorry believers HERE is the one and only bloodline of Jesus for Christians, MARY. God has no blood. Mary was the only human involved. QED
Jesus was adopted by Joseph, therefore he has two genealogies.
May 2, 2013 at 8:28 pm (This post was last modified: May 2, 2013 at 9:07 pm by A_Nony_Mouse.)
(May 2, 2013 at 7:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: [quote='A_Nony_Mouse' pid='439800' dateline='1367530847']
I will take your poorly thought out excuse fact. The OTHER children which you think you were clever to invent, living outside the garden, had already been expelled from the garden for no know reason.
What on Earth are you talking about? Genesis 5:4 clearly states that Adam and Eve had more kids later on. John V didn’t invent anything.[/quote]
It appears the dropping brain damage includes your inability to comprehend time. C&A are AFTER being kicked out. Every bible hugger declares they were the first children of A&E -- you are stuck with that story else you can claim to be a new prophet with a new revelation. If so I demand to know your authority.
But since you agree to LATER ON lets run with that. Do you have the least comprehension of the consequences of totally inbred incest? I assume you are not.
Moving right along, you can't to another "land" to find a wife unless there is an entire incestuous breeding population in Nod in the first place. Ignoring the fact that such an incestuous population cannot exist, just to keep the ridicule going, sons and daughters of A&E must have migrated to Nod many generations before Cane was born.
WHEN did they migrate from Eden to Nod? There are many other problems which your explanation must address although the absence of a breeding population that applies to A&E also applies to Nod.
Is this not enough for you crazy young earth creationists? How much more does it take? You are massively contrary to so much that is well known about the universe
Looking for contradictions in the bible is like looking for contradictions in the Wizard of Oz. Neither describe real events. What difference could it possibly make?
Quote: Care to explain how the Jews and the Christians missed you version until Saint Augustine the sex hater invented the original sin story?
Augustine didn’t invent original sin, it’s clearly taught in scripture by Paul.
Of course you will find an excuse to explain why no matter how many times I demand the Chapter and Verse you will never produce a single one mentioning Eden. I often wonder what it is like after I challenge these nonsense claims when believers go rushing to their bibles and learn I am correct.
Quote:[quote] How do you expect to be taken seriously when all of your (lame) responses are all predicated upon young earth creationism?
I believe that those whom he wants to take him seriously do take him seriously. I for one do not care whether someone who is ignorant enough to think that a blue whale, a bacterium, a mosquito, and a human are all blood relatives takes me seriously or not, in fact I’d be a bit worried if they did.[/quote]
More evidence believers are crazy and stupid and ignorant and down right uneducated. I think it is good you are letting your hair and telling it like it is as now there is no question you are crazy, ignorant, stupid and uneducated.
Quote:[quote] Sorry to break it to you but it never happened. ALL FOUR of those people are myths. You are trying to explain away contradictions in stories about people and events which never occurred written by unknown people at unknown times for unknown reasons
You’re really getting desperate aren’t you? First you claim there are contradictions in scripture and then when that claim gets destroyed you resort to tossing out fallacious red herrings like the one above. Keep things relevant and defend your original claim that there are contradictions in scripture.[/quote]
Why might you be so concerned that there are contradictions in stories about the Land of Oz? There is no difference between Oz and the OT in this matter. Why are you so concerned that you work to claim there are no contradictions in stories about the same things that never happened? That does not appear reasonable.
Quote:[quote] Speaking of being dropped upon one's head ... how stupid can you get?
Why are you personally attacking him? He’s been destroying you in this debate, so calling him stupid only makes you look even worse.[/quote]
This is not a debate.
Quote:[quote] The bible has a very obvious contradiction, creation itself.
What is logically contradictory about the idea of creation?[/quote]
4004BC is contrary to all observed facts about the universe. Are you claiming you did not know that?
Logic depends upon validated and observed premises being true before applying the rules of logic. It is always the date not the fact. It always has been. Because science has moved the date back a tad from the bible begat age does not change the fact that infallible divine revelation is not just wrong but ridiculous.
Quote:[quote] As with so many things when you point that out the believers try to distract us, an usually are really distracting themselves debating the validity of which bloodline and why both are correct.
They are both correct; Matthew refers to Jesus’s blood line through Mary while Luke is referring to Jesus’ bloodline through his adopted father Joseph. A person can have two different genealogies, one on their mother’s side and one on their father’s side? Imagine that![/quote]
Imagine a believer who pretends not to know that bloodline and genealogy does not mean bloodline. Imagine a believer pretending not to know that adoption is not bloodline. Imagine a believer claiming there was no word for adoption in ancient times else it would have been used. Imagine the bastard son of Mary. I have nothing against bastards but believers do not seem to like the word.
As to the father's side of a real genealogy, what is the bloodline of your god and why does it have blood? Words are words. Words have meanings. They had the same meanings when they were used in the past as they do today.
Joseph was not in his bloodline and not manner of adoption can make it so and at the time adoption NEVER meant anything like it.
But you will continue to pretend people 2000 years ago did not know the difference between adoption and bloodline -- because you are stupid.
Quote:[quote] Sorry believers HERE is the one and only bloodline of Jesus for Christians, MARY. God has no blood. Mary was the only human involved. QED
Jesus was adopted by Joseph, therefore he has two genealogies.
[/quote]
As you do not have Chapter and Verse on this adopting I DEMAND to know why and how you claim to have the authority of divine revelation as to this otherwise unremarked adoption. I want to know the exact basis upon which you claim the authority to add to divine revelation. Please be very, very specific in your response.
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How do you know it’d be perceived as supernatural? Are you suggesting that people traveled back in time to Biblical times and used modern technology to perform miracles?
Quote: Well..That all depends on what attributes you claim your has. Please list any possible attributes that such a being would require, and i'd be happy to explain why it's not consistant with what we know about the universe. (example: Creation Ex Niliho, Omniscient, Omnipotent...)
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I do not have to list any possible attributes, scripture is quite clear about what attributes God possesses and I do not see how any of them are inconsistent with the Universe.
The scripture is not clear on anything. Obviously. There wouldn't be professions all over the world dedicated to decyphering its cryptic messages in an attempt to fit it to modern science. At any rate, I understand why you would dodge this one. It's probably safer.
Quote: Indeed, step on up to the plate and lets discuss the errors with God(s) with respect to scientific knowledge.
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Is our scientific knowledge infallible?
Of course! Look at Newtonian physics compared to Relativity. But, it's a heck of a lot more than anything offered by Christianity, and even the flimsiest of scientific theories are verifiable and falsifiable. That's the point of science!
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Opinions do not prove anything, but I am sure you knew that.
agreed.
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ryantology asserted they’re lies, not me.
Unfalsifiable Claims is more accurate.
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You’ve examined all Toyota cars? That’s a lot of cars.
Don't have to, the qualifying criteria is established from the manufacturer (funny thing about falsifiable claims...evidence) As long as mine meets the criteria, its a Toyota. I just need to know what my car would need to have in order to qualify as a Toyota.
Quote: 3) My car was created at a Toyota assembley plant (logically follows)
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Sure, but how do you know all Toyota cars that have this sticker indeed were created at a plant? Are you taking the word of Toyota on that one?
This has been established. Imagine your response to what I'm about to say for what Biology qualifies as life, and then imagine whether or not you could have equal and far less complicated to verify criteria for what Toyota would accept as one of their creations. Keep in mind, the creator isn't what we're arguing for here, only that it was created and that a logical argument can be made for a car that was created, but not for a creator of the universe. This is just me having fun at this point by showing you that things can be logically justified as being created, and that such things can even be logically attributed to a specific creator among many possible ones. We're eons past the God hypothesis at this point.
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I am not sure how you know that all Toyota cars indeed have this sticker, and that all Toyota cars that have this sticker indeed got this sticker from the plant. It seems to me you’re merely taking Toyota’s word on this one.
Not so. With understanding and knowledge of what qualifies as a Toyota, this is not an issue. Are you pretending to ignore this or do you take money they give you just hoping its not counterfeit?
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Again, talk to Ryantology on that one, I was directly quoting his terminology. Is logic Universal and immutable?
Nah, I'm talking to you. I've seen already how you can misunderstand and distort what is written, I have no interest in distractions. Yes. Logical Absolutes are universal and immutable apart from any subjective experience. Something either is or is-not. Can't be both at the same time in the same way.
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Is there experienced knowledge that life naturally arises from non-life? What about experienced knowledge that non-rational events can give rise to rational minds? What about experienced knowledge that all life on Earth comes from a single common ancestor? Please follow your own rules.
This is the part that makes me actually feel bad for you. It's the very reason that modern science should not be stripped from schools. People grow up living in a shroud of ignorance and label it knowledge. Since the 50's there have been hundreds of successful experiments that have produced the building blocks of life from that which had no life. Amino acids and protiens have been created using non living matter. This isn't even news breaking information, but you think you've delivered a death blow to our concepts. It's just sad. All that exists in the universe is matter and energy. That's it. Matter can and HAS been transformed from non-liviing matter to living matter. Look up Abiogenesis. Have you ever taken a Biology class? Do you understand how common this knowledge is among people that search for answers instead of just taking the stupid ones handed out at church?
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How do you know they are eating utensils? How do you know they are not merely eroded pieces of wood? Simply calling something a valid inference does not make it so.
Ha ha ha ha...This had to be my favorite stupid thing you just wrote. Of course simply saying it is doesn't make it so. that's the problem with religion and God theories! But, combined with my knowledge of things that come out of the ground that are removed in their original state, and my knowledge of FORKS, if I pulled this from the ground at an excavation, it would be perfectly valid to infer it WAS A FORK AND IT WAS NOT REMOVED FROM ITS NATURAL STATE! Lol...YOU MORON!!! LOL!!!
Quote: The universe we have without a God is precisely the universe we could expect to not have a God.
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How do you know what a Godless universe should look like?
Exactly like this! Since there's no reason to believe otherwise you idiot! LOL, if you wish to suggest otherwise, you'll need something intelligent to say, rather than trying to get me to argue with myself. Welcome to the burden of proof. It's gonna be a shitty ride for you. [/quote]
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How do you know you can trust your ability to reason inductively and deductively?
You continue to ask questions that a 12th grade philosophy student would already understand. You need a library card and access to Google. Damn kid.
Quote: A hypothesis must be falsifiable to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested or rationally accepted.
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How can you falsify the hypothesis that “all meaningful hypotheses must be falsifiable”? Or is that claim itself not meaningful?
Of course it's falsifiable idiot! If you can come up with a good one that has any validity whatsoever and yet is STILL UNFALSIFIABLE then you have proved it falsifiable. But again, its an assumption that drives our science. An assumption with continued consistant results. It's not wrong because I can't prove it wrong. Its not wrong because of its tested success and results! THATS WHY GOD FAILS, IT HAS NO RESULTS!
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: It’s a valid qualifier. Can you give me an example of someone experiencing life arising from non-life in Nature?
You poor idiot. Yes... 150 years of Abiogenesis. Jesus, do you have access to a library? What school district do you live in? It's sad.
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: The existence of websites that deal with reconciling Biblical contradictions? Google them.
You have heard of Google...huh, didn't see that coming. Anyway...(clears throat)..No thanks. Your proof of the existance of God is...wait for it...CIRCULAR LOGIC!!! What a fucking surprise. God is real because we made sense of it to ourselves in The Bible!!! Lol..WOW.
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: How is any of this relevant to websites dealing with alleged Bible contradictions?
Because all of illustrates what a huge waste of time reading The Bible in the first place actually is. You need to spend less time reading that stupid shit and more time reading science jourals. It's depressing. I hope you're not American, we don't need anymore people making people think we don't educate our children.
(May 2, 2013 at 5:37 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: God is not something you reason to, God is something you reason from.
Nothing could be further from any logical statement. You have given no reason to support any kind of God as even plausible and yet you suggest it should be the foundation of reason? That makes absolutely zero sense, and it seems like you're years away from realizing it.
(May 2, 2013 at 7:53 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: What on Earth are you talking about? Genesis 5:4 clearly states that Adam and Eve had more kids later on. John V didn’t invent anything.
Mouse Wrote:It appears the dropping brain damage includes your inability to comprehend time. C&A are AFTER being kicked out. Every bible hugger declares they were the first children of A&E -- you are stuck with that story else you can claim to be a new prophet with a new revelation. If so I demand to know your authority.
It's me who said you were dropped on your head and you were, it's obvious. Statler Waldorf did not say that, you can't even keep up with who says what to you, if I were you I wouldn't give us anymore evidence of your brain damage. We will use it against you.
As far as Cain and Able being the first two born of Adam and Eve, it is presumed so, it's not absolute. By the way who are you to demand anything, you never bring anything relevant to an argument. have you set yourself up as king of this site, Tiberius might have something to say about his kingdom.
Mouse Wrote:But since you agree to LATER ON lets run with that. Do you have the least comprehension of the consequences of totally inbred incest? I assume you are not.
I do, I breed rottweilers and incest (if that's what you want to call it) brings with it a great risk of bad genes being doubled up, but the same applies for the good genes. The problem is we do not know which ones may be recessive, thus the real risk of inbreeding. Sometimes we risk it to try and save a quality that's very desirable for the rottweiler breed, but only after observing a few generations to try and determine if any bad genes have become progressive.
So now to Cain and Able including their siblings, oh yes mom and dad too. Scripture tells us that Adam and Eve were created perfect, no genetic mutations, no genetic problems at all, therefore no problem with intermarriage at this point, because their offspring are not effected by genetic problems. Apparently this did not become a problem until God gave a commandment that brother, sister and cousins were to no longer marry. Until the flood people were living hundreds of years and not just the ones named, so apparently they were having few genetic problems.
Now, even if Cain and Able were Adam and Eve's first two born (I personally do, but that doesn't make it necessary) the scriptures say nothing about their ages when Cain killed Able, they could have been a couple hundred of years old. This means Adam and Eve could have had a hundred or so children, but not only that their children could have had many children and their children's children could have had many children, man were getting into a lot of people in just a couple hundred years. So yes these children had plenty of time to move around, even to Nod, and establish new areas to live in. No big deal here, at least for those of us who had doctors with good hands.
Mouse Wrote:Moving right along, you can't to another "land" to find a wife unless there is an entire incestuous breeding population in Nod in the first place. Ignoring the fact that such an incestuous population cannot exist, just to keep the ridicule going, sons and daughters of A&E must have migrated to Nod many generations before Cane was born.
I address this above, and it was not an incestuous population, God had not given a commandment against this type of marriage. Sorry mouse you're wrong again.
Mouse Wrote:WHEN did they migrate from Eden to Nod? There are many other problems which your explanation must address although the absence of a breeding population that applies to A&E also applies to Nod.
Eden was off limits, so they did not leave from Eden, they did go to a place they named Nod. The problems you saw never existed except in your own mind.
Statler Wrote:Why are you personally attacking him? He’s been destroying you in this debate, so calling him stupid only makes you look even worse.
Mouse Wrote:This is not a debate.
It certainly is not a debate from your side, all you can do is insult and demand, you have no idea what you're talking about. I know 4 year old children that know more than you do, they could argue you into the ground.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
May 3, 2013 at 8:08 am (This post was last modified: May 3, 2013 at 8:20 am by John V.)
(May 2, 2013 at 2:50 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: You are right about no requirement
And so there's no contradiction.
Quote:but since everything being discussed occurred in the garden or it's immediate vicinity, don't you think it might be worth mentioning if god had fucked off to another part of the world and created a bunch more people?
I didn't say anything about God creating other people (although as he directly created Eve from Adam, he could have created other people from cells of Adam). I was referring to other children of A&E. Ch 5 says that Adam lived 930 years and had other sons and daughters who are not named.
(May 2, 2013 at 4:40 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: When he was created there either was or was not a (hopefully) hot chick with him. As a man I can say I would have noticed her presence or absence.
As the first man you would have noticed her presence, but it's doubtful you would notice the absence of something that had never as yet existed.
Quote:So the clown was so stupid he did not know the difference between Eve not existing and Eve getting him a beer?
See above.
Quote:You believers are so fucking stupid!
Er, you're the one who thinks people should notice the absence of something that never existed, and you're calling us stupid?
Quote:Here all I raise are the obvious contradictions and your answers show the totally insane naming process only 6000 years ago, long after humans appeared in the Americas. As I SAID I will accept NO mutually exclusive explanations.
This response expects me to accept, in this one case, the creationist BS claim of a young earth to explain what is clearly impossible. Get your heads in order if you want to discuss the matter.
There WAS NO ADAM viewpoint because he never existed. There WAS NO EDEN because it never existed. NOTHING in either story makes a lick of sense, is all crap created by no one knows who, and you are all trying to explain the obvious contradictions by assuming there is something factual in the content.
Red herring much?
(May 2, 2013 at 5:40 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: Remember what I said about mutually exclusive and contradictory? If not scroll back.
I will take your poorly thought out excuse fact. The OTHER children which you think you were clever to invent, living outside the garden, had already been expelled from the garden for no know reason.
Your problem is now to reconcile being kicked out, voluntarily leaving with the Tale of Two Trees. Please impress me with your creativity. I need something to keep my attention after all the lame crap so far.
Huh? Ch 5 tells us A&E had other sons and daughters beside the few who were named after being expelled from the garden.
(May 2, 2013 at 8:28 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: It appears the dropping brain damage includes your inability to comprehend time. C&A are AFTER being kicked out. Every bible hugger declares they were the first children of A&E -- you are stuck with that story else you can claim to be a new prophet with a new revelation. If so I demand to know your authority.
Yes, Cain and Able are after the fall, how is that relevant to who Cain had children with? Did I miss something here? Are you getting your conversations confused?
Quote: But since you agree to LATER ON lets run with that. Do you have the least comprehension of the consequences of totally inbred incest? I assume you are not.
Do you know why incestuous relationships can sometimes lead to birth defects? Obviously not if you think it would have led to them back then.
Quote: sons and daughters of A&E must have migrated to Nod many generations before Cane was born.
Why? The text never says Cain was not married when he left to go to Nod. It simply says he conceived his first child while in Nod.
Quote: WHEN did they migrate from Eden to Nod? There are many other problems which your explanation must address although the absence of a breeding population that applies to A&E also applies to Nod.
…only if you do not actually know why incest can cause birth defects; it would not have been an issue for them.
Quote: Is this not enough for you crazy young earth creationists?
No, your displayed ignorance of basic genetic principles is not enough for me to change my position.
Quote: Looking for contradictions in the bible is like looking for contradictions in the Wizard of Oz. Neither describe real events. What difference could it possibly make?
You’re the one who claimed you could find such contradictions, not me; so you must have thought it was relevant. The fact that you insist on changing the subject is quite telling though.
Quote: Of course you will find an excuse to explain why no matter how many times I demand the Chapter and Verse you will never produce a single one mentioning Eden. I often wonder what it is like after I challenge these nonsense claims when believers go rushing to their bibles and learn I am correct.
Well numerous verses make it quite clear that Humans are sinful from the time they enter into existence, and Romans chapter 5 is very clear that this sinful nature entered the world through Adam’s transgression in the Garden. Have you ever actually read the Bible or do you only get this stuff from second rate atheist websites and blogs?
Quote:More evidence believers are crazy and stupid and ignorant and down right uneducated. I think it is good you are letting your hair and telling it like it is as now there is no question you are crazy, ignorant, stupid and uneducated.
Personally attacking me doesn’t prove your position any. However, I find it interesting you’d call me uneducated and ignorant when in fact you have made it very clear that you are ignorant of how recessive mutations actually occur and the fact that Darwinian theory also teaches that all mankind is the result of incest (we know that all modern humans descend from one single women, therefore her children had to mate with one another). Oops!!
Quote:Why might you be so concerned that there are contradictions in stories about the Land of Oz?
That’s a fallacious appeal to ridicule, someone is getting very desperate.
Quote: There is no difference between Oz and the OT in this matter.
There’s no difference between Oz and the Old Testament? One is a place and one is textual divine revelation, I do not know if I have ever witnessed such an egregious category error.
Quote: Why are you so concerned that you work to claim there are no contradictions in stories about the same things that never happened? That does not appear reasonable.
They did happen though, so that point is irrelevant too.
Quote:This is not a debate.
Well it has been a bit one-sided (kudos to John V), but we can still call it a debate if it makes you feel better.
Quote:4004BC is contrary to all observed facts about the universe. Are you claiming you did not know that?
Are you claiming you didn’t know that even if that were the case (which it is not) it is not an example of a logical contradiction?
Quote: Logic depends upon validated and observed premises being true before applying the rules of logic.
That’s totally incorrect, sound deductive logic is not contingent upon observation (inductive reasoning). I find it a bit amusing that in the very same post that you called me stupid and ignorant in I have to take the time to correct your fundamental and rather amateurish blunders.
Quote: It is always the date not the fact. It always has been. Because science has moved the date back a tad from the bible begat age does not change the fact that infallible divine revelation is not just wrong but ridiculous.
Why are you trying to use science (which we know is a fallible source) to try and prove that scripture is not infallible? That’s so small time.
Quote:Imagine a believer who pretends not to know that bloodline and genealogy does not mean bloodline. Imagine a believer pretending not to know that adoption is not bloodline. Imagine a believer claiming there was no word for adoption in ancient times else it would have been used. Imagine the bastard son of Mary. I have nothing against bastards but believers do not seem to like the word.
Are you unaware of the fact that if a person was adopted in Hebrew culture they became part of their adopted father’s genealogy? Were you really not aware of that? You got caught again.
Quote: As to the father's side of a real genealogy, what is the bloodline of your god and why does it have blood? Words are words. Words have meanings. They had the same meanings when they were used in the past as they do today.
Asserting that words have the same meaning today as they did in the past is an absurd statement (the word ghost today means something completely different than it did 500 years ago). Luke is not referring to God’s bloodline, but rather Jesus’ adoptive father Joseph’s genealogy, when children were adopted, just as today, they are considered part of the families genealogy (genealogy simply means a family’s history). You got caught making another blunder and now you’re just grasping at straws.
Quote: Joseph was not in his bloodline and not manner of adoption can make it so and at the time adoption NEVER meant anything like it.
Luke never uses the word bloodline, he uses the term translated as genealogy.
Quote: But you will continue to pretend people 2000 years ago did not know the difference between adoption and bloodline -- because you are stupid.
Attack me all you like, but that just makes you look sillier whenever I have to correct you (which apparently is quite often).
Quote:
As you do not have Chapter and Verse on this adopting I DEMAND to know why and how you claim to have the authority of divine revelation as to this otherwise unremarked adoption. I want to know the exact basis upon which you claim the authority to add to divine revelation. Please be very, very specific in your response.
Oops! I caught you making another erroneous claim. Matthew 1:18-25, 13:55
(May 2, 2013 at 11:39 pm)Godschild Wrote: I do, I breed rottweilers and incest (if that's what you want to call it) brings with it a great risk of bad genes being doubled up, but the same applies for the good genes. The problem is we do not know which ones may be recessive, thus the real risk of inbreeding. Sometimes we risk it to try and save a quality that's very desirable for the rottweiler breed, but only after observing a few generations to try and determine if any bad genes have become progressive.
So now to Cain and Able including their siblings, oh yes mom and dad too. Scripture tells us that Adam and Eve were created perfect, no genetic mutations, no genetic problems at all, therefore no problem with intermarriage at this point, because their offspring are not effected by genetic problems. Apparently this did not become a problem until God gave a commandment that brother, sister and cousins were to no longer marry. Until the flood people were living hundreds of years and not just the ones named, so apparently they were having few genetic problems.
Now, even if Cain and Able were Adam and Eve's first two born (I personally do, but that doesn't make it necessary) the scriptures say nothing about their ages when Cain killed Able, they could have been a couple hundred of years old. This means Adam and Eve could have had a hundred or so children, but not only that their children could have had many children and their children's children could have had many children, man were getting into a lot of people in just a couple hundred years. So yes these children had plenty of time to move around, even to Nod, and establish new areas to live in. No big deal here, at least for those of us who had doctors with good hands.
Ah man GC! You beat me to this; I was going to let him wallow in his ignorance a bit longer before I explained how genetics works. Well played though sir!
A little interesting factoid though, the historian Josephus wrote that according to Hebrew oral traditions Adam and Eve had 33 sons and 23 daughters.
(May 2, 2013 at 9:32 pm)Texas Sailor Wrote: The scripture is not clear on anything. Obviously. There wouldn't be professions all over the world dedicated to decyphering its cryptic messages in an attempt to fit it to modern science. At any rate, I understand why you would dodge this one. It's probably safer.
I think scripture is quite clear. I didn’t dodge anything, you dodged my initial question. You claimed that the existence of the Christian God is contrary to what we know about the Universe, I want to know how. If you misrepresent the Christian God in any way I’ll be sure to let you know. Now are you going to back that claim up any?
Quote:
Is Of course! Look at Newtonian physics compared to Relativity. But, it's a heck of a lot more than anything offered by Christianity, and even the flimsiest of scientific theories are verifiable and falsifiable. That's the point of science!
Wait, so you are trying to use a source that you openly admit is fallible to try and prove a source is not infallible? How is that any different than trying to use the testimony of a person who openly admits to being a liar to try and prove that another person is also a liar? That’s not possible.
Quote:
Don't have to, the qualifying criteria is established from the manufacturer (funny thing about falsifiable claims...evidence) As long as mine meets the criteria, its a Toyota. I just need to know what my car would need to have in order to qualify as a Toyota.
Me: How do you know your car was made?
You: Because Toyota made my car.
Me: How do you know Toyota made your car?
You: Because it has a sticker on it.
Me: Why does that sticker mean Toyota made your car?
You: Because Toyota said that’s what the sticker means.
Me: Why does it matter what Toyota says?
You: Because Toyota made my car.
Me. How do you know Toyota made your car?
Around and around it goes! That’s the problem when you invoke circular arguments, they do not lead us anywhere. Do you have any evidence that Toyota made your car that is not based on Toyota’s claims to have made your car?
Quote:
This is just me having fun at this point by showing you that things can be logically justified as being created, and that such things can even be logically attributed to a specific creator among many possible ones. We're eons past the God hypothesis at this point.
No, not at all, your entire argument is based off of the claims made by Toyota to have made your car. Of course we have claims from God that He in fact made the Universe, so right now we’re on equal ground. You take Toyota’s word for it, I take God’s word for it.
Quote:Not so. With understanding and knowledge of what qualifies as a Toyota, this is not an issue. Are you pretending to ignore this or do you take money they give you just hoping its not counterfeit?
Without seeing Toyota making your car you are forced to take Toyota’s word that they indeed did make your car.
Quote: Yes. Logical Absolutes are universal and immutable apart from any subjective experience. Something either is or is-not. Can't be both at the same time in the same way.
How do you know that’s the case? Where did these laws come from? How can immaterial, immutable, and universal laws exist in a Universe that is purely material? Is their existence falsifiable?
Quote:This is the part that makes me actually feel bad for you.
Please don’t.
Quote: It's the very reason that modern science should not be stripped from schools. People grow up living in a shroud of ignorance and label it knowledge.
If you knew anything of my scientific education, background, and profession you’d realize how ridiculous you sound right now.
Quote: Since the 50's there have been hundreds of successful experiments that have produced the building blocks of life from that which had no life. Amino acids and protiens have been created using non living matter. This isn't even news breaking information, but you think you've delivered a death blow to our concepts.
Oops, you’re claim is not that life was created in a laboratory under controlled conditions billions of years ago (which synthesizing amino acids is not the same thing as synthesizing life), you’re claim is that life arose from non-life naturally, yes naturally. In order to support that claim, using your own standard, you’re going to have to point me to an instance where we have experienced this happening in nature (not in a laboratory)- or else you in fact are the one who delivered your own death blow. Proving something can happen in the laboratory (which has not even been done yet) is not proof that it in fact did happen.
Quote: It's just sad. All that exists in the universe is matter and energy.
Not true, according to you apparently immutable, universal, and immaterial laws of truth exist in the Universe as well.
Quote: Matter can and HAS been transformed from non-liviing matter to living matter.
When? Where? How? That’s quite the claim to so casually make.
Quote: Look up Abiogenesis.
I think you’re the one that’s going to have to do some more research on this subject.
Quote: Have you ever taken a Biology class?
Taken them…got my degrees…taught them.
Quote: Do you understand how common this knowledge is among people that search for answers instead of just taking the stupid ones handed out at church?
I caught you being inconsistent about your own standard, you claimed that we can only know what we can experience to be true, and now you are admitting that you believe life arose from non-life billions of years ago which is something we cannot experience to be true. You refuted your own position and I simply caught you doing it, do not get all whiney about it.
Quote:
This had to be my favorite stupid thing you just wrote. Of course simply saying it is doesn't make it so.
Then stop merely asserting it.
Quote: But, combined with my knowledge of things that come out of the ground that are removed in their original state, and my knowledge of FORKS, if I pulled this from the ground at an excavation, it would be perfectly valid to infer it WAS A FORK AND IT WAS NOT REMOVED FROM ITS NATURAL STATE! Lol...YOU MORON!!! LOL!!!
That’s funny; you merely just tossed the same assertion out there, “Well it’s valid because I say it’s valid.” I want to know how you know that simply because a piece of wood looks like a fork to you makes it valid to infer that it was indeed something designed to be a fork? Is that question so difficult to answer?
Quote:
Exactly like this!
So the Universe looks exactly like it should without a God because this is how the Universe looks? Nice circular argument.
Quote: Since there's no reason to believe otherwise you idiot!
This assumes that the default position is that there is no God; that has got to be the most philosophically unsophisticated position you have taken thus far, and that is really saying something. Even if there were no reason to think otherwise (which is not the case at all), it does not justify your position that there is no God governing the Universe, I was hoping you’d perhaps bring something of merit to the table to discuss but this philosophical blunder right here a removed all doubt that you are really small-time when it comes to the subject matter.
Quote: …if you wish to suggest otherwise, you'll need something intelligent to say, rather than trying to get me to argue with myself. Welcome to the burden of proof.
The burden of proof? Since you possess such a condescending heir, and seem to believe that you possess such a wealth of philosophical and logical sophistication surely you knew that both sides equally share the burden of proof when dealing with an interrogative such as, “Does God exist?” You did know that; please tell me you knew that?
Quote: You continue to ask questions that a 12th grade philosophy student would already understand. You need a library card and access to Google. Damn kid.
Well you must not know as much as a 12th grade philosophy student does since you conveniently dodged my question. I will ask it again, “How do you know that you can trust your ability to deductively and inductively reason?” I know you cannot answer that question, and I think you know that too, which is why you dodged it.
Quote: Of course it's falsifiable idiot! If you can come up with a good one that has any validity whatsoever and yet is STILL UNFALSIFIABLE then you have proved it falsifiable.
Did you really just type this? Do the laws of logic have any merit? How do you falsify them?
Quote: THATS WHY GOD FAILS, IT HAS NO RESULTS!
Science would be impossible if God did not exist, so all scientific empirical discoveries can be credited to God’s existence, I think those are pretty good results.
Quote: You poor idiot. Yes... 150 years of Abiogenesis. Jesus, do you have access to a library? What school district do you live in? It's sad.
Again, I asked for an example of it taking place in nature, not under intelligently controlled conditions in the laboratory, do you not have an example? I am sure you are also aware that self-replicating life has not been synthesized in any laboratory to date so your supposed evidence is also meaningless. I feel like a cat playing with a mouse right before he eats it, I can see what’s coming and obviously you are utterly clueless. It’s priceless.
![[Image: il_340x270.412950129_edux.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img1.etsystatic.com%2F009%2F0%2F7606595%2Fil_340x270.412950129_edux.jpg)
