Since when did blasphemy become the standard in hip hop?
Options
Comments
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »
They're just backward ass afrocentric.
Some of the BBC documentary have black scientists.
-
I guess that Depends on what you Define as Blasphemy
-
I read up to page 15. nice little debate. I believe in ? , i don't know if i believe in religion, churches, the Christian Bible tho. Im still learning. But lets be honest, more ? was said by the Christians in here than the nonreligious.
lol @ red water signaling the end of the world -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »waterproof wrote: »flaws with the human body, ? i call your bluffRoots Oceanic wrote: »"Years before Darwin developed the notion of natural selection as a force capable of generating exquisitely complex adaptations, he was struck by the fact that, given the results of geological dating, Creationism required a Creator who intervened piecemeal and repeatedly, over many millions of years, with no indication of any overall plan, and creating many organisms only to see them become extinct. At first a Creationist, Darwin considered this kind of repeated and undirected intervention so dubious that a purely natural explanation began to seem more appealing to him, and this eventually led him to consider natural selection.
Intelligent Design theory makes no attempt to analyze the character of the Designer from the data of the Designer's performance. It is merely concerned with accumulating examples suggesting that there is a Designer, and that Darwinism can be rejected --- and there the theory of Intelligent Design stops.
There are many cases where we don't know the path evolution actually might have taken. It's always possible to point to some adaptation, assert that it could not possibly have come about by accumulated gradual adjustments, and reiterate this assertion for as long as biologists have not come up with any specific evolutionary pathway.
However, this is to look at only half the evidence relevant to the design hypothesis. We also have to consider those many aspects of living organisms which appear, from a design point of view, to be botched and incompetent. If the Designer is so Intelligent, how come he keeps ? up?
Examples of outrageously bad 'design' can usually be explained by the path evolution has taken. There really are cases where 'you can't get here from there', or at least it's too improbable. Since natural selection cannot look ahead and try a radically different approach to solving a particular problem, but always has to move by slow increments from something which has worked in the recent past, there will sometimes be cases where the outcome is just hoplelessly inefficient.
There are innumerable such examples. One is the fact that human babies naturally have to be born through the bone-enclosed pelvic opening. Untold billions of babies and their mothers have died in childbirth because of this elementary 'design flaw', which arose because humans are descended from animals that scampered on all fours. In many cases today, the birth opening which idiot nature failed to hit upon is provided by a surgeon, in a caesarian section. This saves the lives of millions, and in many more cases reduces brain damage to the infant or hours of discomfort to the mother. Any intelligent designer planning the human body from scratch would have installed a birth opening in the lower abdomen, where there is no tight constriction by bones. But natural selection could not accomplish this clear and obvious improvement, because there was no way to get 'there from here' by minute adjustments.
The human body is an exhibition of engineering disasters. The routing of the optic nerve through the front of the retina, so that there is a 'blind spot' in each eye, and the routing of the male ? around the ureter, when it would be so much simpler and more efficient to take a direct route, are other instances. These sorry failings do not contradict the proposition that many features of the human body display marvelous construction, sometimes far exceeding what could have been accomplished by human ingenuity. The two aspects exist side by side: dazzling sophistication and crude sloppiness. ID theory has no explanation to offer for the latter. Darwinism tells us to expect both. A striking example occuring in all mammals is the routing of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which instead of going directly from the brain to the larynx, makes a completely pointless detour to loop around a lung ligament. In the giraffe, whose neck lengthened in the course of evolution, this nerve is twenty feet long, instead of the required one foot.
Why can't evolution itself take care of these problems? Why can't evolution create a new birth canal in humans, reroute the optic nerve into the back of the retina, or shorten the routes of the male ureter and the recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe's neck? The answer is that once a highly complex 'basic plan' for an animal's body is in place, there are some improvements that cannot be accomplished by slight changes, but only by a radical redesign. There are indeed cases where you can't get here from there, and precisely in such cases, very obvious and simple improvements don't come about in nature, exactly as Darwinism leads us to expect.
Aside from cases of bad design, there are also aspects of the acutal process of evolution which are difficult to explain from a Design point of view. Why did life for at least a billion years consist of nothing but single-celled organisms such as bacteria? Why were all plants non-flowering until 130 million years ago, when flowering plants proliferated into thousands of diverse forms? This doesn't give the impression of a Designer who had any idea where he was going. Facts like these are puzzling if we assume there's a Designer. If there's no Designer, these facts fall naturally into place: they are what we would expect"
--- David R. Steele
DAVID R. STEELE the ? athesist NO wonder
AGAIN ? man try to explain something greater then himself, how do they know how the body supposed to work when they are not the creator..... -
ShiveDreadz wrote: »waterproof wrote: »
- We didn't come from monkeyswaterproof wrote: »so i got a question for those who believe that they came from a monkey, the human body is one of the most sophisicated work of art ever created that the body function works in harmony and in order like the universe, so yall telling me that this body that can not be duplicate by the hands of man just Evolve from a ? cell to an ape.
now think before you answer.
- There are many flaws with the human body
- The universe is in chaos.
flaws with the human body, ? i call your bluff
dont you know that this complex system that called our body follows a certain order that baffles the minds of the greatest scientist. THE HUMAN BODY have a Cooling system and a heating system
meaning with out the cooling system our body would overheat and we will die, with out the heating system our body temperature will drop and die.
what came first the cooling system or the heating system
Monkeys have the same cooling and heating system we have.
The only thing that separates the man from the monkey is the MIND.
And you are making a case for man evolving from monkeys (LOL) with your primitive
mind....
and you still didnt answer the ? question what came first the heating or cooling system one of the two have to come first???? we are talking about evolution right?????
-
this ? been beating to death in the Race and Religion section by @Bambu, @Judahxulu @Thetrueflesh, and others this ? was shut down already.... west chattanooga you know about it the thread where your feelings got crush
Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout http://community.allhiphop.com/discussion/474161/anti-creationists-time-to-speak-your-clout/p5 -
waterproof wrote: »DAVID R. STEELE the ? athesist NO wonder
AGAIN ? man try to explain something greater then himself, how do they know how the body supposed to work when they are not the creator.....
If you know any better or are so enlightened by your creator, make a case against it. -
waterproof wrote: »this ? been beating to death in the Race and Religion section by @Bambu, @Judahxulu @Thetrueflesh, and others this ? was shut down already.... west chattanooga you know about it the thread where your feelings got crush
Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout http://community.allhiphop.com/discussion/474161/anti-creationists-time-to-speak-your-clout/p5
My feelings have never been crushed by any of you. You all lost that debate and anybody who reads it without any creationist bias will know that. Pull up the thread all you want, but it's clear to me and everybody else in here that you aren't mentally equipped to defend your beliefs. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »waterproof wrote: »this ? been beating to death in the Race and Religion section by @Bambu, @Judahxulu @Thetrueflesh, and others this ? was shut down already.... west chattanooga you know about it the thread where your feelings got crush
Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout http://community.allhiphop.com/discussion/474161/anti-creationists-time-to-speak-your-clout/p5
My feelings have never been crushed by any of you. You all lost that debate and anybody who reads it without any creationist bias will know that. Pull up the thread all you want, but it's clear to me and everybody else in here that you aren't mentally equipped to defend your beliefs.
man please you cant answer simple question on what came first the heating or cooling system first, one have to evolve first according to evolution and we know that we cant leave with out both operating at the same time, so there is no way Man could of lived with having just one system working they wouldnt get the chance to EVOLVE because death will happen in the matter of hours.
again that's all i need to know that there is a creator.
-
waterproof wrote: »Roots Oceanic wrote: »waterproof wrote: »this ? been beating to death in the Race and Religion section by @Bambu, @Judahxulu @Thetrueflesh, and others this ? was shut down already.... west chattanooga you know about it the thread where your feelings got crush
Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout http://community.allhiphop.com/discussion/474161/anti-creationists-time-to-speak-your-clout/p5
My feelings have never been crushed by any of you. You all lost that debate and anybody who reads it without any creationist bias will know that. Pull up the thread all you want, but it's clear to me and everybody else in here that you aren't mentally equipped to defend your beliefs.
man please you cant answer simple question on what came first the heating or cooling system first, one have to evolve first according to evolution and we know that we cant leave with out both operating at the same time, so there is no way Man could of lived with having just one system working they wouldnt get the chance to EVOLVE because death will happen in the matter of hours.
again that's all i need to know that there is a creator.
Who created your creator? *Waits for special pleading to kick in*
-
I was wondering the same ? but its always been that way. Makes you know there is a ? because so many people try to bring Him down.
lmao
that's genuinely a reason you hold on to your belief? -
ahhhh watchin atheists who think theyre deep thinkers because theyve seen a bill maher movie argue with die hard believers, who are very shallow thinkers. im not too pretentious to think someone who believes in ? is stupid, the people who say that are bigots and not very smart themselves. im not too pretentious to think that there cant possibly be a ? or afterlife.
but if there is a power so high that he created this entire elaborate thing we call the universe, with all its intricacy in so many forms, what the ? makes the religious people think they could even get a grasp on how that deity thinks, and judge other people for not feeling the same way. anything that powerful probably doesnt care if you believe it exists or talk bad about him or anything like that.
and until proven otherwise, the bible is no more non fiction than harry potter so stop using quotes from it to justify your fear mongering -
ahhhh watchin atheists who think theyre deep thinkers because theyve seen a bill maher movie argue with die hard believers, who are very shallow thinkers. im not too pretentious to think someone who believes in ? is stupid, the people who say that are bigots and not very smart themselves. im not too pretentious to think that there cant possibly be a ? or afterlife.
but if there is a power so high that he created this entire elaborate thing we call the universe, with all its intricacy in so many forms, what the ? makes the religious people think they could even get a grasp on how that deity thinks, and judge other people for not feeling the same way. anything that powerful probably doesnt care if you believe it exists or talk bad about him or anything like that.
and until proven otherwise, the bible is no more non fiction than harry potter so stop using quotes from it to justify your fear mongering
That's always been my #1 issue with religion, whether it's Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc, is that ? is supposed to be the creator of life and above petty emotions, yet ? reacts to emotions all the time. The very basis of "? being a jealous ? " has always been confusing -
LOL @ Jaded Righteousness West AlabamaRoots Oceanic
This ? just goes from thread to thread spitting the same ? ...
You ? know better than to bring this weak ? in the R&R........
HOTEP... -
That's always been my #1 issue with religion, whether it's Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc, is that ? is supposed to be the creator of life and above petty emotions, yet ? reacts to emotions all the time. The very basis of "? being a jealous ? " has always been confusing
Cosign. That's what I was trying to get across to GoingToHeaven. The idea of being "all-wise" would conflict with being swayed and subject to such emotions. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »The examples of human vestigiality are numerous, including the anatomical (such as the human appendix, tailbone, wisdom teeth, and inside corner of the eye), the behavioral (goose bumps and palmar grasp reflex), sensory (decreased olfaction), and molecular (junk DNA). Many human characteristics are also vestigial in other primates and related animals.
The coccyx, or tailbone, is the remnant of a lost tail
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality#Coccyx
Murder a bombaclot for fun.....
As far as human vestigiality goes....
The pineal gland was originally believed to be a "vestigial remnant" of a larger ? . In 1917 it was known that extract of cow pineals lightened frog skin. Dermatology professor Aaron B. Lerner and colleagues at Yale University, hoping that a substance from the pineal might be useful in treating skin diseases, isolated and named the hormone melatonin in 1958.....
Furthermore.....
“This concept of ‘junk DNA’ is really not accurate. It is an outdated metaphor,” said Richard Myers of the HudsonAlpha Institute for Biotechnology in Alabama.
‘Junk DNA’ concept debunked by new analysis of human genome.
http://youtu.be/k-vdKiGJM9M
-
1. We weren't discussing the pineal gland
2. The other examples still stand
Try again, son
-
I swear these are the black people that makes me not want to claim my race.
How ? dumb y'all ? are is sickening. -
Roots Oceanic wrote: »1. We weren't discussing the pineal gland
2. The other examples still stand
Try again, son
LOL...
Ol' "we werent talking bout that" HEAD ASS ? ....
You were discussing human vestigiality & junk DNA tho......
Again the pineal gland was once promoted as a shining example of evolution by European scientists and dumb ? worldwide.....
The pineal gland is now known as the "third eye" and proves that your science is ass.....The pineal gland was originally believed to be a "vestigial remnant" of a larger ? . In 1917 it was known that extract of cow pineals lightened frog skin. Dermatology professor Aaron B. Lerner and colleagues at Yale University, hoping that a substance from the pineal might be useful in treating skin diseases, isolated and named the hormone melatonin in 1958.[15] The substance did not prove to be helpful as intended, but its discovery helped solve several mysteries such as why removing the rat's pineal accelerated ovary growth, why keeping rats in constant light decreased the weight of their pineals, and why pinealectomy and constant light affect ovary growth to an equal extent; this knowledge gave a boost to the then new field of chronobiology.
-
It once was but I didn't list it as an example so it doesn't matter in this debate. Scientists are humans; they make mistakes. If something was once thought to be a vestigial remnant but is now known not to be, that doesn't make vestigiality untrue and it would be reaching to think so. Pluto was once considered a planet. Now that it is no longer thought of as a planet, that does not mean planets do not exist. Your logic is flawed. And even if you want to dispute DNA, the other examples listed are still there for you to debunk. If you can't debunk vestigiality as a whole, kindly have a seat.
-
Roots Oceanic wrote: »It once was but I didn't list it as an example so it doesn't matter in this debate. Scientists are humans; they make mistakes. If something was once thought to be a vestigial remnant but is now known not to be, that doesn't make vestigiality untrue and it would be reaching to think so. Pluto was once considered a planet. Now that it is no longer thought of as a planet, that does not mean planets do not exist. Your logic is flawed. And even if you want to dispute DNA, the other examples listed are still there for you to debunk. If you can't debunk everything, kindly have a seat.
Junk DNA = Debunked
Human vestigiality = Debunked
Pineal gland = Debunked
And now for your viewing pleasure.....
The human appendix = Debunked
In The Descent of Man, Darwin cited the human appendix as an example of a vestigial ? . But Darwin was mistaken: The appendix is now known to be an important source of antibody-producing blood cells and thus an integral part of the human immune system. It may also serve as a compartment for beneficial bacteria that are needed for normal digestion. So the appendix is not useless at all.
Who's next.....
I got milk baby....
http://youtu.be/e9e3Xy9ow74
-
Still waiting on you to debunk human vestigiality as a whole and not just one or two things that were thought to be vestigial at one point.
You're jumping the gun, bambu. You're smarter than this.
What you're saying = "Scientists said pluto was a planet, now they know it's not, so planets don't exist. ? scientists and their ? science" -
Junk DNA = Debunked
Human vestigiality = Debunked
Pineal gland = Debunked
The human appendix = Debunked
And now for your viewing pleasure.....
Wisdom teeth & human tailbones = Debunked....
Teeth???
It is stated that at one time in our alleged evolution we had more room in our mouths. It also has been suggested that we had to chew more than we do today. Both of these statements may be plausible, however they do not prove or even suggest that we are evolving. These teeth still function for chewing and are by no means useless or vestigial. The lack of space in the mouths of certain people – and by no means all people – is a consequence of the degeneration of the human race in regard to both genetics and lifestyles. This is quite contrary to the concept of evolution, which implies that we are improving and adding features.
Tailbones???
Note that even if there occurs or has occurred a case of a person having a movable tail-like caudal appendage containing bone, that does not mean the appendage is vestigial. And even if human caudal appendages were vestigial (which they are not) this would constitute degenerative change (loss of an ? ) whereas evolution requires generative change, producing new types of organs that did not exist before.
Next???
Caveat: I am in rare form ? .....
-
Anthropologists believe wisdom teeth, or the third set of molars, were the evolutionary answer to our ancestor’s early diet of coarse, rough food – like leaves, roots, nuts and meats – which required more chewing power and resulted in excessive wear of the teeth. The modern diet with its softer foods, along with marvels of modern technologies such as forks, spoons and knives, has made the need for wisdom teeth nonexistent. As a result, evolutionary biologists now classify wisdom teeth as vestigial organs, or body parts that have become functionless due to evolution.
Why do wisdom teeth wait to erupt long after the tooth fairy has stopped leaving change under your pillow? Tooth development, from baby primary teeth to permanent teeth, takes place in an organized fashion, over a course of years, with the first molar erupting around the age of six and the second molar erupting around the age of 12. Wisdom teeth, which begin forming around your tenth birthday, are the last set of molars on the tooth-development timeline, so they usually don’t erupt until you are between the ages of 17 and 25. Because this is the age that people are said to become wiser, the set of third molars has been nicknamed “wisdom teeth.”
Some people never get wisdom teeth, but for those who do, the number may be anywhere from one to four – and, on very rare occasions, more than four, according to a study published in the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association. Scientific literature has yet to be able to explain why the number of teeth per individual varies, but for those who do get these extraneous, or supernumerary, teeth, it can lead to all sorts of problems.
Because human jaws have become smaller throughout evolutionary history, when wisdom teeth form they often become impacted, or blocked, by the other teeth around them. Also, if the tooth partially erupts, food can get trapped in the gum tissue surrounding it, which can lead to bacteria growth and, possibly, a serious infection.
Wisdom teeth that do not erupt but remain tucked away can also lead to oral problems, such as crowding or displacement of permanent teeth. On very rare occasions, a cyst (fluid filled sac) can form in the soft tissue surrounding the impacted wisdom tooth. These cysts can lead to bone destruction, jaw expansion, or damage to the surrounding teeth. Even more uncommonly, tumors can develop in the cysts, which can lead to the jaw spontaneously breaking if the tumor or cyst grows too much.
There are patients that develop wisdom teeth that function just as well as every other tooth in the mouth, and as a result they do not need to go under the knife. But no one can predict when third molar complications will occur, and the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons estimates that about 85 percent of wisdom teeth will eventually need to be removed.
http://scienceline.org/2007/02/ask-cooper-wisdomteeth/
-
This is quite contrary to the concept of evolution, which implies that we are improving and adding features.
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution.
CORRECTION: One important mechanism of evolution, natural selection, does result in the evolution of improved abilities to survive and reproduce; however, this does not mean that evolution is progressive — for several reasons. First, as described in a misconception below (link to "Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments"), natural selection does not produce organisms perfectly suited to their environments. It often allows the survival of individuals with a range of traits — individuals that are "good enough" to survive. Hence, evolutionary change is not always necessary for species to persist. Many taxa (like some mosses, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little physically over great expanses of time. Second, there are other mechanisms of evolution that don't cause adaptive change. Mutation, migration, and genetic drift may cause populations to evolve in ways that are actually harmful overall or make them less suitable for their environments. For example, the Afrikaner population of South Africa has an unusually high frequency of the gene responsible for Huntington's disease because the gene version drifted to high frequency as the population grew from a small starting population. Finally, the whole idea of "progress" doesn't make sense when it comes to evolution. Climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade — and an organism with traits that are beneficial in one situation may be poorly equipped for survival when the environment changes. And even if we focus on a single environment and habitat, the idea of how to measure "progress" is skewed by the perspective of the observer. From a plant's perspective, the best measure of progress might be photosynthetic ability; from a spider's it might be the efficiency of a venom delivery system; from a human's, cognitive ability. It is tempting to see evolution as a grand progressive ladder with ? sapiens emerging at the top. But evolution produces a tree, not a ladder — and we are just one of many twigs on the tree.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_teacherfaq.php#a3
This discussion has been closed.