donnann vs. Science

A

A Cup Of Tea

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,313
Reaction score
579
Points
108
I thought it would be a good thing to gather all past and future statements made by donnann about science so that they can be discussed here. They are currently spread all over the place and in several different threads.

Things donnann claims (correct me of I'm wrong)
* Bats are birds
* There is O+, O- and O neutral blood.

In the name off order I declare discussion open!
 
I decided to refrain from picking on donnan, but perhaps in this Light I'll change my mind.
 
This is not intended for picking on her, I want everyone who post here to move the discussion forward. For example:

donnann, how does the fact that bats are mammals, the don't lay eggs, factor into your theory.
 
My guess might be that she sees evolution (physical manifestation) as being spirit-driven much in the manner of Samkhya, but with the qualities associated with Prakriti and Puruṣa being switched around from Samkhya's view.

I could be wrong, however. This is just a guess on my part--pure speculation.
 
donnann ain't got nothin' on all those Young Earther's that think the universe is 7,000 years old and refuse to acknowledge any science that says otherwise...

I've been in discussions with Young Earthers that will cite a scientific theory (such as Hubble's Law) as "proof" of a creator; but then will deny that the same theory (Hubble's Law) predicts an age of the universe greater than a few thousand years old.

donnann's theories remind me more of the very early Greeks who didn't distinguish well between philosophy and science; some of those early Greek scientific theories seem pretty silly when read with our modern perspective. I have started to view donnann's posts more as poetry and less as rational debate; I rarely respond with any counter-points to her claims. I think she means well...
 
IG is pretty close. The difference between, say Homer and Katzantzakis, is astounding! In Homer there is no holistic point of view (an arm is an arm and not part of a bigger whole nor is it differentiated into parts). Her points are thus Homeric (not what we call modern poetry, but poetry in the sense of "the Gaiwiio of Handsome Lake" -- making sense without math or science).

Pax et amore vincunt omnia!
 
I don't think there is any doubt that she means well, it's obvious she has a good heart. I have taken up the mantle to achieve dialogue between her and people on this forum.
I often put myself in the middle of dialogues, for good and bad.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
This is not intended for picking on her, I want everyone who post here to move the discussion forward. For example:

donnann, how does the fact that bats are mammals, the don't lay eggs, factor into your theory.
Click to expand...
11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 11:15 Every raven after his kind; 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

I will start with the holy bible calling bats birds.
 
seattlegal said:
My guess might be that she sees evolution (physical manifestation) as being spirit-driven much in the manner of Samkhya, but with the qualities associated with Prakriti and Puruṣa being switched around from Samkhya's view.

I could be wrong, however. This is just a guess on my part--pure speculation.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly like a mutation or a deevolution of sorts.
 
IowaGuy said:
donnann ain't got nothin' on all those Young Earther's that think the universe is 7,000 years old and refuse to acknowledge any science that says otherwise...

I've been in discussions with Young Earthers that will cite a scientific theory (such as Hubble's Law) as "proof" of a creator; but then will deny that the same theory (Hubble's Law) predicts an age of the universe greater than a few thousand years old.

donnann's theories remind me more of the very early Greeks who didn't distinguish well between philosophy and science; some of those early Greek scientific theories seem pretty silly when read with our modern perspective. I have started to view donnann's posts more as poetry and less as rational debate; I rarely respond with any counter-points to her claims. I think she means well...
Click to expand...
what about conscious design? Something cannot come from nothing but rather has to come from something like it?
 
A few points -- the OT does call bats birds. It also says PI = 3. We all know these are errors. I too believe that the Kosmos cane from nothing... but in my case the laws of quantum mechanics apply. If you wait long enough, pretty much anything can happen.

Pax et amore vincunt omnia!
 
donnann said:
11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls ; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; 11:15 Every raven after his kind; 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

I will start with the holy bible calling bats birds.
Click to expand...
Me thinks all you are doing is proving how incorrect the Christian bible is ;)
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
I thought it would be a good thing to gather all past and future statements made by donnann about science so that they can be discussed here. They are currently spread all over the place and in several different threads.

Things donnann claims (correct me of I'm wrong)
* Bats are birds
* There is O+, O- and O neutral blood.

In the name off order I declare discussion open!
Click to expand...

O + is neutral. I am saying divine beings incarnated into the human body have type O. Not + or _ but a combination of + and neg to get if male the male symbol if female the female symbol......more complex anatomy.
 
In scientific terms, animals are categorized in a certain way, birds lay eggs and usually flay, mammals give birth to live offspring and usually live on land. But there are exceptions to this, like penguins stay on land. Bats fly, some squirrels glide, dolphins swim.

So, now we have determined that you and I use the word bird differently. You use the bible and I use human observations.

Can you not tell me more about how a bat would turn into a bird if it where in the sun long enough. Would it take minutes, hours, days or it's future offspring?
 
Can we start with the bats? And I'm guessing you won't budge on the Bible being a legitimate source so I'm guessing we should just let that one go?
 
I like the O one. Do you know what happens if one mixes RH Neg and RH Pos... death. Happened a lot in early transfusions (since Europe is really the only continent with a significant amount of RH Neg types, probably a left-over from Neaderthals, Aisans, Native Americans and Africans are typically << 1% Rh Neg).

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
 
radarmark said:
I like the O one. Do you know what happens if one mixes RH Neg and RH Pos... death. Happened a lot in early transfusions (since Europe is really the only continent with a significant amount of RH Neg types, probably a left-over from Neaderthals, Aisans, Native Americans and Africans are typically << 1% Rh Neg).

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
Click to expand...

In order for a divine being to incarnate (sexually ) into the human egg the father must be either O neg or O positive and the mother must be O positive or O negative and the incarnated child will have O blood. It doesnt work when human beings try to combine it , well because you cannot attain a higher self than what you are. Not all heavenly beings have the O blood. Say a heavenly being has A one parent would have to be A+ one A- to be A. Thats how it works.
 
radarmark said:
I like the O one. Do you know what happens if one mixes RH Neg and RH Pos... death. Happened a lot in early transfusions (since Europe is really the only continent with a significant amount of RH Neg types, probably a left-over from Neaderthals, Aisans, Native Americans and Africans are typically << 1% Rh Neg).

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
Click to expand...

Of course the heavenly incarnations make the body in human condtion so dont confuse it with prehuman self.
 
So it works because you believe it does, fine. Just be careful if you are pregnant... beyond "it doesn't work when human beings try to combine it", it does not work (can kill either baby or mother or both) if G!d does it with perfectly straight forward (no science) sexual reproduction. That's why man instituted bood tests (originally concieved to let parents know if they were Rh compatable).

Panta Rhei! (Everything Flows!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top