OT of OT: Rating Fyron -- no longer possible

mac5732 · #1 March 7th, 2003, 04:56 AM

where does it say that when god created man, that man was human? It says, he created man in his image, it does not say that man was a human being

just some ideas

disabled · #2 March 7th, 2003, 05:33 AM

Just my little opinion about 'god' assuming such a creature exists.

Fyron · #3 March 7th, 2003, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mac5732:
where does it say that when god created man, that man was human? It says, he created man in his image, it does not say that man was a human being

just some ideas

"Man" refers to humanity Mac.

mac5732 · #4 March 7th, 2003, 06:03 AM

Man = humanity is correct, but it doesn't answer the question

We (Humans) interpeted to mean humans or humanity, however, it does not say anywhere that Man was human, that is our reflection. It only states he was made in his image.... Doesn't say Man = Human

just some ideas Mac

DavidG · #5 March 7th, 2003, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mac5732:
Man = humanity is correct, but it doesn't answer the question We (Humans) interpeted to mean humans or humanity, however, it does not say anywhere that Man was human, that is our reflection. It only states he was made in his image.... Doesn't say Man = Human

just some ideas Mac

what else could it possible mean? Actaully I doubt it says Man or Human since the original wasn't in English

Fyron · #6 March 7th, 2003, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ruatha:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:
Originally posted by Ruatha:
About that majority thing.
Yes, the Christians aren't in any majority of the population.
But remember that today more people lives than there has ever existed in all of mankinds history , added up in atotal over time!

Actually, that is not true.

Ah, Fyron. Now you do it again.
I haven't rated you but I can see why people rated you low.

You state a belife you have as a undisputable fact.
You give no arguments saying why this isn't true.

No one can actually say that it is absolutely true or not.
Many estimates ends up saying that it is true but it depends on how old the human race is and the population growth in prehistoric times.

I for one belive that this is so.
Actually it is one of the problems that those who belive in reincarnation has to explain (Altough they have produced several theories explaining it, very few says that the population growth problem is untrue)

Some links:

Reincarnation
Demography

Or:
Do the math yourself...
Methods of historical demography

Other references:
David Bishai, 'Can population growth rule out reincarnation? A model of circular migration', Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 411-20, 2000

(Start Edit)
And some more:

(Image from the smithsonian institute)

A pedagogic site on world population growth.

(End Edit)

I did not state a belief, I stated a fact. Even using that graph you provided (and extending it back about 2 million years (or a few 100k if you only want to include the direct ancestors of homo sapiens)), you can see that there were more than the 6.x billion people (the amount alive today) that were alive at one point but are not alive today.

Most of the things I have posted are basic knowledge that would not really benefit from evidence. The cost of time to hunt down evidence for these things far exceeds any potential benefit of having such evidence.

I never make claims that are not founded on logical reasoning. They are often based off of knowledge that is in my head that I know is true, as I have before seen enough good, verifiable evidence (ie: not from books or other sources written by people that are thouroughly convinced of their view and ignore all evidence against it, so that they can still claim that they are right, even though their claims are opinions, not actual factual claims) of it to know that it is true, but that I do not have access to written verification of at the moment, and so I can not cite any specific references. Web sites are in general unreliable, so I do not like to cite them as accurate sources of information when I can avoid it.

If you are going to make such claims against me, you have to make them equally against the other parties of this debate, as they provided no evidence of their claims. So, singling me out is quite wrong to do. Even you provided no evidence for your claims up until this post.

[ March 07, 2003, 11:50: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Ruatha · #7 March 8th, 2003, 02:11 AM

I can understand you wondering why I only question you and not the others, well, you are the ruler of the World!!

Still. If you start doing the math I don't see that there has been 6 billion people before that has died! I can agree that it's a close match though.

Take 1930 for example. Alot of those 2 billions are still alive, well into their 70-90 years of age. (In the 3:d world life age expactancy is low due to high child mortality, but many of those who survive childhood becomes quite old. This is also the same in the rest of the world in earlier years of our history and prehistory)

The curve only show prevalence of population not incidence of births and/or deaths.

(And yes, I'm quite ashamed. I did the same thing I accused you of, I stand corrected in that area!)

[ March 07, 2003, 12:29: Message edited by: Ruatha ]