PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Origin of Life
       One step closer...

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 07:42 AM on November 22, 2009 :We take the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God, not a story that men can theorize about and change if they feel like it.

Ok Lester, what is your stance on slavery?



-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 11:25 AM on November 22, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Getting back to the original topic - the Origin of Life.  Researchers in Italy have demonstrated that long polymers of RNA can form in water from cyclic nucleotides.

From here:
Origin of Life: Generating RNA Moleucles in Water


Now, Ernesto Di Mauro and colleagues found that ancient molecules called cyclic nucleotides can merge together in water and form polymers over 100 nucleotides long in water ranging from 40-90 °C -similar to water temperatures on ancient Earth.

Cyclic nucleotides like cyclic-AMP are very similar to the nucleotides that make up individual pieces of DNA or RNA (A, T, G and C), except that they form an extra chemical bond and assume a ring-shaped structure. That extra bond makes cyclic nucleotides more reactive, though, and thus they were able to join together into long chains at a decent rate (about 200 hours to reach 100 nucleotides long).

This finding is exciting as cyclic nucleotides themselves can be easily formed from simple chemicals like formamide, thus making them plausible prebiotic compounds present during primordial times. Thus, this study may be revealing how the first bits of genetic information were created.


Funny how those 'teritary' educational institutions that Lester is so disdainful of keep adding more evidence supporting evolution and abiogenesis, while Creationist can't muster up much of anything except making empty assertions.

 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 4:36 PM on November 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok Lester, what is your stance on slavery?


Personally I don't agree with it.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:53 AM on November 23, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 10:53 AM on November 23, 2009 :
Ok Lester, what is your stance on slavery?


Personally I don't agree with it.


But the bible says that it is acceptable...




-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 05:13 AM on November 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

form polymers over 100 nucleotides long in water ranging from 40-90 °C -similar to water temperatures on ancient Earth


How do they know this? Were they there?

Cyclic nucleotides like cyclic-AMP are very similar to the nucleotides that make up individual pieces of DNA or RNA (A, T, G and C), except that they form an extra chemical bond and assume a ring-shaped structure.


Rendering them useless for the job.

Researchers in Italy have demonstrated that long polymers of RNA can form in water from cyclic nucleotides.


How long? As I understand it, not very long at all since the law of mass action will tend to break them down. How many amino-acids can be coded for with 100 nucleotides? Approximately 33. How long is the average protein? 100's of amino acids. How many proteins would you need for the most basic of living cells? Lots

thus making them plausible prebiotic compounds present during primordial times


If you believe in abiogenesis, this might sound plausible to you but I contend that even believers in abiogenesis know that this is far from good enough. Plausible seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

The same people who do these experiments know that DNA and RNA and proteins do not form naturally by any stretch of the imagination even under the best conditions with all the components available in the same place - so what is this 'plausible'?

If these are 'prebiotic' components and we put them all together in the same place and under the supposedly correct prebiotic temperatures, why don't they go ahead and do their job? Why don't they form DNA or RNA?

Do these experiments show plausible conditions for early life or do they in fact show that even with intelligent intervention, we can't get DNA or RNA to form 'naturally'?

I call this wishful thinking or faith-based delusional thinking.

Funny how those 'teritary' educational institutions that Lester is so disdainful of keep adding more evidence supporting evolution and abiogenesis


You have it all wrong Orion. This is not evidence supporting evolution nor even supporting abiogenesis. Looking at it objectively, I'd say it is evidence against the very possibility of any such thing.

while Creationist can't muster up much of anything except making empty assertions.


We assert according to the evidence available. Evolutionists assert according to their faith that it must have happened.






-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 05:42 AM on November 23, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But the bible says that it is acceptable...


Does the Bible discuss slavery as a fact of life in the past or does it say that God accepted slavery and said it was the right thing to do?

Do you realize that the Bible is, to a large extent, a history book and that a lot of things that are faithfully related in it were not any part of God's original plan; they were what people did because they were fallen man not listening to God most of the time?
Can you tell me where God said that slavery was the right thing to do? I know that the Israelites were in slavery under pharoah and that God allowed it but the Israelites were the cause of their own troubles by not listening to God. They used to get into a lot of trouble before they'd finally realize that they needed God to help them out of the dwang.

They are doing it in Israel again right now. God called them a hard-necked people.They are more secular than ever and don't realize that their messiah has come and gone without them noticing - just as the prophets foretold. They are surrounded by their enemies and even America is forsaking them for political correctedness.
God knows they will call for him sooner or later but only when they have come to the end of themselves and know that they are no longer able to fend off their enemies themselves.

When they call on him and repent of all their evil, God will hear them and come to their aid. Just watch and see.

This same principle works for the individual, non-Jew as well. When you get to the end of the way you've been mishandling your life, when you've run out of plans and decide that God can do a better job, call on Him, he's waiting to hear from you and He will help.

I know, he helped me when I called Him just like He said He would.  




-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:01 AM on November 23, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:01 PM on November 23, 2009 :
Does the Bible discuss slavery as a fact of life in the past or does it say that God accepted slavery and said it was the right thing to do?

Do you realize that the Bible is, to a large extent, a history book and that a lot of things that are faithfully related in it were not any part of God's original plan; ... Big long bit of blah blah preach blah


Right, so what you are saying is that you can pick and choose which bits to actually abide by based on how you feel at the time? How do you know that entire sections haven't just been made up. It certainly seems feasible, since the people responsible for writing it were... well, people and eminently capable of telling the odd fib, especially considering that they had all 'fallen'. Can you not accept that at least some of the bible is fictitious as a possibility?


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 07:29 AM on November 23, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:01 AM on November 23, 2009 :
But the bible says that it is acceptable...


Does the Bible discuss slavery as a fact of life in the past or does it say that God accepted slavery and said it was the right thing to do?


You don't actually READ the Bible do you?

Try Leviticus 25, starting with the first verse.  Read for content.



1 While Moses was on Mount Sinai, the Lord said to him, 2 “Give the following instructions to the people of Israel.

. . . (Omit sections about Jubilee)

44 “However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. 45 You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, 46 passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:05 AM on November 23, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester
Pacifier.com, courtesy of Wisp "We might think that the world is a cruel place now, but millions of years ago the dinosaurs lived in a world without mercy"
Well there’s a clue screaming out of the page –millions of years ago…
Haha! Yeah, you're absolutely right! xD

I saw it after i posted it.
What did Fencer say – ICR?
Don't recall.
…but it comes from a site called pacifier.com so what has that got to do with ICR?
I wasn't talking about the ICR. There are several creationists who believe this.

The one i quoted turned out to be an Old Earth Creationist. But even YECs show tons of inconsistencies. Dembski, big ID proponent, even believes in Evolution. He says there's no question about it. That it's the way to implement the intelligently guided plan, or some crap like that.
these people believe in millions of years and creationists don’t.
YOUNG Earth Creationists don't. There are lots of different convictions among creationists.

For instance, you believe that vestigiality happens through "mutational corruption". Timbrx doesn't believe it happens at all.
Aha –reconciliation between ‘science’ and the Bible –there’s the theistic evolutionist mindset creeping in again. We take the Bible as the inerrant, infallible Word of God, not a story that men can theorize about and change if they feel like it. There are no millions of years in the Bible as the comprehensive genealogies clearly show.
Exactly. So to Hell with Science!

You just don't have the courage to say it.
There are lots of scientific facts that contradict your sacred book. To Hell with all of them!

Wisp
What's the probability that your father produced your exact sperm, and that your mother produced your exact egg? What's the probability that those two met? That your sperm beat the other 20 million sperms? Divide that by the chance that your father met your mother. Divide that by the chance that your grandparents produced your parents.

Chances are you don't exist, Lester.
Well let’s face it Wisp, some sperm found some egg – since there are billions of sperm and the egg is pretty big and the sperm are heading in the right direction, I’d say they had a great chance especially since my parents were practicing a lot most likely, had loads of opportunity and every practice involved billions more sperm.
You don't understand. Silly me, i thought you would...
So can we get back to the chances that a land mammal would accidentally mutate all the correct equipment for underwater life?
With or without natural selection? Because you're not mentioning it.

Wanna leave it out? Then the chances are next to nothing.

Satisfied?

Wisp
Lester
You should really give up on the Bible Fencer. If it is just a book that you take parts from, if it is not inspired and not to be taken as God’s Word, why do you bother with it at all?
I'm with you on this one, Lester. All the way.

That's what we need to teach every Christian! Spread the word!
The only difference is that I believe that Fencer is doing the wrong thing compromising on God’s Word for the fallible words of fallen man that prefer to believe what they prefer to believe.
Oh, i agree! If you believe it to be the word of God, you can't pick and choose what suits you.

Take it or leave it. That's what i say. Don't you agree?
So, don’t give up on the Bible, Fencer, just the heresy.
Well, there are two choices (take it or leave it). You and i agree on this, it seems.

You and i don't like fence-sitting. We don't like diluted Christianity. We have different reasons, but never mind that.

wisp
Lester
The difference is that evolution’s mud apparently organized itself while God’s dust needed organization of its parts via intelligence.
Have you ever seen a dead frog? What makes it alive? All the parts are there but no life. What animates it?
Tell us. Is it magic?
No, it is called organization.
Oh, very true!

Take a bag of potato chips, shake it, the big ones go on top. There. Organization.
When you put a frog in a blender,
Not often, i assure you.
you disorganize it.
Yes indeed.
The parts no longer work flawlessly together as they were designed to.
Designed? Like snowflakes?

You don't like Science, Lester.
Oh I love science plenty Wisp.
You talk about "truth" and "proof". You don't like change. You don't like mistakes. You don't like imagination. You don't like trial and error. You don't like speculation.

No, Lester. You can't convince anyone. You can't have Science with any of those things that disgust you.
It’s the hidden philosophies that I don’t like.
Blah blah blah.

I don't care for those movements. But i do believe that realizing the oneness helps you being good to your neighbor far better than the Bible ever could.
How does materialistic evolution back up this oneness scenario Wisp?
In no way that i can think of (that's not too far fetched).

Evolution produces the opposite. Parasitism, predation, religion, selfishness, etc.

That's what makes the oneness difficult to realize.

And i hope that they don't have to steal it from you, and that you'll give it willingly, just like Matthew 5:42 commands you, in order to be consistent.
No, the Bible actually condemns stealing Wisp.
Er... Leave aside the fact that it sometimes condones and commands it: I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT IT! I clearly said the opposite. That they DON'T have to steal it from you.
Would you give your wallet to anyone who asks?

You don't even give me the answers i ask from you.

I also hope you love derwood, like Luke 6:35 tells you to.
Oh I try, it’s a challenge, but luckily I don’t hate anybody in anycase.
I didn't read "Don't hate your enemy" but "Love your enemy".
I’m so sorry Wisp – perhaps I am not perfected yet?
Indeed. But you can say that about anyone. You know it's the word of God and you can't follow it. Some people don't even know it's the word of God. I think you have less justification.
Have you never been sarcastic to somebody you loved?
Guilty as charged.
Did you love them less for noticing their idiocies?
That's a very good point.

Nevertheless you don't love derwood. I don't think you love me either.

But if you do try to love everyone, i congratulate you. I share your struggle. And i don't need any sacred text.

"To love" means (to me) to recognize the other as a sensitive entity, and to wish for him/her the same as you wish for yourself. I'm pretty good at it, i think, but i'll never be satisfied.
Ok so perhaps Derwood has been put in my path to test me as a very trying case….I will ask the Lord for forgiveness and the capacity to care more for Derwood.
I think that's a good thing. I think we need God in order to humble ourselves.

As you might have noticed, i'm not that humble.
Believe it or not, i try.
But pretending that there's a good chance that i'm wrong in certain things would be lying, not humbleness.

Wisp
Lester
We see that fruit flies only ever beget fruit flies no matter what,
That would be name calling.
So do names mean nothing then?
Yes they do. And that's not the issue here. Names can mean many things.

For instance, saying "Horseshoe crab" doesn't mean that we're talking about an actual crab.
Can you call a spider a fruit fly just as easily?
No.

But in a way i can call mammals "reptiles". We still have four legs, teeth, head, and so many other things as our reptile inheritance.

If fruit flies changed as much as we did from our reptilian days, you'd still call them "fruit flies". Fine by me. I don't care much for names. I care about facts.

wisp
Lester
and we believe that thus there are limits to variation.
If i start a thread about that, would you post? Because i don't know what you're talking about, and my guess is that you don't either.
Sure Wisp, anytime.
Cool! I'll take your word, and i'll start that thread right now.

wisp
Lester
You see fruit flies remaining fruit flies no matter what
You mean "we'll call them that no matter what".
Even a retarded or deformed human is still a ‘human’ Wisp.
I would call them "humans", yeah. Perhaps others wouldn't.

The thing is i don't care. I rather talk about facts than names.

Why is it so hard for you to understand?
We know what they are even if they have a foot growing out of their chest or an eye malpositioned under their chin.
Booooriiiing!
Evolutionists play name games only because they don’t know where to draw the line.
That's correct, yes. We only play with names because we don't know where to draw the line. The fact is that NOBODY KNOWS!

Every single name is conceptual, and arbitrary to a certain (varying) degree. It can't be helped.
Names correlate with reality only so much.

That's why i prefer facts.

The Chinese say "When someone points to the Moon the fool looks at the finger".
In fact, contrary to what they observe, they don’t think there are any lines to draw because they believe that, in some sense, all is one, related via a common ancestor via many many accidental mutations over a very long period of time.
In fact.

"Species" is the least arbitrary line we can draw. In asexual "species" it's most arbitrary again.

And i don't care.

Lester
and you imagine that via some kind of magical process
What part of the process is magical, according to you?
The part where the co-ordinated information for fins spontaneously arises in place on the information that codes for arms via a series of accidental mutations followed by the spontaneous and accidental arising of the information for a fluke where previously there was information coding for the putting together of a tail.

And so on and so forth.
Er... You think that's ONE part of the process?

Try dividing it in real parts.

To me you're just lying through your teeth.
Now Wisp, that’s exceedingly ugly.
Yes, Lester. It is.
Since we are all one and you are better able to love your neighbour for that reason, you should avoid these subjective opinions of yours.
Where's the subjectivity?

You said you understood homology. You didn't (you thought it had something to do with convergent evolution). You didn't admit your mistake. You lied.

You constantly claim that Evolution is about random chance. You know it's not. You lied.

You claim that you don't respond to certain things because you have little time, and yet you answer lots of crap about "No, you're deluded! No, you! The faith is all yours! It's a religion!! Random chance!!" over and over again while refusing to say "yes" or "no" to some simple questions.

You lie, Lester.

Lester
We’re horrified that supposedly intelligent people believe the things you do.
Supposedly? Can you come up with any objective way to test for intelligence? An IQ test perhaps?
I think that knowing that you can string a coherent sentence together and that you apparently qualified for a tertiary education is enough to convince me that, deceptive philosophies aside, you are capable of using your brain.
It was you who said "supposedly".
Anyway, yes, that's the way it is. Smarter people tend to believe in Evolution. I'm not saying (right now) that Evolution is right. But that fact still has to mean something.
It means that the people that get into tertiary education facilities are being methodically brainwashed into a deceptive philosophy called evolution.
Actually i don't think that's a bad answer. I know what you mean because i have seen it. Many social "scientists" say that we're not animals, and crap like that. They believe that humans have no instincts, and all kinds of silly things.
Even Creationists say that we have instincts! They believe that Yahweh designed them too, but well. At least they don't deny them.
And it's indoctrination. Plain and simple. Regular people have no problems saying that, as humans can get jealous, a dog can get jealous. Or that some traits of personality can be inherited.

But again, many social "scientists" are not strong in Science. The Scientific Method makes you pretty objective. Garbage in, garbage out. Like Natural Selection.

Real scientists are much harder to indoctrinate.

They generally don’t specialize in it but are persuaded to believe it more particularly at University
Not me. I studied Law. And i didn't get any ToE in high school. I educated myself. By watching documentaries and exploring mostly.

At a certain point i started making predictions thanks to what i had learned. It was most exciting.

And factual, by the way. Names are conceptual, predictions are factual.

Well, except when you force concepts into them (like when you say that fruit flies will always be fruit flies).

though the brainwashing really starts far younger at the National Geographic and Star Trek level.
I hear you. But your accusation isn't supported. Because all of your attacks on Evolution are either purely conceptual (information, only a theory, faith, coding, microevolution, macroevolution, etc) or mistaken (thermodynamics, amorality, evil, bananas, bombardier beetle, cambrian explosion, bacterial flagellum, mousetrap, dogs giving birth to cats, crocoduck, etc) or both (transitionals, gaps, abiogenesis, big bang, proof, randomness, etc) or simply dishonest (quote mining and such).

People honour ‘human wisdom’ far too easily when they don’t believe in God
I agree. That's why we have the Scientific Method to protect ourselves against that.

Don't you think the Scientific Method protects us against that? You say you like Science. =D

Once a university student accepts the evolution philosophy, he or she can even actively participate in making up the fairy tales that flesh out the big picture. It’s fun for the whole family.
I understand what you say, because i see it in the social sciences. But i disagree because Evolution is real science.

You'll respond "No, it's not!", but you won't support that claim, as always.

You didn't respond to this (you'll say you didn't have time, of course):
We're objectively apes. We're gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebral cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle (primates so far), with no tail (apes).
Pick any scientific definition of "apes" or "animals". You're it. Period.

Your reluctance to accept any scientific definition is yet another demonstration of your hatred for Science, Lester.


(Edited by wisp 11/23/2009 at 09:44 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:43 AM on November 23, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 08:05 AM on November 23, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 06:01 AM on November 23, 2009 :
But the bible says that it is acceptable...


Does the Bible discuss slavery as a fact of life in the past or does it say that God accepted slavery and said it was the right thing to do?


You don't actually READ the Bible do you?

Try Leviticus 25, starting with the first verse.  Read for content.



1 While Moses was on Mount Sinai, the Lord said to him, 2 “Give the following instructions to the people of Israel.

. . . (Omit sections about Jubilee)

44 “However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. 45 You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, 46 passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.



Leviticus is pretty clear that slavery is just a 'way of life'.

Odd then that God did not set out to purge it from His lands, if it was so wrong...



(Edited by derwood 11/24/2009 at 10:43 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:42 AM on November 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:53 AM on November 23, 2009 :
Ok Lester, what is your stance on slavery?


Personally I don't agree with it.


Heretic.







-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:53 AM on November 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He was too busy fighting masturbation, premarital sex, stubborn children, bastard children, those evil beard rounders, sabbath workers, homosexuals, those who have sex while the woman is on her period, etc.

He felt more strongly against a lamb being cooked on its mother's milk, or a man going out without a hat than against slavery.

He also didn't care much for handicapped people. Their presence would profane his sanctuary. Even a guy with a flat nose (Lev 21:16).

Somehow i don't think that those who go to a church to be healed from their illnesses and handicaps have read the Bible carefully.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:05 AM on November 24, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 11:05 AM on November 24, 2009 :
He was too busy fighting masturbation, premarital sex, stubborn children, bastard children, those evil beard rounders, sabbath workers, homosexuals, those who have sex while the woman is on her period, etc.

He felt more strongly against a lamb being cooked on its mother's milk, or a man going out without a hat than against slavery.

He also didn't care much for handicapped people. Their presence would profane his sanctuary. Even a guy with a flat nose (Lev 21:16).

Somehow i don't think that those who go to a church to be healed from their illnesses and handicaps have read the Bible carefully.




Let's not forget that weird obsession with foreskins....


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 11:10 AM on November 24, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, there are a lot of outdated beliefs/notions in the Bible.  There are some beautiful passages in the bible, to be sure.  But to argue that the bible is infallible and inerrant is to argue from a position of ingnorance and, indeed, intollerance.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:22 PM on November 24, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Only a blasphemous flat-nosed sabbath worker gay hunchback dwarf would say that! Stone him to death!!!


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:52 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
fisher

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Do you realize that the Bible is, to a large extent, a history book and that a lot of things that are faithfully related in it were not any part of God's original plan; they were what people did because they were fallen man not listening to God most of the time?
Can you tell me where God said that slavery was the right thing to do? I know that the Israelites were in slavery under pharoah and that God allowed it but the Israelites were the cause of their own troubles by not listening to God. They used to get into a lot of trouble before they'd finally realize that they needed God to help them out of the dwang.

They are doing it in Israel again right now. God called them a hard-necked people.They are more secular than ever and don't realize that their messiah has come and gone without them noticing - just as the prophets foretold. They are surrounded by their enemies and even America is forsaking them for political correctedness.
God knows they will call for him sooner or later but only when they have come to the end of themselves and know that they are no longer able to fend off their enemies themselves.

When they call on him and repent of all their evil, God will hear them and come to their aid. Just watch and see.

This same principle works for the individual, non-Jew as well. When you get to the end of the way you've been mishandling your life, when you've run out of plans and decide that God can do a better job, call on Him, he's waiting to hear from you and He will help. "



That schpeel isnt gonna help ur case lester. They dont want to hear about God. The Bible does permit slavery, read ur Bible! The Old coveneant and the new covenant are rather different. We dont do animal sacrifices to atone for our sins because we no longer need to under the new covenant. Jesus has provided the perfect sacrifice that we need. God did permit slavery but under far different conditions that the slave owners did in early america. God decreed that slaveholding isrealites were to not rule over their slaves ruthlessly. And on the year of jubilee, the 7th year, they were to be set free, except if they are temporary residents. But even if the slaves did not have to be set free, the owner was still to not treat them ruthlessly.

 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 02:02 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Old coveneant and the new covenant are rather different.
Oh yeah?
Matthew 5:18-19 (King James Version)
18) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

19) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
It's talking about the old law.

Oh, another one...
Luke 16:17 (King James Version)
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Isn't it terrible when your own sacred text owns you?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:12 AM on November 25, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.