Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more
CBOW

Dover, PA

#83025 Mar 26, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>So it would matter which book of the bible it was in ans which testament. your ogd told you in no uncertain terms that it is OK for you to own other humans.
how can you justify that? how can you follow such an immoral god?
I am not going to repeat myself, read the above post wooody. What's with you?
CBOW

Dover, PA

#83026 Mar 26, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>So it would matter which book of the bible it was in ans which testament. your ogd told you in no uncertain terms that it is OK for you to own other humans.
how can you justify that? how can you follow such an immoral god?
Many incorrectly assume that the slavery in the Old Testament was like the modern western slavery of the 1700's and 1800's. Western slavery primarily benefited the rich, but Israelite slavery primarily benefited the poor. You see, slavery was almost always voluntary...the basic types of "enslavement" are known as self-sale, family sale, and indentured servitude. These relationships were usually initiated by the slave as a remedy for poverty.

Poor families would sometimes sell their children as slaves. Were this situation like modern western slavery, we could justifiably condemn the practice...but the reality is that this was of great benefit to the child.

Slavery contracts often emphasized that the slave agreed to work in exchange for economic security and personal protection. While modern western slaves were forbidden to own property of any kind, Hebrew slaves could take part in business, borrow money, and buy their own freedom...in other words, they were free to "buy out" the contract they'd made. They were also able to own property, pay betrothal monies, and pay civic fines. Slaves could appear in court as witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants.

Many ancient near-eastern slaves were able to buy time off as well, paying a fixed fee called a "quitrent" to their owner. This bought them a year where they didn't have to work. The amount paid was roughly equivalent to the average annual pay of a hired worker, regardless of whether he was free or a slave.
God didn't condone homosexuality, beastiality, or divorce, yet the Bible speaks of them and God's knowledge of them. If God had physically punished all who did acts not condoned by Him, we would be EXTINCT. Once again, blame God for humanity's decisions and failures. NICE!

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#83027 Mar 26, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>Many incorrectly assume that the slavery in the Old Testament was like the modern western slavery of the 1700's and 1800's. Western slavery primarily benefited the rich, but Israelite slavery primarily benefited the poor. You see, slavery was almost always voluntary...the basic types of "enslavement" are known as self-sale, family sale, and indentured servitude. These relationships were usually initiated by the slave as a remedy for poverty.
Poor families would sometimes sell their children as slaves. Were this situation like modern western slavery, we could justifiably condemn the practice...but the reality is that this was of great benefit to the child.
Slavery contracts often emphasized that the slave agreed to work in exchange for economic security and personal protection. While modern western slaves were forbidden to own property of any kind, Hebrew slaves could take part in business, borrow money, and buy their own freedom...in other words, they were free to "buy out" the contract they'd made. They were also able to own property, pay betrothal monies, and pay civic fines. Slaves could appear in court as witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants.
Many ancient near-eastern slaves were able to buy time off as well, paying a fixed fee called a "quitrent" to their owner. This bought them a year where they didn't have to work. The amount paid was roughly equivalent to the average annual pay of a hired worker, regardless of whether he was free or a slave.
God didn't condone homosexuality, beastiality, or divorce, yet the Bible speaks of them and God's knowledge of them. If God had physically punished all who did acts not condoned by Him, we would be EXTINCT. Once again, blame God for humanity's decisions and failures. NICE!
yes, another cult member trying in vain to explain why theri god could condone owning another human... slavery was voluntary?!? when in the world has nay human ever volunteered to be not free? how is Owning a child born into slavery, as your god CLEARLY says is the law, be someone volunteering to be a slave?

nice try...

your man-made god condoned slavery. you are right, it is the failing of man as humans clearly created the cult you were sucked into.

your cult lioed to you...again...

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#83028 Mar 26, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not going to repeat myself, read the above post wooody. What's with you?
you've been repeating yourself since day one.

you can not get away from the fact that your made-up god condoned slavery. I am more moral than the god of your cult.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#83029 Mar 26, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
I can find no reference to any such book written by Francis Crick.
Check, that. It's "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature."
CBOW

Dover, PA

#83030 Mar 26, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, another cult member trying in vain to explain why theri god could condone owning another human... slavery was voluntary?!? when in the world has nay human ever volunteered to be not free? how is Owning a child born into slavery, as your god CLEARLY says is the law, be someone volunteering to be a slave?
nice try...
your man-made god condoned slavery. you are right, it is the failing of man as humans clearly created the cult you were sucked into.
your cult lioed to you...again...
Once again woody, you are so short sighted you can't grasp that theory of safety in numbers. During the days of the Biblical age, they didn't have the safety nets set up for the under privileged, uneducated or physically impaired people. To sell oneself into slavery WAS INDEED the only way to acquire protection, shelter and regular meals. Bloody hell, you're ignorant. Parents were sending their daughters and sons to work in wealthier homes even into the 1800's. The parents gleaned the profits, not those that worked, uh duh, that would be a form of slavery.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#83031 Mar 26, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again woody, you are so short sighted you can't grasp that theory of safety in numbers. During the days of the Biblical age, they didn't have the safety nets set up for the under privileged, uneducated or physically impaired people. To sell oneself into slavery WAS INDEED the only way to acquire protection, shelter and regular meals. Bloody hell, you're ignorant. Parents were sending their daughters and sons to work in wealthier homes even into the 1800's. The parents gleaned the profits, not those that worked, uh duh, that would be a form of slavery.
those kids weren't OWNED by those wealthy homeowners, were they? keep trying dear...

Wouldn't a god fearing person just given them aid?

we know that human society is far more moral than your mythical god...how can one own another human?

face it, yur horrible, prick of a god was made up by humans.

your cult lied to you...again...

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#83032 Mar 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
Of course I typed glycerin instead of glycine, I wish there weren't so many words so similar.
Like "were" and "wear"? Everybody makes typos, poof. Get over it.
Mark

Portland, OR

#83033 Mar 26, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Slavery was a fact of humanity. So was famine, pestilence, birth defects, baroness and infertility, death. Whatever the sin, it existed because Adam and Eve chose the tree of life, the fruit of knowledge; and with it all the corruption of the world. Once again, you blame God for humanity's short comings. To clarify, not everyone of God's people owned slaves. No rational person would condone homosexuality since it doesn't provide the outcome of the union of two humans, OFFSPRING. Yet it is treated as though it's an alternate lifestyle.
Wasn't the whole Exodus thing about "let my people go", from slavery?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#83034 Mar 26, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't the whole Exodus thing about "let my people go", from slavery?
I don't think your God was interested in dissolving the institution of slavery because he disapproved of it on moral grounds -- your Bible God seems pretty damned immoral much of the time.

He just wanted "His" people released. Or so the story goes.

Modern Israeli archeologists have pretty much debunked the whole idea that a large number of Israelites wandered for 40 years in the comparatively small area of the Sinai. They left no artifacts, for one.
Mark

Portland, OR

#83035 Mar 26, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
He never postulated it but rather speculated it.
<quoted text>
Six things Darwin never said – and one he did
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/six-things-dar...
"I was a young man with uninformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."
This one is in an article claiming to describe Darwin’s deathbed return to Christianity. His children denied that the author, Lady Hope, was anywhere near Darwin as he was dying, and the story is generally considered to have been fabricated.
<quoted text>
Yes, he mentions the complexity of the eye, then gives THREE PAGES OF EXPLANATION OF THE MANY WAYS THE EYE PROBABLY EVOLVED. And modern science backs him up.
Out of ignorance or rank dishonesty, though, you Christians just mention his opening statement, that the eye may SEEM to be too complex to have evolved.
Heard the eye evolution story, started out as a sensitive spot on an amoeba, comforting stuff like that. A good story for a 3 year old at bed time it seems to me. Why and how would an amoeba decide it needed an eye?

As far as an accurate stmt about what Darwin said or didn't say, I give you that, he does honestly struggle with the issue, I give him that. Goodness, with all that effort to discover something on his trip, finches beaks are still the same 150 years later. Time became the creator. Like the story of the Princess that kisses the frog and gets her prince = a fairy tale, so your side starts with a frog and add's 500 mil years and ends with the same prince and that = scientific?

Actually they now tell us we came from “nocturnal tree dwellers” now, an opossum. They have 2 penises, where the previous connecting species has one, as does the Lemur after the opossum,(that’s a leap!) did his sex drive wake up his DNA one day and say boy, I like that? I actually think that I didn’t come from such a line of creatures, bad heritage you know. How is that different from your amoeba eye story!

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#83036 Mar 26, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Heard the eye evolution story, started out as a sensitive spot on an amoeba, comforting stuff like that. A good story for a 3 year old at bed time it seems to me. Why and how would an amoeba decide it needed an eye?
As far as an accurate stmt about what Darwin said or didn't say, I give you that, he does honestly struggle with the issue, I give him that. Goodness, with all that effort to discover something on his trip, finches beaks are still the same 150 years later. Time became the creator. Like the story of the Princess that kisses the frog and gets her prince = a fairy tale, so your side starts with a frog and add's 500 mil years and ends with the same prince and that = scientific?
Actually they now tell us we came from “nocturnal tree dwellers” now, an opossum. They have 2 penises, where the previous connecting species has one, as does the Lemur after the opossum,(that’s a leap!) did his sex drive wake up his DNA one day and say boy, I like that? I actually think that I didn’t come from such a line of creatures, bad heritage you know. How is that different from your amoeba eye story!
why would your god not give the best eyes to his favorite animals, humans? why would he give the very best eye he ever designede to a tiny shrimp?

your cult makes no sense, but then, can you name any cults that do?

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#83037 Mar 26, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't the whole Exodus thing about "let my people go", from slavery?
and yet your mythical god says slavery is OK...you cult makes no sense...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#83038 Mar 26, 2013
LupyLu wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! I knew it!
A gift;
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Thanks. Richard Burton narrates.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#83039 Mar 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You are indeed, a nut.
All religions are based on faith.
No, they're all based on myth, with a heavy dose of chicanery.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83040 Mar 26, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
It "fits for you" solely because of your a priori fundamentalist Christian Bible beliefs which require the acceptance of the Genesis creation myth as literal, factual history (otherwise, in your mind, the entire edifice of Fall/Redemption theology immediately collapses and there would be no need to "believe in Jesus" and no need to be "saved.")
What do the rest of your colleagues make of these supposed anomalies in coal formation? Do they all express shock and the reversion of their beliefs into Young Earth?
Let me ask you something I have repeatedly asked of Christian YECs here on TOPIX and never gotten a response. It seems like a reasonable question to me:
Can you give us the name of one qualified working PhD biologist or geologist who is NOT a Christian and NOT religious, but yet who thinks the world is only 6000 years old and humanity sprang from two first humans 6000 years ago BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE?
No, but he can tell you about this guy he knew who also said that he believed the global flood because he looked at some rocks sometime even though that even they couldn't explain it at all in the slightest either.

But then Mark already knows evidence is totally irrelevant to Goddidit with magic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83041 Mar 26, 2013
Mark wrote:
You may want to read Denton and AE Wilder-Smith to bring you up to speed on your question. High schooler's are shown blobs and lighting striking a pond of chemicals, that was supposedly to have kick started all of this mindless complexity.
Abio is hypothesis only and under research. The theory of evolutio does not rely on abio.
Mark wrote:
Backed by the media, Nat'l Geo, Sagan etc. and ID being mocked at every level they have no chance to think reasonably, they have been brainwashed.
Actually ID is anti-critical thinking, hence brainwashing. It offers nothing but anti-evolution arguments and sets itself up as the default option if evolution was wrong - which it merely assumes for theological reasons (but avoids explaining how the limits of the designer were ascertained). It offers nothing in the way of positive evidence.
Mark wrote:
In my view only a higher intelligence acting on chemicals offers a reasonable solution to the origin and complexity of life.
Your baseless opinion is irrelevant. You have zero evidence.
Mark wrote:
I have friends that have views different than mine, do I think of them as foolish?, no. They have as much to offer in society and their families as any of us on my side. Opposing viewpoints are healthy for us all, it makes us think, research and challenge our thinking. That's not wrong.
But lying is and that's what you do. If your opposing viewpoint had merit you'd submit it to scientific peer-review. As it is you've only got one out of two papers to support you. The first was retracted due to it violating peer-review and the second because the peers were sloppy that day.
Mark wrote:
I know a Russian that I saw every weekend all winter for years,
One of these days your anecdotes will be about meeting Elvis. But it still won't be relevant.
Mark wrote:
I would say to him "(name), look, you always want to talk about religion and politics with me, we have to see each other weekly, I like you and can deal with it, are you good with this?", he would say sure. He had a lot of jokes about sex, one day I said to him "(blank),do you realize that if women had the same intense sex drive functions as men there would be no such thing as marriage, couples would be running off anywhere @ anytime and marriage would be pointless??" This got him thinking, how did sex evolve into to that only in humans?
Because humans figured out that abstract concepts were handy for manipulating people. Hence creationism.
Mark wrote:
We are different than animals. He was eating an orange one day and I said, "look at that thing, the color and how each slice is a perfect bite".
That's a VERY good point. By any chance have you seen Ray Comfort's video on the banana?
Mark wrote:
Later he became a believer in God. His wife is Jewish, both are highly educated professors. They had two boys and always wanted a girl. After that they soon had a girl, the happiest couple I know.
Charming tale.(yawn) I know of plenty of others who also believe in God but don't necessarily have to deny all of science for the sake of their religious beliefs. Also highly educated scientists. But people's religious opinions have no bearing on the validity of scientific concepts. You let yours cloud your judgement. That's not our problem.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83042 Mar 26, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Bull woody. The old testament was a trial set up for the children of Abraham. God realized that the chosen people, the Hebrews couldn't follow the laws set forth. So He sent His only begotten Son so that Jews and Gentiles alike would have a chance to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. All the burnt offerings and ceremonies couldn't save the chosen ones. God realized that humanity is weak and unable to save themselves. Thank You Jesus for your sacrifice!!! YOU woody are the one who really doesn't understand the Word. You are so blinded by your hatred for all things of God that you miss the very Message It's trying to deliver. Pity.
Actually you don't understand the Word of God any more than anyone else does. You ain't met the guy. You are not the world's best Biblical scholar. You're not His favourite. You're not His personally appointed mouthpiece. He does not love you best. You don't have any more special access to special information that anybody else does. You know diddly more about God than anyone else. Period. You are simply just another fundie with a massive ego that thinks their ego "must" be relevant to everyone else in the world. Newsflash:

It ain't.

Due to the possible influence of Poe's law, it's quite difficult to tell with fundies whether they are intentionally misrepresenting non-believers based on their own projections, or simply cannot fathom someone having a different opinion on the matter of theism. Non-believers don't "hate" your god since they can't hate something which may not even exist. What they do hate is the fundie prevalence for ego-centrism combined with imposition.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83043 Mar 26, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
They are. Read Revelation about the governments crumbling from within.
Sorry, I thought it went too far when it started mentioning talking lizards. Then I realised for certain that it was a science fiction novel.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83044 Mar 26, 2013
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
Hysterical as well as hypocritical. The queeeen is one of the richest people on the face of the earth. All courtesy of you folks.
Not me. She was rich before I was born. Can't blame me for that.(shrug)
CBOW wrote:
Right,......and your point queeeenie contributor?


Thought that was obvious - that your rich buddies were doing everything in their power to avoid paying their 40%. Often illegally.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 27 min Patrick n Angela 17,935
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr Ooogah Boogah 178,133
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 3 hr kenedy njoroge 913
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) Mar 26 Dogen 1,714
News Another Successful Prediction of Intelligent De... Mar 26 MikeF 1
News Intelligent Design: Corey Lee Mar 25 Paul Porter1 1
News Evolution debate vote (Mar '09) Mar 25 MikeF 3,394
More from around the web