Please know your facts first instead of repeating strawman arguments.
The Human eye if a fantastically designed optical machine. It is capable of a dynamic range of 1,000,000,000 to 1. i.e. a good eye can detect 1 photo (although elsewhere I heard it is 7 photons, YMMV.) If you can design an optical device that is capable of the dynamic range of an eye and make it build itself within a woam of a woman then you will be up for a noble price.
I remember hearing that current advanced low light instruments designed by humans will be destroyed if they where given the brightness the human had to detail with. (hence they have safely cutoffs to prevent damage.) but I am not an expert in this subject.
The common argument against the human eye is that it is "wired the wrong way around". I.e. The blood vessles in the eye are in front of the optical sensors in the eye.
Yet if a human designed the eye, he would put the blood vessels behind the photo optical sensors. The problem with this is that you will be blinded by the first bright light for up to 30 mins. That car light that when by you, opps your blind for the next hour.
By having the blood in front, it allows the sensors to cool down and get oxygen more quickly. To get around the problem of the blood vessels, the designer has place between the sensors and blood vesselsOptical Fibers!. These are hour glass shaped fiber optical cables giving 99.9% of the light.
But wait theres more, not only do this design allow for rapid restoration of the sensor from light, it also improves on the sight by reducing the back scattering of light in the back of the eye which is the main cause of lose of resolution in the eye.
To sum up:
Atheist Designer: You will be blinded for a long time by any bright light.
Creator Designer: Rapid restore of sight, much improved sight by reducing the back of the eye scattering of light which would blur the image.
You pick slashdotters, which eye do you prefer? Who is an Idiotic designer and who is an Intelligent designer?
As for the ID, walk out to the street, point to the first car you see and tell me how that came about by only naturalistic processes over millions of years. Having a designer as a cause is logical. Limited "scientific answers" to just naturism is purely philosophical and not logic., (i.e. Religion). Please keep you arguments logical, and not religious.:-)
How do you distinguish murder from sodomy? Both are prohibited in the Old Testament--does "grace" cover the penalty for murder, and if so, why do you (presumably) feel justified in punishing murderers but not homosexuals? In your parable, how is the woman's prostitution different from murder?
If you are guilty of breaking any part of the law, you are guilty of breaking it all..
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. James 2:10
When it comes to sin, any form of sin is still sin, so both are bad, just like lying. I've heard of complaints about Christians that since they are forgiven they can get away with shit.
Yes, grace can cover every sin. When Jesus died, he said "It is finished", at that point all sins and every type of sin was satisfactory paid for in full, including murder, sodomy and lying. There is nothing needed to be added to that payment, all one person needs to do is accept that righteousness (legaleses for blameless) which is given away freely. (since we can't pay for it for what it's worth)
(I have to admit, I do quite like some of the Jesus-related bits of the Bible, that story being one of them. I don't believe Jesus himself ever condemned homosexuals.
I remember one of his speeches where he was talking to the pharisees (really stuck up religious jews)
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. Math 10:15
That is a reference to a punishment God gave to 5 citys (two of them are S & G) for them being evil. (and very well known to by gay, God sent 2 angles to drag a man and his family out of one of the citys and the people there tried to rape the angles.)
I have a sneaking suspicion he was a radical in many ways ahead of his time who found a way to spread his message of love for one another by making it a religion that then got inevitably twisted.)
He hated "religion". He wanted people to have a direct relationship with God. Since he cleared the path with the issue of sin. Yes you could call him a radical.
Also, are you aware that you're arguing that killing gay people was alright before Christ came along? That is, if we were having this discussion 2100 years ago, you would be completely justified in killing me, according to your arguments.
And you could to me for fornication.
I'm sorry, all I see in your arguments is an elaborate rationalization--you seem to be pretty alright with gay people on the whole, certainly you're not interested in killing us, but you also want to believe your holy book, so all that's left for you is to add a bunch of twisted interpretation to the Bible that allows you to keep both views simultaneously. (I don't mean to be insulting, just direct.)
No insult taken.:-)
I'm actually a mathematician, and I see the same basic pattern you're displaying in "crank" proofs. Cranks present (false) proofs of famous problems like this "proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem. The proof will typically be very long, vague, and/or hard to follow. Many of the individual steps are typically correct, though somewhere in the mass of details there's a faulty step or assumption. If the fault is pointed out, cranks either don't believe it or they do believe it only to make an even more complicated proof along the same lines whose faulty step or assumption is even more difficult to spot. In the case I linked, the faulty step occurs just after Figure 10, where it implicitly assumes an equation to hold that's equivalent to n=2. The contradiction later derived is merely a product of this faulty assumption; the methods employed are not nearly powerful enough to solve the act
I'm essentially certain that you'll never convince me to be a young earth creationist, though I'm not interested in pursuing that line of thought right now anyway. I'll say I disagree with all the science you mentioned, and that I have difficulty using the word "science" to describe it since "science" usually implies that you don't know your conclusion when you start exploring, whereas as far as I'm aware young earth creationists start from the conclusion that the Bible is true. Still, thanks for mentioning your viewpoint, it's at least interesting to hear.
I'm very curious how you can take the Bible literally enough to believe in the existence of Adam and Eve, extreme longevity, and a 6000 year-old earth, while simultaneously saying
Yes the bible in the old testament probably had a law to stone them. And many nasty things have been done to them in the past because of the fear of the straight man e.g. Alan Turning in England.
The verse I quoted doesn't mince words: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." You don't seem to believe this line, "they must be put to death". Why? How can you believe other parts of your book (that to me are just as crazy) without believing this one? Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent, to selectively ignore things?
I believe that law is still there but it has been covered by grace.
From the Christain/Jew point of view, the law was given to show what is right and wrong. The the old testament gave that law and it has not been replaced.
For a Christian (follower of Jesus), We are not under the law of the old testament but are under grace. The book of Romans talks about such logic. Jesus didn't replace the law but fulfilled them. So the law still there showing right and wrong but it is covered by grace which is holding back the punishment being applied to you. Hence it is still wrong to be gay, but we still love the man not the sin.
Once in a while it's argued that, while the Leviticus law once applied, it no longer does--but then it used to be okay (and right!) to kill gay people, but it no longer is. That just trades one form of inconsistency with another, though.
As I see it, (a) either homosexuality really is so horrible it truly deserves the death penalty, or (b) I'm just a guy who likes guys instead of girls and the parts I quoted from the Bible are just plain wrong. I believe (b). I see no other, consistent options, and (a) completely contradicts my own experience, not to mention actually following it would create a worldwide genocide *far* larger than the Holocaust. As I said originally, I do not know how people who call themselves Christians can reconcile acceptance of homosexuality with the repeated, strong condemnation of it found in the Bible.
Form the Bible, The wages of sin is death. (First with the body normally naturally and then second death of soul from spirit).
With sexual sins, several of them have the punishment of death for it. e.g. rape, adultery, gay, *fornication (sex out of marriage). *disclaimer: being a hypocrite here.
God still hates any/all types of sins (not just sexual) with some assigned a physical punishment of earth.
For me, I do not accept that homosexuality as being normal. (We will just disagree here) They shouldn't be punish for being gay as grace is now in effect, but God still made the dividing line of right and wrong and that hasn't change. Just the punishment is currently *neutered. (*lol, what a word for this conversation)
I am remembering a story in the bible where Jesus walked to over to a well where a slut-hooker-lonely woman was. There were men trying to stone her, Jesus wrote something in the sand (the only time he wrote then covered up so it wasn't recorded *people think it's the names of the crowd for were the lovers of the woman) and the c
Presumably, in your view God created me specially. He apparently designed me to be gay, since as far as I can tell I am innately gay (and in that sense I suppose my homosexuality is "natural" even with your definition). Around puberty when the other guys were becoming interested in girls I became interested in guys. I suspect genes conspired with conditions in my mom's womb to "flip a switch" an unusual way which only became apparent during adolescence. Why would God design me to be gay in light of the verses I quoted? It seems extremely cruel. The same argument can be made with "gay" replaced by "murderer", by the way. As far as I can tell the whole concept of being designed specially is flawed,...
The argument here is that we are not a direct creation of God. It's the same argument with someone with down symdrome or the australian soldiers exposed to nuke blast in australia for british tests in 1950s/60 where they and their children are dieing from cancers, tumors, and ever thing under the sun that could go wrong. I put that historical example in to show mutations are a bad thing to the body. (extremly rarly good but thats another topic)
In the christain belief system, The world & universe is cursed, basically alot of things a "f*cked up" (the * for any slashdot filters). Although Adam & Eve were perfect in the geans, each generation inherited the parent's mutations making them less functional. Some of these mutations can/will cause XXY, XYY kinds of people, maybe even female brain/male body types.
To put it as an analogy, God created a Ferreira, and over time the design being copied like chinese whispers, is starting to look like a golf.
Thats why the early generations (6000 years ago) lived for over 900 years, but with more generations the mistakes built up due to mutations so their live spans decreased like a half life graph, as genisicists would predict would happen. (note that the life span in the history in the bible doesn't actually prove it, it's just what would be expected given the asusmptions presented.)
So when a mutation happens it might make you gay but that it not the blueprint that God designed. (The chritian scienist view is that all living things are devolving, if you want I can talk about the logic/evidence there.)
but most people accept that conceit because of the comfort offered by believing in a benevolent all-powerful personal watchdog you can pray to and maybe get your wish from but who in any case makes everything work out for the best in your life, especially when it doesn't seem like it.
I agree, but I dont think most people think too much about it.
In my own view, evolution may be said to have designed a penis to fit in a vagina, but even supposing I wanted to use your definition of naturalness via design, that fact is not enough for me to call gay sex "unnatural" since the connotations of the word (bad; wrong; evil; confused; etc.) are so incorrect and inflammatory.
Side argument: Actually scientists dont know how sex came about because asexual reproduction is vastly fitter than sexual reproduction. For sexual reproduction, the genitals needs to be form both male and female all awhile asexual is carried on. It doesn't make sence. heres a 10 min video of arguments from a creationist site: http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=Cu0IK-EB5F4. Lets argee to disagree here, I would still call the act not natural, even if you feel it is natural. Also I would admit that "natural" is a very bad/weak definition of a word for my point of view: e.g. some rabits are gay, so would that be natural?.
The bits I quoted about sodomy being "unnatural" and a "perversion" have been used to justify the death penalty and murders. This is not an old, abstract issue either. From Wikipedia's
I have a vested interest in this. But lets cut to the chase of this ad homian argument.
What bussiness is this of mine because I am a milkman?
Or let me rephase your statement to apply to you:
what business do you have discussing geology since you believe all geologic processes happened in a few billion years?
I am not the "christion" that can be bagged on because I dont know science. With my arguments I have IMO applied rational reasoning stating honestly why I choose to interprate the evidence in the manner I have. But I do have starting assumtions like you have. Can I say that you believe the big bang happen out of nothing? Magic yourself?, If not magic, please repeat in a science lab the BB again for me please. So both "sides" have their starting assumtions which both "sides" can way in the evidence.
Young Earth Creationists, YEC, believe that there was a world wide flood ~5000 years ago. A creationist in the mid 1800 first raised the idea of patheia super continent and tectonic plates moving away but the idea was rejected by "scienceist" for 50yrs later until they could put millions of years into the idea.
YEC came up with the idea of CTP, Catastrophic plate tectonics.
The idea is that the super continent split a part, and the plates moved away at 40kms at first, slowing down as they collided with another continent.
This raised the mountians and lowered the ocean trenches.
Sea Shells on Mt Everest, would be a good evidence of this model.
Flood laid down the layers for the Grand Canyon.
The Grand Canyon layers are all water based, including one layer of sand (under water sand dunes).
Since you have millions of years of the grand canyon, please explain why the border between each layer in the canyon is so horizontally smooth but the part exposed to the atmosphere is all worn away. If millions of years happened, then there would be erosion between the layers but there aint any.
I dont know about limestome and chalk, so I can't comment on such things.
For fossils you need to bury the dead/living thing quickly otherwise you dont get a fossil but it decays away. You dont see you pet cat that died in the back yard turning into a fossil.
Also you dont need millions of years either. There are pictures of hats fossiled, wind mills, axes, etc.. all fossiled in running water. Japanese scienists recently also announce in Japan that it took them only 8 yrs to fossilise something.
Yes there are stupid "christians" who thing God only put it there to deceive us. I am having this argument with my own paster:-( That is what happens when you try to please one religion with another. The outcome is niether are true.
You seem like a reasonably intelligent fellow
Thank you. usually I just expect to get yelled out.
homosexuality is not a choice
I am still thinking about that. The preferance might not a choice but the act still it.
With the comment of trolling, I get that often. I thought slashdot was where many people talk about stuff.
Would you prefer if we all thing the same? all shall love google, hate apple, hate sony. oh wait, hate google, love apple, hate sony.
Just how thoese fanboys can express thier believes, why should I be filtered out when I have something you dont agree with? isn't that censorship which the bulk of slashdot dont like?
If you really dont like what I have to say, either ignore me or if I am trolling, down vote me:-(.
Please dont downvote me, I am talking intelligently and not saying "yo dang, you thought the earth of old."
I think it is in the best interest so that all sides know what the real arguments are, and not to keep others thinking of a strawman "christian".
Say you don't like homosexuality, say you don't agree with the practice, but don't call it unnatural.
Sorry, A rose is still a rose by any other name.
Virtually every species that has a sex practices homosexuality.
Agreed I assume. That reminds me of a pet rabbit I had.
Still is killing your own son/daughter natural? because animals do that as well.
In fact every single human being starts out female and it takes a very specific process at a very specific time to distinguish an embryo as male and if everything doesn't happen exactly right, brain gender or preference may be impacted.
No, humans are not female in the woem, just because they haven't developed a dick yet doesn't mean they are female. All the cells in the baby from day one says wither it's male or female.
That my friend is God at work. There is now strong evidence that a number of social animals use homosexuality as a means to control overpopulation (that is, when a population approaches its carrying capacity the instance of homosexuality increases noticeably.)
Thats interesting. I would need to look up on that.
It makes perfect sense that when Jews numbered in the thousands that "God" informed them it was time go forth and multiply, and clearly homosexuality would have been a wrench in the works. Now that there are 7,000,000,000 of us, perhaps being gay might not be such a sin anymore.
The commandment existed before the Jews. The argument of over population isn't addressed by lets all by gay, it's about not getting pregnant by either banging less or using the pill. by controlling your urges and not having more than 1 child per adult.
And I call B.S. on your calling B.S. Clearly you have NO knowledge of the huge number of intersexed children born every year. As I mentioned before, everyone starts out female. It is guessed that over 2% (some suggest as much as 4%, but that's probably pushing some of the minor deformities) of the population is born with some degree of intersexing, and that for the most part doctor make surgical changes at birth to cover up anomalies without ever telling the parent (except in those cases where the anomaly is significant.) There is clearly a genetic component to homosexuality so indeed God does make Gays and Lesbians, but on top of that, research indicate that Transsexuals have brain structures consistent with their gender of choice and not their somatic sex (literally brain of one sex in body of another.) There are even chimera walking around, people composed of the genetic components of 2 even 3 different fertilized eggs, sometimes even having different genetic sex. When it come to sex and preference my friend, God has an incredible sense of humor and there are literally hundred of combinations and permutations. So when you say Male and Female, its clear that A) You haven't got the foggiest clue of which you speak and B) You put your personal beliefs ahead of any kind of logic, understanding, enlightenment or pragmatic view of the real world in which you live. Silly child.
Yes I am aware there are genetic "freaks" out there, if they have these mutations then feel free bang male or female since they are both. If you are fully male than that is not a moral choice.
It's an interesting point about transsexuals having a female brain. With them they believe they are female trapped in a male body. I am not sure what to make out with that else from if you can swing it (before it's chopped off) then you are still a man in a mans body despite you thinking like a girl. reminds me of seeing lady boys in thailand. strangely "cute" until my wife said what they were.
The men under discussion were essentially going "gay for pay". Again, the men I was thinking about were completely gay for each other.
The layer of 3KM thick of coal stretching in the shape of a triangle of each side being 100kms long, is very very big. The size means you would have to have a massive peat bog that sinks exactly at the rate at which the peat grows. If it sank too quickly the water drowns everything. This process would have to have been just right for over 100,000 years. We do not see peat swaps that size anywhere else on else. The flood explains this by the dumping of the huge vegetation in the plant at that time.
That why we get things like the petrified forest in yellow stone, where logs are fossilised vertically through many layers of mud (which normally it would take millions of years to accumulate and the wood would of rot then.).
Oh, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but my post was a joke. I'm fully aware that the points I made are ridiculous, especially in the "offenders", "practice", and "gay for pay" cases. I also obviously twisted Paul's words in the Romans case. I thought the absurdity of my points together with the last line (which you quoted) would clearly flag the whole thing as a joke, but I was apparently too subtle and accidentally crossed the line into Poe's Law territory.
Ah, my bad. I thought you were serious. well whooosh to me:-(
I am curious about your reasoning on a few points.
There isn't Male, Female, Gay, Les, there are only Male & Female
What does this mean? Gay men and lesbians certainly exist. Are you giving a pseudo-quote from Mark 10:6, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" (or Genesis 1:27 which it's paraphrasing)? If so, why? Did God not create me, a gay man, too? Are my desires for men and lack of desire for women not His work, in your view? Paul would call me evil and my homosexuality the fruit of evil, though Jesus said not to judge others (presumably especially if you know next to nothing about them). How do you judge me?
Of course Gay & Les exist. My statement of God not creating them is because God only create Adam and Eve. All humans since then are children of them. So you and me and not direct creations of God, but only based on the corrupted blueprints of the originals.
somewhere in the bible: Judge not lest you be Judge. and somewhere else a Righteous man judges everything. The dont judge others I would assume applies to hypercrites which Jesus really hated.
For a gay man it's still an unnatural act even if he prefers & love doing it.
What do you define as a natural act? Our definitions appear to disagree wildly. Me having sex with a woman would be extraordinarily unnatural inasmuch as it is not in my nature to desire sexual relations with women whatsoever (if anything I desire having no sexual relations with women). I imagine you feel the same way about sex with men. Perhaps you have a sort of idealized view of nature that differs sharply from the actual world around us? If so, what is that view? How do you suppose appealing to that view will convince others who only care about the world as it exists of anything? Also, do you consider gay sex indecent? A perversion?
I would define natural as something which is designed for. and hence unnatural as something not designed. e.g. (in an bad comparison) plugging a speaker cable into a power socket. When it comes to Humans, it was M & F, it wasn't M & M. The male loves the female. I am aware that gay people view what they do as part of themselves i.e "natural" to them, but feeling that way doesn't make it natural according to the design. The same way how it's feels natural for a catholic priest to "love" a little helpless boy/girl, doesn't make it natural. I believe feelings are not relevant here in what makes it natural.
I dont not believe that my views will change anyone else. Yes I think it's gay sex is indecent just because it's M & M. and not indecent (in private) for M & F (ass)
BTW, As a Christian, I love the gay man but I dont want him to butt fuck me. (Love the man, not the sin)
Is this at all relevant? I don't want to butt fuck you either, by the way. For one thing it would be non-consensual. From your post, I'm really not sensing that you have any love for me whatsoever. If you do, how do you show that love?
I give the origin of my views that I am posting from so people know why I think the way I do. I am not too sure how to answer that question of how am I showing love else from I am (trying) treating you with respect as a human. although I disagree with your views (if it is yours or
Not a biblical scholar myself, so you'll want to check up on it yourself. But my understanding has always been that the Law of Moses was in addition to the Gospel. The Law of Moses came about because the people wanted specifics on exactly how far they could deviate from God's will and what the associated price of redemption was for each deviation. This excess body of laws was essentially wiped out with Christ, note that he always emphazied the spirit of the laws rather than the letter. His Atonement fulfilled the Law of Sacrifice, which had existed from Adam and Eve, significantly predating Moses.
When I said "should abstain from homosexual relations" I was speaking in the context of a Christian who believes that what is natural is not important because the natural man is an enemy to God. If you believe that than essentially everyone is an enemy to God and merely less evil than others depending on their level of self discipline.
I wouldn't say everyone is an enemy. Yes all have sin and fallen short but not everyone is a fool. a fool opposes God. Many try to live a "good" life to their best understanding.
It was a Peppers analoogy, pizza is just a delicous way to consume them! From conversations with my Mother in Law it would seem that my wife naturally do not like peppers. In that she at a very young age refused to eat them when everyone else around her liked them. I was simply using it as an example where a small subset of people naturally are disposed to dislike something that most everyone else likes.
I would say that reading comprehension can be clouded by ones beliefs.
I agree.
I've known a number of people who can't understand how someone else could interpret a verse of scpriture differently than they do. I am no doubt affected by this as well but I do seem to notice it a lot in others, even among my own familial religion, which makes me think I might be more empathetic when it comes to differing points of view. Someone doesn't have to believe the same things that I do in order to understand what I write unless I am being overly ambiguous.
I agree. But there was ambiguity in the word "natural", as I could only see it being "natural" like how a floppy disk could corrupt on you when you have important data on it.
The impossibility of God could be a very long subject so I'll try to be as short as possible for everyones sake. The relevant attributes of the Christian God being that he is just, never wrong and knows the future. The logical issues boil down to whether or not free will is possible. If we have free will then it is impossible for God to know the future but he can justly hold us responsible for our actions. If we don't have free will then God can know the future but he can not justly hold us responsible for breaking a law.
That is an interesting decision to make, IMO, I believe both are true. It would be like putting a candy bar in front of a two year old and telling him not to eat it. The first thing he will do is eat it when he thinks your not looking. You "knew" he would do that and he had free will to do/not do that. There are times God will jump in according to the bible and tell people he will destroy a city unless they repent, and the city repented. This show that God can intervene and change the future.
The knowing the future attribute is based on him existing in eternity. The creator who created matter & time has to be outside of space & time in order to create it. Eternity is not lots of time, it's outside of time altogether.
Personally I'm inclined to believe that there is no free will. But I understand that it is expedient as a society for us to believe that we do.
In my christian point of view, (I may be wrong here as I havn't study this area), The Law hasn't been replaced. Jesus fulfilled the punishment required by the law but the law is still there telling what is right / wrong. Grace is given so we are forgiven for trespassing against the law. Like how a cop can let you go for smoking. despite him doing that, it's still against the law.
For point 2: I had a rabbit that would bang everything and anything, female rabbits, male rabbits (back or front), your shoe. I've seen birds shag dead birds. I would probably say that Animals dont have morals installed in them like humans. Some animals eat there own young.
so one should abstain from homosexual relations
I dont understand that. If your an enemy of God, why not. E.g. Satan would do all he can to spite God.
I think you might have a point here. Being a fallen, sin riddled state that we are in, it could be normal for some people to be gay, wither transitory or permanent. Yet even in that state, it still doesn't subtract that it's against God's will (according to the Bible).
The pizzas analogy I dont think applies, its like saying one person likes blue and another green, while both doesn't matter to God.
Reading comprehension is not linked to a persons faith
This is a generic blanket statement, applies to some, and not to others. If someone doesn't understand something, they may or may not believe in it.
3, I am curious, can you explain the logical fallacies of the Christian God please.
Evidence of a global flood, well off the top of my head,
1 - the layers of the grand canyon are all smooth, if they were millions of years old they will be rough like the surface layer.
2- Each layer in the grand canyon are all water base including a sand layer which had dunes in it (under water dunes)
3 - layers of sedimentary rocks spanning 1000s of squared Kms in USA I think it was. - also in Australia but it broken into 2 groups because of another layer overlayed, I can't remember what the "pink color on the map" layer rock was now., look at map around the 3 sisters to see vast areas cut out.
4 - a triangle of 100kms each side of coal on the south of Australia, 3 km thick, is very implausible to be a swamp, but easily explain as a flood.
look around and you will find that you can explain alot with a great flood. Blindly saying theres no evidence will only get you applauses from people who dont want to know.
But I am serious! Gay butt sex between loving men is fine for Gentiles [== not(Jews)] post-Jesus. For while it is written in the Law of Moses that
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
- Leviticus 20:13
it is also written in the New Testament that
...some...said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."
[The council concluded] we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God [by requiring them to follow the whole Law of Moses]. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."
- Acts 15:5, 19-20
Now sexual immorality is a rather vague phrase which I take to mean rape and generally non-consensual sex. You might be a little confused by the scattered references to homosexuality in Paul's letters which seem to imply that homosexuality is sexually immoral. However,
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders... will inherit the kingdom of God.
- 1 Corinthians 6:9
discusses homosexual offenders, that is, people who break the law. Since sodomy is not illegal in my country, we're fine there. Next,
What a cop out. The above quote in Leviticus 20:13, sets the law from God. Arguing that it isn't against the law of USA doesn't mean anything to the "kingdom of God". You could argue that in some African country it is legal to rape and kill, and hence "we're fine there", Next.
For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality,..., or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching that comes from the glorious Good News entrusted to me by our blessed God.
- 1 Timothy 1:9-11
Here one must practice homosexuality for it to be a sin. The people I was imagining weren't actively practicing their technique; they simply did what came naturally. Some translations don't even list sodomy/homosexuality here, so the interpretation is also debatable. Finally we have,
Here one must practice killing their father for it to be a sin. If you only do it once then it isn't a sin because you only killed your father once.
About "what came naturally": The argument here is that homosexuality isn't normal. The argument goes along the lines of a male is designed for a female. and the union there of is a symbol of the relationship of God to Jews and Jesus to Gentiles.
Because some closed closet homos decided to rewrite verse to make homos not listed there, doesn't subtract to what was written.
...God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
- Romans 1:26-27
This one is trickier to interpret correctly. What is an "indecent act" or a "natural relation"? For gay men, an indecent or unnatural act would be sex with a woman.
I call BS on that. There isn't Male, Female, Gay, Les, there are only Male & Female. For a gay man it's still an unnatural act even if he prefers & love doing it.
It's a simple word to number conversion, it's not like scrabble where z=10, u =1, q=4.
Yes you could debate if this is just all made up but the fact is it is still there adding up.
But you could argue the Genesis PI value is a magic formula.
If you dont know about it, It's a formula for the first verse is something like this from my memory:
(sum of letters * product of letters) / (sum of words * sum of words).
With that you get the value of 3.141 * 10 ^ 70. to my memory, (that is 10 to the power of 70).
Well a valid reply would be that is just a made up formula that very remarkably reaches a value that is recognisable, and you would be right in saying that, but...
If you do that same formula to the New Testament's main creation verse you get 2.7182 x 10 ^ 30.
E wasn't discovered until the 16th century, so it's interesting that encoded in the text that a fisherman written are these advance mathematical constants of the universe in them.
Well feel free to dismiss these observations, as you shouldn't apply theology on them, they are only what Christians say are: signatures of the spirit.
There must be other locations this simple code is used but I haven't looked into these types of codes enough.
Actually Natural Selection was known before Charles Darwin even took his voyage.
Edward Blyth (1810–1873) was the man whose ideas probably influenced Darwin most. An English chemist and zoologist, Blyth wrote three major articles on natural selection that were published in The Magazine of Natural History from 1835 to 1837.7 Charles was well aware of these. Not only was this one of the leading zoological journals of that time, in which his friends Henslow, Jenyns and Lyell had all published articles, but also it seems that the University of Cambridge, England, has Darwin’s own copies of the issues containing the Blyth articles, with Charles’s handwritten notes in the margins!
The publication of his Origin of Species was in 1859, 20 years later. So Natural Selection is a creationist theory.
I am sure that will make some of you through up in your own mouths.:-)
I see two counter argument points here.
1 - The unborn child are people that will be men & women themselfs. Just because they are unborn doesn't make them not people. (Unless you want to get to the argument of unhuman people are like blacks, asians, jews, 99%ers etc... there not real people so have no rights. )
2 - Scale of "right". Should I be denied life because it's an inconvenience to someone else? How about if someone was holding you hostage for a quarter?
why should I pay quarter of my money to save your live?
In that argument the woman/girl is being greatly inconvenience for 9 months wither or not it's her own fault doesn't matter, the other human is being deprived their right to live.
So how dare those "religious fanatics" are fighting to preserve the right to life (even to you once maybe?) just because it annoys your mother.
So tell me, what is worth more? Your life or you mother being inconvenience for 9 months.
The first chapter gives the order in creation, the second chapter doesn't give an order hence the two do not conflict.
It's like me making my bed at 8am then making my breakfast at 9 am. then I rang my mum and said I made breakfast and made my bed.
Both are true, only 1 gives the order explicitly.
Are you aware that that in that verse that that word circumference is misspelt there and only there in the entire bible. Normally the Hebrew word is 3 letters long but the misspelt word is only 2 letters long. The scribes would write in the side they believe it to be the 3 letter word "circumference" but they never corrected the "mistake".
As it turns out, if you use the code of a=1 b=2 c=2, for the Hebrew language you get a value of:
3 letter = 111
2 letter = 106.
111 / 106 = 1.0471698113207547169811320754717 notice something with that value? it's 1/3rd of Pi to 4 decimal places
111 / 106 * 3 = 3.1415094339622641509433962264151 which gave an accuracy to 1/15000 of an inch.
pi == 3.1415926535897932384626433832795
Just thought I should mention that next time you feel like trying to boast about something.
Hello LiquidRage,
Sorry for the late reply...
Yes the above is a good statement of my beliefs.
As referring to your link, it states several cases, let me go other each one as much as I can.
"reationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting"
That is a interesting point. What is information. The problem here is that data needs to be interpreted. This is a vagueness about this as what constitute info and data. E.g. you would say Mozart's music is designed even if you heard it being played by a learner on a flute that got every 10th note wrong.
1. 1 increased genetic variety in a population i.e. Lenski
In this example they are trying to show how mutations have made the bacteria evolved.
The problem here is that it is devolution. That is a functioning gene got stuck on. Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’?
1.2 increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
The argument here is gene duplication is the technique used to gain "information" in DNA so things can evolve. The theory goes on the lines of "part/whole of a gene/chromosome" which is then free to mutate into something useful while the other picks up the stack.
I have just been reading up on this so I can reply to you (hence my delay in replying (that and work and doing stuff with the wife)), A creationist view here (I assume ID as well) is gene duplication does happen, it's proven many times over. But gene duplication is usually very bad in humans and animals. An example of gene duplication is Down’s syndrome. (the reverse is Turner syndrome). The genes *tend* interact badly with each other and when done artificially in mice, they dont survive. *Tends mean that I read a case where the double up of a gene helped out a lemur to process food when the doubled gene mutated.
I thought I should point out that although genes/chromosomes can duplicate, it doesn't mean it's evolving. As a classic example from a site: Gene Duplication
In regard to gene number, humans have about 25,000 genes,23 while rice has 50,000.24 In terms of genome size, the largest known genome does not occur in man, but rather in a bacterium! Epulopiscium fishelsoni carries 25 times as much DNA as a human cell, and one of its genes has been duplicated 85,000 times yet it is still a bacterium.25
What caught me by surprise is strangely it's seems to be very common and tolerated in plants, but when the plant does this it can suffer from a fitness cost like in mutations and natural selection.
I thought I should also point out this plant which will revert it's DNA if it needs too.
1.3 novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
Sorry but I was having a hard time searching for Knox. I would like a last name so I could know what they are talking about.
1.4 novel genetically-regulated abilities
Just skimming by this. Nylon Bacteria
2. Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway
Sorry my eyes glazed over while looking into this. I am not a chemist:-( Rough shot at the subject, Unless they can show the same bacteria having 2 halves and another generation having it fused, they are just guessing about it's "evolution" pass. Also an alternate solution was it was a whole and a mutation split them into 2, another mutation can join them up. again sorry I couldn't be bother looking too deeply into this.
I didn't mean to state that you trying to deceive, you seem genuine in your comments. please forgive me if I offended you, my words are not meant to insult you or put you down.
Also, I'm not using two different terms for evolution, there is no trick and I am appalled that you try to state that. That mutations are not often/usually beneficial is not a surprise or a hidden agenda. Nor is it that they are always passed on nor dominant. It's not a conflict. It's pretty damn obvious actually. Of course, no one, and certainly not I, claimed that all mutations are beneficial. I'm very confused that you even took it that way and am left to wonder what your agenda really is.
On one side, evolution, you have natural selection leading to the selection of genetic mutations. It's verifiable, testable and the theory fits the available evidence.
I read that line above and though you are using the term evolution in two different ways. You used evolution as in "Natural Selection" in an attempt to prove "Goo to You" evolution. Many people do this. I was just trying to show that this line alone isn't showing evolution, just features of natural selection.
ID doesn't have anything against Natural Selection. It is required to explain all the different variations of life on earth. ID uses the first line to explain the world and your right that ID and creationists belief that mutations dont lead to a new "kind".
I am a devils advocate and serious. I hate when a belief is passed off as science and then used to bash other opinions. So I am just pointing out the flaws in the science of evolution. Trying to show that the beliefs in it makes it a religion in itself.
You may disagree with me, that is fine. I just want to raise the point that there are other serious opinions in logic other than we are just all mistakes of the universe. Most evolutions never hear an informed opposing view.
Cheers.
You obviously have little clue about theory of natural selection and everything that goes with it. Perhaps you would have a better argument if you actually understood how evolution works.
I disagree. Please to any error in my statements?
The Theory of Natural Selection basically states that if a mutation helps you in survival, you are more likely to mate and the helpful mutation will propagate, which will eventually lead to great changes to the specie over time.
*I agree. The degree of change is limited to the variation in the species. Selection only picks out what is already there. Sometimes the change can be great, e.g. Great Dane vs chiwawa, but they are still both dogs.
There is nothing in this theory that says ALL mutations are helpful. I don't know where you got that idea from, but perhaps not drinking from the ID kool-aid will help you in that endeavor.
You are correct, But evolution requires a change agent and Natural Selection does not cut the mustard. In all it's flavors, e.g. specification with a separated population, (like flys in hawaii) are still just Natural Selection which only picks from pre existing information. Selection by definition filters information so the geane pool of the creature is lesser more specified. (thus less able to adapt later on)
The only change agent in town now for "goo to you" is mutations.
There is no such a thing as bait and switch in science.
I agree, but if your terms are not well defined, then the layman will get things mixed up. Hence I try to explain the difference between Natural Selection (Survival of the fittest & proven), to Evolution (as in "goo to you", *not proven (*not counting devolution which ID and Creations agree with.))
Tell me, if someone came up to you in the street and ask what was evolution, would you say the theory of creatures changing? or the theory that everything came from a single cell? Because if you said evolution is the theory of creatures changing, that would make me an evolutionist.:-O
Either your theory is supported by evidence or it isn't. ID has no evidence nor a way to test it. It is not science. Evolution is a fact, Theory of Natural Selection is a well proven theory.
I would have to disagree with you here. With ID, they show examples of complex structures requiring all components to be working for it to exist and without there being any in-between forms for them to work therefore evidence of a designer. With evolution they require everything to happen by chance but Natural selection will remove the unfit half baked structures long before they would be established. Please show me evidence in a lab for evolution that is repeatable. The best example I know about is when for 30 years over 30,000 generations of bacteria were bread and through a 3 point mutation, they gain the ability to process citrus acid as a food source. The problem here is that that doesnt prove evolution as it actually broke a geane were they could already process citrus acid as food in an oxygen free environment. So NS favorited the defect but the gene is now stuck "on" making it less fit compared to the wild cussons.
You might disagree with the evidence that ID has but it still there. Saying it isn't science, well how about evolution? it dogmatically chooses a materialist reason over logical reasons. Tell me, is you see a watch in the beach, would you say it's just wind and rain that caused the silicon and glass to take shape or would you say some kid dropped it there? saying something is design is a logical conclusion, rejecting a conclusion before you hear the evidence on the basis of a belief (materialism) would make you as bad the creationists:-)
Its a new account. My other account is Obble. slashdot really doesn't like my opinions hence I get -1 troll status at first post and therefore censored.
I am very surprised to have 2 in rating as I usually just get down voted into oblivion by people with other more common strong world views.
IMO, I would have to disagree with what you are saying. You are setting up a straw man argument for ID.
ID (and creationists) believe in Natural Selection, and Mutations. Theses are verifiable, testable and been proven over 100s of years. Even Natural Selection was talked about before Darwin...
Edward Blyth (1810–1873) was the man whose ideas probably influenced Darwin most. An English chemist and zoologist, Blyth wrote three major articles on natural selection that were published in The Magazine of Natural History from 1835 to 1837.7 Charles was well aware of these. Not only was this one of the leading zoological journals of that time, in which his friends Henslow, Jenyns and Lyell had all published articles, but also it seems that the University of Cambridge, England, has Darwin’s own copies of the issues containing the Blyth articles, with Charles’s handwritten notes in the margins
What ID & creationists argue against what is being passed off as science, namely the "goo to you via the zoo" Grant theory of evolution.
NS works by filtering out what is already in the population, this is not a creative effect but only a selective effect. Mutations works against the host vastly more often than they benfit.
Scientific Test: If you argue mutations are good, please step inside a necular reactor:-P
(Actually there are some rare cases of mutations being good to the host but every instances it because of something breaking, which doesn't show Goo to you)
But for Evolution, you use a bait and switch to lure in the layman by saying, see here these things change/evolved over time, and fitter things survive, therefor things evolved from mud in the ground.:-P The fallacy here is you are using 2 different terms for evolution to trick the layman, and I think it's a very cleaver trick imo.
So please dont call the kettle black, when you own views you declare out loud to everyone have there own "faith" based position.
Slashdot Mirror
The Human eye if a fantastically designed optical machine. It is capable of a dynamic range of 1,000,000,000 to 1. i.e. a good eye can detect 1 photo (although elsewhere I heard it is 7 photons, YMMV.) If you can design an optical device that is capable of the dynamic range of an eye and make it build itself within a woam of a woman then you will be up for a noble price.
I remember hearing that current advanced low light instruments designed by humans will be destroyed if they where given the brightness the human had to detail with. (hence they have safely cutoffs to prevent damage.) but I am not an expert in this subject.
The common argument against the human eye is that it is "wired the wrong way around". I.e. The blood vessles in the eye are in front of the optical sensors in the eye.
Yet if a human designed the eye, he would put the blood vessels behind the photo optical sensors. The problem with this is that you will be blinded by the first bright light for up to 30 mins. That car light that when by you, opps your blind for the next hour.
By having the blood in front, it allows the sensors to cool down and get oxygen more quickly. To get around the problem of the blood vessels, the designer has place between the sensors and blood vesselsOptical Fibers!. These are hour glass shaped fiber optical cables giving 99.9% of the light.
But wait theres more, not only do this design allow for rapid restoration of the sensor from light, it also improves on the sight by reducing the back scattering of light in the back of the eye which is the main cause of lose of resolution in the eye.
To sum up:
You pick slashdotters, which eye do you prefer? Who is an Idiotic designer and who is an Intelligent designer?
:-)
As for the ID, walk out to the street, point to the first car you see and tell me how that came about by only naturalistic processes over millions of years. Having a designer as a cause is logical. Limited "scientific answers" to just naturism is purely philosophical and not logic., (i.e. Religion). Please keep you arguments logical, and not religious.
How do you distinguish murder from sodomy? Both are prohibited in the Old Testament--does "grace" cover the penalty for murder, and if so, why do you (presumably) feel justified in punishing murderers but not homosexuals? In your parable, how is the woman's prostitution different from murder?
If you are guilty of breaking any part of the law, you are guilty of breaking it all..
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. James 2:10
When it comes to sin, any form of sin is still sin, so both are bad, just like lying. I've heard of complaints about Christians that since they are forgiven they can get away with shit.
Yes, grace can cover every sin. When Jesus died, he said "It is finished", at that point all sins and every type of sin was satisfactory paid for in full, including murder, sodomy and lying. There is nothing needed to be added to that payment, all one person needs to do is accept that righteousness (legaleses for blameless) which is given away freely. (since we can't pay for it for what it's worth)
(I have to admit, I do quite like some of the Jesus-related bits of the Bible, that story being one of them. I don't believe Jesus himself ever condemned homosexuals.
I remember one of his speeches where he was talking to the pharisees (really stuck up religious jews)
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. Math 10:15
That is a reference to a punishment God gave to 5 citys (two of them are S & G) for them being evil. (and very well known to by gay, God sent 2 angles to drag a man and his family out of one of the citys and the people there tried to rape the angles.)
I have a sneaking suspicion he was a radical in many ways ahead of his time who found a way to spread his message of love for one another by making it a religion that then got inevitably twisted.)
He hated "religion". He wanted people to have a direct relationship with God. Since he cleared the path with the issue of sin. Yes you could call him a radical.
Also, are you aware that you're arguing that killing gay people was alright before Christ came along? That is, if we were having this discussion 2100 years ago, you would be completely justified in killing me, according to your arguments.
And you could to me for fornication.
I'm sorry, all I see in your arguments is an elaborate rationalization--you seem to be pretty alright with gay people on the whole, certainly you're not interested in killing us, but you also want to believe your holy book, so all that's left for you is to add a bunch of twisted interpretation to the Bible that allows you to keep both views simultaneously. (I don't mean to be insulting, just direct.)
No insult taken. :-)
I'm actually a mathematician, and I see the same basic pattern you're displaying in "crank" proofs. Cranks present (false) proofs of famous problems like this "proof" of Fermat's Last Theorem. The proof will typically be very long, vague, and/or hard to follow. Many of the individual steps are typically correct, though somewhere in the mass of details there's a faulty step or assumption. If the fault is pointed out, cranks either don't believe it or they do believe it only to make an even more complicated proof along the same lines whose faulty step or assumption is even more difficult to spot. In the case I linked, the faulty step occurs just after Figure 10, where it implicitly assumes an equation to hold that's equivalent to n=2. The contradiction later derived is merely a product of this faulty assumption; the methods employed are not nearly powerful enough to solve the act
I'm essentially certain that you'll never convince me to be a young earth creationist, though I'm not interested in pursuing that line of thought right now anyway. I'll say I disagree with all the science you mentioned, and that I have difficulty using the word "science" to describe it since "science" usually implies that you don't know your conclusion when you start exploring, whereas as far as I'm aware young earth creationists start from the conclusion that the Bible is true. Still, thanks for mentioning your viewpoint, it's at least interesting to hear.
I'm very curious how you can take the Bible literally enough to believe in the existence of Adam and Eve, extreme longevity, and a 6000 year-old earth, while simultaneously saying
Yes the bible in the old testament probably had a law to stone them. And many nasty things have been done to them in the past because of the fear of the straight man e.g. Alan Turning in England.
The verse I quoted doesn't mince words: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." You don't seem to believe this line, "they must be put to death". Why? How can you believe other parts of your book (that to me are just as crazy) without believing this one? Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent, to selectively ignore things?
I believe that law is still there but it has been covered by grace.
From the Christain/Jew point of view, the law was given to show what is right and wrong. The the old testament gave that law and it has not been replaced.
For a Christian (follower of Jesus), We are not under the law of the old testament but are under grace. The book of Romans talks about such logic. Jesus didn't replace the law but fulfilled them. So the law still there showing right and wrong but it is covered by grace which is holding back the punishment being applied to you. Hence it is still wrong to be gay, but we still love the man not the sin.
Once in a while it's argued that, while the Leviticus law once applied, it no longer does--but then it used to be okay (and right!) to kill gay people, but it no longer is. That just trades one form of inconsistency with another, though.
As I see it, (a) either homosexuality really is so horrible it truly deserves the death penalty, or (b) I'm just a guy who likes guys instead of girls and the parts I quoted from the Bible are just plain wrong. I believe (b). I see no other, consistent options, and (a) completely contradicts my own experience, not to mention actually following it would create a worldwide genocide *far* larger than the Holocaust. As I said originally, I do not know how people who call themselves Christians can reconcile acceptance of homosexuality with the repeated, strong condemnation of it found in the Bible.
Form the Bible, The wages of sin is death. (First with the body normally naturally and then second death of soul from spirit).
With sexual sins, several of them have the punishment of death for it. e.g. rape, adultery, gay, *fornication (sex out of marriage). *disclaimer: being a hypocrite here.
God still hates any/all types of sins (not just sexual) with some assigned a physical punishment of earth.
For me, I do not accept that homosexuality as being normal. (We will just disagree here) They shouldn't be punish for being gay as grace is now in effect, but God still made the dividing line of right and wrong and that hasn't change. Just the punishment is currently *neutered. (*lol, what a word for this conversation)
I am remembering a story in the bible where Jesus walked to over to a well where a slut-hooker-lonely woman was. There were men trying to stone her, Jesus wrote something in the sand (the only time he wrote then covered up so it wasn't recorded *people think it's the names of the crowd for were the lovers of the woman) and the c
Hello Frootloops,
Presumably, in your view God created me specially. He apparently designed me to be gay, since as far as I can tell I am innately gay (and in that sense I suppose my homosexuality is "natural" even with your definition). Around puberty when the other guys were becoming interested in girls I became interested in guys. I suspect genes conspired with conditions in my mom's womb to "flip a switch" an unusual way which only became apparent during adolescence. Why would God design me to be gay in light of the verses I quoted? It seems extremely cruel. The same argument can be made with "gay" replaced by "murderer", by the way. As far as I can tell the whole concept of being designed specially is flawed,...
The argument here is that we are not a direct creation of God. It's the same argument with someone with down symdrome or the australian soldiers exposed to nuke blast in australia for british tests in 1950s/60 where they and their children are dieing from cancers, tumors, and ever thing under the sun that could go wrong. I put that historical example in to show mutations are a bad thing to the body. (extremly rarly good but thats another topic)
In the christain belief system, The world & universe is cursed, basically alot of things a "f*cked up" (the * for any slashdot filters). Although Adam & Eve were perfect in the geans, each generation inherited the parent's mutations making them less functional. Some of these mutations can/will cause XXY, XYY kinds of people, maybe even female brain/male body types.
To put it as an analogy, God created a Ferreira, and over time the design being copied like chinese whispers, is starting to look like a golf.
Thats why the early generations (6000 years ago) lived for over 900 years, but with more generations the mistakes built up due to mutations so their live spans decreased like a half life graph, as genisicists would predict would happen. (note that the life span in the history in the bible doesn't actually prove it, it's just what would be expected given the asusmptions presented.)
So when a mutation happens it might make you gay but that it not the blueprint that God designed. (The chritian scienist view is that all living things are devolving, if you want I can talk about the logic/evidence there.)
but most people accept that conceit because of the comfort offered by believing in a benevolent all-powerful personal watchdog you can pray to and maybe get your wish from but who in any case makes everything work out for the best in your life, especially when it doesn't seem like it.
I agree, but I dont think most people think too much about it.
In my own view, evolution may be said to have designed a penis to fit in a vagina, but even supposing I wanted to use your definition of naturalness via design, that fact is not enough for me to call gay sex "unnatural" since the connotations of the word (bad; wrong; evil; confused; etc.) are so incorrect and inflammatory.
Side argument: Actually scientists dont know how sex came about because asexual reproduction is vastly fitter than sexual reproduction. For sexual reproduction, the genitals needs to be form both male and female all awhile asexual is carried on. It doesn't make sence. heres a 10 min video of arguments from a creationist site: http://creation.com/genesis-unleashed?page=1&fileID=Cu0IK-EB5F4. Lets argee to disagree here, I would still call the act not natural, even if you feel it is natural. Also I would admit that "natural" is a very bad/weak definition of a word for my point of view: e.g. some rabits are gay, so would that be natural?.
The bits I quoted about sodomy being "unnatural" and a "perversion" have been used to justify the death penalty and murders. This is not an old, abstract issue either. From Wikipedia's
I feel rather repulsed :-(
Hello Hellop2,
I have a vested interest in this. But lets cut to the chase of this ad homian argument.
What bussiness is this of mine because I am a milkman? Or let me rephase your statement to apply to you:
what business do you have discussing geology since you believe all geologic processes happened in a few billion years?
I am not the "christion" that can be bagged on because I dont know science. With my arguments I have IMO applied rational reasoning stating honestly why I choose to interprate the evidence in the manner I have. But I do have starting assumtions like you have. Can I say that you believe the big bang happen out of nothing? Magic yourself?, If not magic, please repeat in a science lab the BB again for me please. So both "sides" have their starting assumtions which both "sides" can way in the evidence.
Young Earth Creationists, YEC, believe that there was a world wide flood ~5000 years ago. A creationist in the mid 1800 first raised the idea of patheia super continent and tectonic plates moving away but the idea was rejected by "scienceist" for 50yrs later until they could put millions of years into the idea.
YEC came up with the idea of CTP, Catastrophic plate tectonics.
The idea is that the super continent split a part, and the plates moved away at 40kms at first, slowing down as they collided with another continent.
This raised the mountians and lowered the ocean trenches.
Sea Shells on Mt Everest, would be a good evidence of this model.
Flood laid down the layers for the Grand Canyon.
The Grand Canyon layers are all water based, including one layer of sand (under water sand dunes).
Since you have millions of years of the grand canyon, please explain why the border between each layer in the canyon is so horizontally smooth but the part exposed to the atmosphere is all worn away. If millions of years happened, then there would be erosion between the layers but there aint any.
I dont know about limestome and chalk, so I can't comment on such things.
For fossils you need to bury the dead/living thing quickly otherwise you dont get a fossil but it decays away. You dont see you pet cat that died in the back yard turning into a fossil. :-( That is what happens when you try to please one religion with another. The outcome is niether are true.
Also you dont need millions of years either. There are pictures of hats fossiled, wind mills, axes, etc.. all fossiled in running water. Japanese scienists recently also announce in Japan that it took them only 8 yrs to fossilise something.
Yes there are stupid "christians" who thing God only put it there to deceive us. I am having this argument with my own paster
You seem like a reasonably intelligent fellow
Thank you. usually I just expect to get yelled out.
homosexuality is not a choice
I am still thinking about that. The preferance might not a choice but the act still it.
With the comment of trolling, I get that often. I thought slashdot was where many people talk about stuff. :-( .
Would you prefer if we all thing the same? all shall love google, hate apple, hate sony. oh wait, hate google, love apple, hate sony.
Just how thoese fanboys can express thier believes, why should I be filtered out when I have something you dont agree with? isn't that censorship which the bulk of slashdot dont like?
If you really dont like what I have to say, either ignore me or if I am trolling, down vote me
Please dont downvote me, I am talking intelligently and not saying "yo dang, you thought the earth of old."
I think it is in the best interest so that all sides know what the real arguments are, and not to keep others thinking of a strawman "christian".
Say you don't like homosexuality, say you don't agree with the practice, but don't call it unnatural.
Sorry, A rose is still a rose by any other name.
Virtually every species that has a sex practices homosexuality.
Agreed I assume. That reminds me of a pet rabbit I had.
Still is killing your own son/daughter natural? because animals do that as well.
In fact every single human being starts out female and it takes a very specific process at a very specific time to distinguish an embryo as male and if everything doesn't happen exactly right, brain gender or preference may be impacted.
No, humans are not female in the woem, just because they haven't developed a dick yet doesn't mean they are female. All the cells in the baby from day one says wither it's male or female.
That my friend is God at work. There is now strong evidence that a number of social animals use homosexuality as a means to control overpopulation (that is, when a population approaches its carrying capacity the instance of homosexuality increases noticeably.)
Thats interesting. I would need to look up on that.
It makes perfect sense that when Jews numbered in the thousands that "God" informed them it was time go forth and multiply, and clearly homosexuality would have been a wrench in the works. Now that there are 7,000,000,000 of us, perhaps being gay might not be such a sin anymore.
The commandment existed before the Jews. The argument of over population isn't addressed by lets all by gay, it's about not getting pregnant by either banging less or using the pill. by controlling your urges and not having more than 1 child per adult.
And I call B.S. on your calling B.S. Clearly you have NO knowledge of the huge number of intersexed children born every year. As I mentioned before, everyone starts out female. It is guessed that over 2% (some suggest as much as 4%, but that's probably pushing some of the minor deformities) of the population is born with some degree of intersexing, and that for the most part doctor make surgical changes at birth to cover up anomalies without ever telling the parent (except in those cases where the anomaly is significant.) There is clearly a genetic component to homosexuality so indeed God does make Gays and Lesbians, but on top of that, research indicate that Transsexuals have brain structures consistent with their gender of choice and not their somatic sex (literally brain of one sex in body of another.) There are even chimera walking around, people composed of the genetic components of 2 even 3 different fertilized eggs, sometimes even having different genetic sex. When it come to sex and preference my friend, God has an incredible sense of humor and there are literally hundred of combinations and permutations. So when you say Male and Female, its clear that A) You haven't got the foggiest clue of which you speak and B) You put your personal beliefs ahead of any kind of logic, understanding, enlightenment or pragmatic view of the real world in which you live. Silly child.
Yes I am aware there are genetic "freaks" out there, if they have these mutations then feel free bang male or female since they are both. If you are fully male than that is not a moral choice.
It's an interesting point about transsexuals having a female brain. With them they believe they are female trapped in a male body. I am not sure what to make out with that else from if you can swing it (before it's chopped off) then you are still a man in a mans body despite you thinking like a girl. reminds me of seeing lady boys in thailand. strangely "cute" until my wife said what they were.
The men under discussion were essentially going "gay for pay". Again, the men I was thinking about were completely gay for each other.
[On a serious note, I have
The layer of 3KM thick of coal stretching in the shape of a triangle of each side being 100kms long, is very very big. The size means you would have to have a massive peat bog that sinks exactly at the rate at which the peat grows. If it sank too quickly the water drowns everything. This process would have to have been just right for over 100,000 years. We do not see peat swaps that size anywhere else on else. The flood explains this by the dumping of the huge vegetation in the plant at that time.
That why we get things like the petrified forest in yellow stone, where logs are fossilised vertically through many layers of mud (which normally it would take millions of years to accumulate and the wood would of rot then.).
Oh, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear, but my post was a joke. I'm fully aware that the points I made are ridiculous, especially in the "offenders", "practice", and "gay for pay" cases. I also obviously twisted Paul's words in the Romans case. I thought the absurdity of my points together with the last line (which you quoted) would clearly flag the whole thing as a joke, but I was apparently too subtle and accidentally crossed the line into Poe's Law territory.
Ah, my bad. I thought you were serious. well whooosh to me :-(
I am curious about your reasoning on a few points.
There isn't Male, Female, Gay, Les, there are only Male & Female
What does this mean? Gay men and lesbians certainly exist. Are you giving a pseudo-quote from Mark 10:6, "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" (or Genesis 1:27 which it's paraphrasing)? If so, why? Did God not create me, a gay man, too? Are my desires for men and lack of desire for women not His work, in your view? Paul would call me evil and my homosexuality the fruit of evil, though Jesus said not to judge others (presumably especially if you know next to nothing about them). How do you judge me?
Of course Gay & Les exist. My statement of God not creating them is because God only create Adam and Eve. All humans since then are children of them. So you and me and not direct creations of God, but only based on the corrupted blueprints of the originals.
somewhere in the bible: Judge not lest you be Judge. and somewhere else a Righteous man judges everything. The dont judge others I would assume applies to hypercrites which Jesus really hated.
For a gay man it's still an unnatural act even if he prefers & love doing it.
What do you define as a natural act? Our definitions appear to disagree wildly. Me having sex with a woman would be extraordinarily unnatural inasmuch as it is not in my nature to desire sexual relations with women whatsoever (if anything I desire having no sexual relations with women). I imagine you feel the same way about sex with men. Perhaps you have a sort of idealized view of nature that differs sharply from the actual world around us? If so, what is that view? How do you suppose appealing to that view will convince others who only care about the world as it exists of anything? Also, do you consider gay sex indecent? A perversion?
I would define natural as something which is designed for. and hence unnatural as something not designed. e.g. (in an bad comparison) plugging a speaker cable into a power socket. When it comes to Humans, it was M & F, it wasn't M & M. The male loves the female. I am aware that gay people view what they do as part of themselves i.e "natural" to them, but feeling that way doesn't make it natural according to the design. The same way how it's feels natural for a catholic priest to "love" a little helpless boy/girl, doesn't make it natural. I believe feelings are not relevant here in what makes it natural.
I dont not believe that my views will change anyone else. Yes I think it's gay sex is indecent just because it's M & M. and not indecent (in private) for M & F (ass)
BTW, As a Christian, I love the gay man but I dont want him to butt fuck me. (Love the man, not the sin)
Is this at all relevant? I don't want to butt fuck you either, by the way. For one thing it would be non-consensual. From your post, I'm really not sensing that you have any love for me whatsoever. If you do, how do you show that love?
I give the origin of my views that I am posting from so people know why I think the way I do. I am not too sure how to answer that question of how am I showing love else from I am (trying) treating you with respect as a human. although I disagree with your views (if it is yours or
Not a biblical scholar myself, so you'll want to check up on it yourself. But my understanding has always been that the Law of Moses was in addition to the Gospel. The Law of Moses came about because the people wanted specifics on exactly how far they could deviate from God's will and what the associated price of redemption was for each deviation. This excess body of laws was essentially wiped out with Christ, note that he always emphazied the spirit of the laws rather than the letter. His Atonement fulfilled the Law of Sacrifice, which had existed from Adam and Eve, significantly predating Moses.
When I said "should abstain from homosexual relations" I was speaking in the context of a Christian who believes that what is natural is not important because the natural man is an enemy to God. If you believe that than essentially everyone is an enemy to God and merely less evil than others depending on their level of self discipline.
I wouldn't say everyone is an enemy. Yes all have sin and fallen short but not everyone is a fool. a fool opposes God. Many try to live a "good" life to their best understanding.
It was a Peppers analoogy, pizza is just a delicous way to consume them! From conversations with my Mother in Law it would seem that my wife naturally do not like peppers. In that she at a very young age refused to eat them when everyone else around her liked them. I was simply using it as an example where a small subset of people naturally are disposed to dislike something that most everyone else likes.
I would say that reading comprehension can be clouded by ones beliefs.
I agree.
I've known a number of people who can't understand how someone else could interpret a verse of scpriture differently than they do. I am no doubt affected by this as well but I do seem to notice it a lot in others, even among my own familial religion, which makes me think I might be more empathetic when it comes to differing points of view. Someone doesn't have to believe the same things that I do in order to understand what I write unless I am being overly ambiguous.
I agree. But there was ambiguity in the word "natural", as I could only see it being "natural" like how a floppy disk could corrupt on you when you have important data on it.
The impossibility of God could be a very long subject so I'll try to be as short as possible for everyones sake. The relevant attributes of the Christian God being that he is just, never wrong and knows the future. The logical issues boil down to whether or not free will is possible. If we have free will then it is impossible for God to know the future but he can justly hold us responsible for our actions. If we don't have free will then God can know the future but he can not justly hold us responsible for breaking a law.
That is an interesting decision to make, IMO, I believe both are true. It would be like putting a candy bar in front of a two year old and telling him not to eat it. The first thing he will do is eat it when he thinks your not looking. You "knew" he would do that and he had free will to do/not do that. There are times God will jump in according to the bible and tell people he will destroy a city unless they repent, and the city repented. This show that God can intervene and change the future.
The knowing the future attribute is based on him existing in eternity. The creator who created matter & time has to be outside of space & time in order to create it. Eternity is not lots of time, it's outside of time altogether.
Personally I'm inclined to believe that there is no free will. But I understand that it is expedient as a society for us to believe that we do.
In my christian point of view, (I may be wrong here as I havn't study this area), The Law hasn't been replaced. Jesus fulfilled the punishment required by the law but the law is still there telling what is right / wrong. Grace is given so we are forgiven for trespassing against the law. Like how a cop can let you go for smoking. despite him doing that, it's still against the law.
For point 2: I had a rabbit that would bang everything and anything, female rabbits, male rabbits (back or front), your shoe. I've seen birds shag dead birds. I would probably say that Animals dont have morals installed in them like humans. Some animals eat there own young.
so one should abstain from homosexual relations
I dont understand that. If your an enemy of God, why not. E.g. Satan would do all he can to spite God.
I think you might have a point here. Being a fallen, sin riddled state that we are in, it could be normal for some people to be gay, wither transitory or permanent. Yet even in that state, it still doesn't subtract that it's against God's will (according to the Bible).
The pizzas analogy I dont think applies, its like saying one person likes blue and another green, while both doesn't matter to God.
Reading comprehension is not linked to a persons faith
This is a generic blanket statement, applies to some, and not to others. If someone doesn't understand something, they may or may not believe in it.
3, I am curious, can you explain the logical fallacies of the Christian God please.
Cheers
There are many flood legends. http://creation.com/many-flood-legends
http://creation.com/australian-aboriginal-flood-stories
Evidence of a global flood, well off the top of my head,
look around and you will find that you can explain alot with a great flood. Blindly saying theres no evidence will only get you applauses from people who dont want to know.
But I am serious! Gay butt sex between loving men is fine for Gentiles [== not(Jews)] post-Jesus. For while it is written in the Law of Moses that
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. - Leviticus 20:13
it is also written in the New Testament that
[The council concluded] we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God [by requiring them to follow the whole Law of Moses]. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." - Acts 15:5, 19-20
Now sexual immorality is a rather vague phrase which I take to mean rape and generally non-consensual sex. You might be a little confused by the scattered references to homosexuality in Paul's letters which seem to imply that homosexuality is sexually immoral. However,
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders ... will inherit the kingdom of God.
- 1 Corinthians 6:9
discusses homosexual offenders, that is, people who break the law. Since sodomy is not illegal in my country, we're fine there. Next,
What a cop out. The above quote in Leviticus 20:13, sets the law from God. Arguing that it isn't against the law of USA doesn't mean anything to the "kingdom of God". You could argue that in some African country it is legal to rape and kill, and hence "we're fine there", Next.
For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, ..., or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching that comes from the glorious Good News entrusted to me by our blessed God.
- 1 Timothy 1:9-11
Here one must practice homosexuality for it to be a sin. The people I was imagining weren't actively practicing their technique; they simply did what came naturally. Some translations don't even list sodomy/homosexuality here, so the interpretation is also debatable. Finally we have,
Here one must practice killing their father for it to be a sin. If you only do it once then it isn't a sin because you only killed your father once. About "what came naturally": The argument here is that homosexuality isn't normal. The argument goes along the lines of a male is designed for a female. and the union there of is a symbol of the relationship of God to Jews and Jesus to Gentiles. Because some closed closet homos decided to rewrite verse to make homos not listed there, doesn't subtract to what was written.
This one is trickier to interpret correctly. What is an "indecent act" or a "natural relation"? For gay men, an indecent or unnatural act would be sex with a woman.
I call BS on that. There isn't Male, Female, Gay, Les, there are only Male & Female. For a gay man it's still an unnatural act even if he prefers & love doing it.
The men u
It's a simple word to number conversion, it's not like scrabble where z=10, u =1, q=4.
Yes you could debate if this is just all made up but the fact is it is still there adding up.
But you could argue the Genesis PI value is a magic formula.
If you dont know about it, It's a formula for the first verse is something like this from my memory:
(sum of letters * product of letters) / (sum of words * sum of words).
With that you get the value of 3.141 * 10 ^ 70. to my memory, (that is 10 to the power of 70).
Well a valid reply would be that is just a made up formula that very remarkably reaches a value that is recognisable, and you would be right in saying that, but...
If you do that same formula to the New Testament's main creation verse you get 2.7182 x 10 ^ 30.
E wasn't discovered until the 16th century, so it's interesting that encoded in the text that a fisherman written are these advance mathematical constants of the universe in them.
Well feel free to dismiss these observations, as you shouldn't apply theology on them, they are only what Christians say are: signatures of the spirit.
There must be other locations this simple code is used but I haven't looked into these types of codes enough.
Edward Blyth (1810–1873) was the man whose ideas probably influenced Darwin most. An English chemist and zoologist, Blyth wrote three major articles on natural selection that were published in The Magazine of Natural History from 1835 to 1837.7 Charles was well aware of these. Not only was this one of the leading zoological journals of that time, in which his friends Henslow, Jenyns and Lyell had all published articles, but also it seems that the University of Cambridge, England, has Darwin’s own copies of the issues containing the Blyth articles, with Charles’s handwritten notes in the margins!
The publication of his Origin of Species was in 1859, 20 years later. So Natural Selection is a creationist theory. :-)
I am sure that will make some of you through up in your own mouths.
I see two counter argument points here.
1 - The unborn child are people that will be men & women themselfs. Just because they are unborn doesn't make them not people. (Unless you want to get to the argument of unhuman people are like blacks, asians, jews, 99%ers etc... there not real people so have no rights. )
2 - Scale of "right". Should I be denied life because it's an inconvenience to someone else? How about if someone was holding you hostage for a quarter?
why should I pay quarter of my money to save your live?
In that argument the woman/girl is being greatly inconvenience for 9 months wither or not it's her own fault doesn't matter, the other human is being deprived their right to live.
So how dare those "religious fanatics" are fighting to preserve the right to life (even to you once maybe?) just because it annoys your mother.
So tell me, what is worth more? Your life or you mother being inconvenience for 9 months.
The first chapter gives the order in creation, the second chapter doesn't give an order hence the two do not conflict. It's like me making my bed at 8am then making my breakfast at 9 am. then I rang my mum and said I made breakfast and made my bed. Both are true, only 1 gives the order explicitly.
Are you aware that that in that verse that that word circumference is misspelt there and only there in the entire bible. Normally the Hebrew word is 3 letters long but the misspelt word is only 2 letters long. The scribes would write in the side they believe it to be the 3 letter word "circumference" but they never corrected the "mistake".
As it turns out, if you use the code of a=1 b=2 c=2, for the Hebrew language you get a value of:
3 letter = 111
2 letter = 106.
111 / 106 = 1.0471698113207547169811320754717 notice something with that value? it's 1/3rd of Pi to 4 decimal places
111 / 106 * 3 = 3.1415094339622641509433962264151 which gave an accuracy to 1/15000 of an inch.
pi == 3.1415926535897932384626433832795
Just thought I should mention that next time you feel like trying to boast about something.
"reationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting"
That is a interesting point. What is information. The problem here is that data needs to be interpreted. This is a vagueness about this as what constitute info and data. E.g. you would say Mozart's music is designed even if you heard it being played by a learner on a flute that got every 10th note wrong.
1. 1 increased genetic variety in a population i.e. Lenski
In this example they are trying to show how mutations have made the bacteria evolved.
The problem here is that it is devolution. That is a functioning gene got stuck on.
Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’?
1.2 increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
The argument here is gene duplication is the technique used to gain "information" in DNA so things can evolve. The theory goes on the lines of "part/whole of a gene/chromosome" which is then free to mutate into something useful while the other picks up the stack.
I have just been reading up on this so I can reply to you (hence my delay in replying (that and work and doing stuff with the wife)), A creationist view here (I assume ID as well) is gene duplication does happen, it's proven many times over. But gene duplication is usually very bad in humans and animals. An example of gene duplication is Down’s syndrome. (the reverse is Turner syndrome). The genes *tend* interact badly with each other and when done artificially in mice, they dont survive. *Tends mean that I read a case where the double up of a gene helped out a lemur to process food when the doubled gene mutated.
I thought I should point out that although genes/chromosomes can duplicate, it doesn't mean it's evolving. As a classic example from a site: Gene Duplication
In regard to gene number, humans have about 25,000 genes,23 while rice has 50,000.24 In terms of genome size, the largest known genome does not occur in man, but rather in a bacterium! Epulopiscium fishelsoni carries 25 times as much DNA as a human cell, and one of its genes has been duplicated 85,000 times yet it is still a bacterium.25
What caught me by surprise is strangely it's seems to be very common and tolerated in plants, but when the plant does this it can suffer from a fitness cost like in mutations and natural selection.
:-( Rough shot at the subject, Unless they can show the same bacteria having 2 halves and another generation having it fused, they are just guessing about it's "evolution" pass. Also an alternate solution was it was a whole and a mutation split them into 2, another mutation can join them up. again sorry I couldn't be bother looking too deeply into this.
I thought I should also point out this plant which will revert it's DNA if it needs too.
1.3 novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
Sorry but I was having a hard time searching for Knox. I would like a last name so I could know what they are talking about.
1.4 novel genetically-regulated abilities
Just skimming by this. Nylon Bacteria
2. Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway
Sorry my eyes glazed over while looking into this. I am not a chemist
Zha
I didn't mean to state that you trying to deceive, you seem genuine in your comments. please forgive me if I offended you, my words are not meant to insult you or put you down.
Also, I'm not using two different terms for evolution, there is no trick and I am appalled that you try to state that. That mutations are not often/usually beneficial is not a surprise or a hidden agenda. Nor is it that they are always passed on nor dominant. It's not a conflict. It's pretty damn obvious actually. Of course, no one, and certainly not I, claimed that all mutations are beneficial. I'm very confused that you even took it that way and am left to wonder what your agenda really is.
On one side, evolution, you have natural selection leading to the selection of genetic mutations. It's verifiable, testable and the theory fits the available evidence.
I read that line above and though you are using the term evolution in two different ways. You used evolution as in "Natural Selection" in an attempt to prove "Goo to You" evolution. Many people do this. I was just trying to show that this line alone isn't showing evolution, just features of natural selection. ID doesn't have anything against Natural Selection. It is required to explain all the different variations of life on earth. ID uses the first line to explain the world and your right that ID and creationists belief that mutations dont lead to a new "kind".
I am a devils advocate and serious. I hate when a belief is passed off as science and then used to bash other opinions. So I am just pointing out the flaws in the science of evolution. Trying to show that the beliefs in it makes it a religion in itself. You may disagree with me, that is fine. I just want to raise the point that there are other serious opinions in logic other than we are just all mistakes of the universe. Most evolutions never hear an informed opposing view. Cheers.
You obviously have little clue about theory of natural selection and everything that goes with it. Perhaps you would have a better argument if you actually understood how evolution works.
I disagree. Please to any error in my statements?
The Theory of Natural Selection basically states that if a mutation helps you in survival, you are more likely to mate and the helpful mutation will propagate, which will eventually lead to great changes to the specie over time.
*I agree. The degree of change is limited to the variation in the species. Selection only picks out what is already there. Sometimes the change can be great, e.g. Great Dane vs chiwawa, but they are still both dogs.
There is nothing in this theory that says ALL mutations are helpful. I don't know where you got that idea from, but perhaps not drinking from the ID kool-aid will help you in that endeavor.
You are correct, But evolution requires a change agent and Natural Selection does not cut the mustard. In all it's flavors, e.g. specification with a separated population, (like flys in hawaii) are still just Natural Selection which only picks from pre existing information. Selection by definition filters information so the geane pool of the creature is lesser more specified. (thus less able to adapt later on) The only change agent in town now for "goo to you" is mutations.
There is no such a thing as bait and switch in science.
I agree, but if your terms are not well defined, then the layman will get things mixed up. Hence I try to explain the difference between Natural Selection (Survival of the fittest & proven), to Evolution (as in "goo to you", *not proven (*not counting devolution which ID and Creations agree with.)) Tell me, if someone came up to you in the street and ask what was evolution, would you say the theory of creatures changing? or the theory that everything came from a single cell? Because if you said evolution is the theory of creatures changing, that would make me an evolutionist. :-O
Either your theory is supported by evidence or it isn't. ID has no evidence nor a way to test it. It is not science. Evolution is a fact, Theory of Natural Selection is a well proven theory.
I would have to disagree with you here. With ID, they show examples of complex structures requiring all components to be working for it to exist and without there being any in-between forms for them to work therefore evidence of a designer. With evolution they require everything to happen by chance but Natural selection will remove the unfit half baked structures long before they would be established. Please show me evidence in a lab for evolution that is repeatable. The best example I know about is when for 30 years over 30,000 generations of bacteria were bread and through a 3 point mutation, they gain the ability to process citrus acid as a food source. The problem here is that that doesnt prove evolution as it actually broke a geane were they could already process citrus acid as food in an oxygen free environment. So NS favorited the defect but the gene is now stuck "on" making it less fit compared to the wild cussons. You might disagree with the evidence that ID has but it still there. Saying it isn't science, well how about evolution? it dogmatically chooses a materialist reason over logical reasons. Tell me, is you see a watch in the beach, would you say it's just wind and rain that caused the silicon and glass to take shape or would you say some kid dropped it there? saying something is design is a logical conclusion, rejecting a conclusion before you hear the evidence on the basis of a belief (materialism) would make you as bad the creationists :-)
Its a new account. My other account is Obble. slashdot really doesn't like my opinions hence I get -1 troll status at first post and therefore censored. I am very surprised to have 2 in rating as I usually just get down voted into oblivion by people with other more common strong world views.
Edward Blyth (1810–1873) was the man whose ideas probably influenced Darwin most. An English chemist and zoologist, Blyth wrote three major articles on natural selection that were published in The Magazine of Natural History from 1835 to 1837.7 Charles was well aware of these. Not only was this one of the leading zoological journals of that time, in which his friends Henslow, Jenyns and Lyell had all published articles, but also it seems that the University of Cambridge, England, has Darwin’s own copies of the issues containing the Blyth articles, with Charles’s handwritten notes in the margins
What ID & creationists argue against what is being passed off as science, namely the "goo to you via the zoo" Grant theory of evolution. NS works by filtering out what is already in the population, this is not a creative effect but only a selective effect. Mutations works against the host vastly more often than they benfit. Scientific Test: If you argue mutations are good, please step inside a necular reactor :-P
(Actually there are some rare cases of mutations being good to the host but every instances it because of something breaking, which doesn't show Goo to you)
But for Evolution, you use a bait and switch to lure in the layman by saying, see here these things change/evolved over time, and fitter things survive, therefor things evolved from mud in the ground. :-P The fallacy here is you are using 2 different terms for evolution to trick the layman, and I think it's a very cleaver trick imo.
So please dont call the kettle black, when you own views you declare out loud to everyone have there own "faith" based position.