why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[SkepticThinker]

So you don't recognize any difference between two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender, and animals, rocks, trees, planets or polar bears?

Honestly, that's the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

I was waiting for someone to equate bestiality and marriage to inanimate objects with homosexuality. It always inevitably occurs.

And yeah, it's the dumbest argument out there.

 

[Agnostic75]

You have said that any deaths at all are not worth the risk, so you have refuted you own argument. Your primary context from the beginning of this thread regarding your secular arguments against homosexuality has been risk, and millions of heterosexuals in the U.S. alone are at risk. You said that heterosexuals need to have sex in order to maintain that population. I adequately refuted that argument.

No I didn't. I said no life is worth the risk if lust is the only justification.

When women are at least 45 years of age, most of them do not have any more children, and they have sex entirely for pleasure. That has risk, and it is not needed in order to maintain the population. Even when married heterosexual women are 25 years of age, a large percentage of them sometimes have sex entirely for pleasure.

Any competent expert knows that although homosexual sex is not exactly the same as heterosexual sex is, it provides significant physical, and emotional benefits for homosexuals. You cannot make a rational argument that heterosexual sex at 45 years of age and over is acceptable because it provides martial stability, which justifies deaths, and that homosexual sex among healthy homosexuals is not acceptable.

I tell you what you may delete that post if you wish. It will not change a thing. I doubt it is significantly in error but it would make no difference if it was.

Much of your post #304 is definitely false, misleading, or poorly documented, and it does not take anywhere an expert to know that. I could give you a number of examples if you wish.

What evidence do you have that the original Bible said anything about same-sex behavior, and that God inspired those texts? When I made a similar argument, you said that I was making an argument from convenience, but I wasn't since there many other questionable things in the Bible. For example, a global flood does not make any sense. A regional flood would make sense, but not a regional flood for the reasons that the Bible gives. Consider the following Scriptures:

Genesis 6:5-7

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

If that refers to a regional flood, who did God intend to kill, residents of the area, or residents, and visitors such as travelers, and traders who must have frequently visited the area? If God intended to kill only residents, why did he also kill some people who were not residents? What about residents who must have been traveling to other areas, and would have escaped being killed by the flood?

At the time of the supposed flood, there were people living in many other parts of the world. Surely many of those people were also evil.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Genesis 8:21-22

"And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."

That indicates that the flood was global since it would not have made any sense for God to say that he would never kill everything again only in a relatively small area of the world. Since the supposed flood, many volcanoes have destroyed most life in relatively small areas of the world.

It would also not have made any sense for God to say that "seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" would only happen in a relatively small part of the world.

Considering that evidence, it is no wonder that many liberal Christians claim that the flood story is allegorical, and of course, the story of Adam and Eve, and many other Old Testament stories. From a Christian perspective, an allegory is the best explanation, but a God who inspired the flood story as an allegory would be causing lots of unnecessary, and needless confusion.

Dr. Bart Ehrman has a book on Bible forgeries. If you wish, you can read an article by him at Bart D. Ehrman: Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters.

Dr. Richard Carrier has an article on the New Testament canon at The Formation of the New Testament Canon that show that the formation of the New Testament canon was questionable.

 

[Agnostic75]

I tell you what you may delete that post if you wish. It will not change a thing. I doubt it is significantly in error but it would make no difference if it was.

Much of your post #304 is definitely false, misleading, or poorly documented, and it does not take anywhere an expert to know that. I could give you a number of examples if you wish. The general state of physical, and mental health of all homosexuals is much better than you believe it is. You do not want to discuss your post #304 since you know that very little, if any of it applies to the majority of homosexuals.

Regarding the shorter life span of homosexuals, the life span of monogamous homosexuals is much higher than the life span of homosexuals in general. In addition, if monogamous homosexuals practiced abstinence, in many cases, they would not live as long, and they would have medical expenses due to the proven health risks of long term abstinence.

It is reasonable to say that the physical, and mental health of an unknown percentage of homosexuals compares favorably with the physical, and mental health of heterosexuals. After all, some heads of state, some Olympic gold medalists, some Ph.D.s, some high income earners, and some people over 65 years of age, are homosexuals. In 2010, about 15,000 Americans died from AIDS. In the same year, about 600,000 Americans died from heart disease alone, and the vast majority of them were heterosexuals. Heart disease is often preventable.

By 2030, which is 17 years from now, about half of Americans will be obese, which will add over 500 million dollars to health care costs.

Since you are concerned with reducing medical costs, and suffering from homosexuality, in order to be fair, you should also be concerned with the following groups of heterosexuals who are at risk from STDs, and other medical problems:

1. All heterosexual black Americans who live in black American communities.

2. All heterosexual black people who live in sub-Saharan African countries.

3. All heterosexuals in the world who live in poverty.

4. All heterosexuals in the world who are 45 years of age. and over, and are not needed to maintain the population, which would be case in most countries.

5. All heterosexuals in the world who died prematurely from heart disease, cancer, and obesity who could have prevented their illnesses.

Consider the following:

Pregnancy after 45 carries risks | Reuters

For the few women who manage to get pregnant after age 45, both they and their babies have a higher risk of complications, Israeli researchers have found. For instance, they are about three times more likely than younger women to experience diabetes and high blood pressure during their pregnancies, the researchers report in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Older women also have higher rates of preterm births and placenta previa, in which the placenta blocks the opening to the birth canal.
"Increasing age leads to less (healthy) individuals, and less healthy individuals do have higher pregnancy risks," Dr. Maximilian Franz of the Medical University of Vienna, who did not participate in the study, told Reuters Health.

That is another important reason why women over 45 years of age should practice abstinence, at least according to your philosophy.

Since heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are, and could do far more to reduce health care costs, and suffering, than homosexuals could, they are much more at fault than homosexuals are.

Regarding the five groups of heterosexuals who I mentioned, there are hundreds of millions of them, maybe over one billion of them, or even over two billion of them. Solutions are needed for them far more than solutions are needed for homosexuals. Logically, the more that a group of people threaten the health care system, the more that solutions are needed for their inappropriate behaviors.

So, some homosexuals are in the same boat with hundreds of millions, or billions of heterosexuals. It is unfair for you to spend an inordinate amount of your time primarily criticizing homosexuals, especially since heterosexuals as a whole are far more dangerous to the survival of the earth than homosexuals are as a whole.

If aliens abducted all homosexuals from the world, over 95% of health care costs would still exist, and global warming would still be the greatest threat to humans in history by far, and has been primarily caused by heterosexuals.

You once said that you do not have anything personal against homosexuals who have died, and did not harm you, or anyone else. Let's call all homosexuals who died, and whose physical, and mental health compared favorably with heterosexuals Group A. Over the next 100 years, millions of homosexuals will die whose physical, and mental health compared favorably with heterosexuals. Let's call them Group B. Over the next 100 years, millions of homosexuals will die whose physical, and mental health did not compare favorably with heterosexuals. Let's call them Group C. Why did you criticize Group B, and Group C, but not Group A?

In order for your plan to work, both Group B, and Group C would have to practice abstinence. As I have told you before, even if Group B practiced abstinence, Group C would not, and nothing practical would be gained, and some of Group B would have unnecessary suffering, and medical expenses due to the proven health risks of long term abstinence. Even if there were no health risks from long term abstinence, there are not any good reasons for Group B not to enjoy having sex.

You have argued that Group B do not know who they are, and thus should not play the game. It is true that Group B do not know who they are, but most of them trust that their current intentions, and practices regarding health issues will remain similar for the rest of their lives. History will eventually show that they were right, and that their trust in themselves was warranted, and that they beat the odds. The should play the game, but even if they shouldn't, no more harm will have been done than heterosexuals will do.

Regarding homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, and whose physical, and mental health compares favorably with heterosexuals, there is obviously no need for them to practice abstinence.

What percentage of homosexuals do you suppose have physical, and mental health that compares favorably with heterosexuals? Based upon many of your posts, I think that your guess might be only 1%. The actual percentage would be a good deal higher, but even 1% of homosexuals in the world would be about 1.4 million homosexuals who do not need to practice abstinence.

In the U.S., it has become a political liability in swing states to oppose homosexuality, and same-sex marriage, The majority of Republicans now support same-sex marriage. The Mormon church has made a dramatic turnaround, and their hierarchy no longer politically opposes same-sex marriage, although they still consider homosexuality to be a sin. Do you recommend that Republicans in swing states openly oppose homosexuality, and same-sex marriage?

You said that homosexuals have some health problems that heterosexuals do not have, but you refused to state what they are. Your claims are irrelevant in debates unless you say what they are, and provide reasonable evidence for them.

You said that the majority of animals do not practice homosexuality, but Wikipedia says:

"No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue."

Please make a post in my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...52974-does-god-bible-give-everyone-least.html.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[vtunie]

It depends upon the country, and often upon which parts of a country. A Wikipedia article at Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows that same-sex marriage, and/or civil unions are legal in many countries, states, and provinces around the world, especially in countries that are more advanced, wealthy, and educated.

The majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, and allowing openly gay people to join the military. Over 20 countries allow openly gay people to join the military, including Britain, and Israel. Iceland has had an openly lesbian prime minister. So has Ontario, Canada.

During early U.S. history, most people found the idea that women, black people, and native American Indians deserved the right to vote to be absurd.

What do you suggest that homosexuals do about their homosexuality?

Since when has morality depended upon what the majority of people believe it is?

Please reread what I wrote. Homosexuality is obscene and disgusting in the eyes of the overwhelming majority WHETHER OR NOT they are willing to let queers do their thing safely.

Why?

Because if a man walks up to a man at random and proposes homosexual sex, the overwhelming majority -- nine in ten most likely but certainly two out of three -- will reject it at once with a feeling of revulsion.

Society may be willing to tolerate obscenity. That does not make it un-obscene. And anything that nine out of ten would not do, period, IS obscene.

 

[Riverwolf]

Because if a man walks up to a man at random and proposes homosexual sex, the overwhelming majority -- nine in ten most likely but certainly two out of three -- will reject it at once with a feeling of revulsion.

If a random woman walked up to me, and proposed heterosexual sex, I'd reject it at once with a feeling of revulsion and fear. I'm still heterosexual.

I'd wager most people still would, as well.

Nevertheless, lesbian porn remains a very popular form of pornography.

 

[voice crying]

How do you say God of Israel ten proceed to talk about Jesus who the Jews consider a false Messiah?

Sad isn't it. Jesus came for them and many didn't know. Many were too engrossed in other things and superficial belief in God, going through the motions but they were not intent on personally getting to know their real Father (Is 29:13). Had they been seeking to know their true Father they would have recognized that Jesus was God's Son (see Prov 30:4). The entire Old Testament is about the coming of the Messiah, which Jesus fulfilled.

 

[voice crying]

But even if Jesus rose from the dead, that does not necessarily mean that the original Bible said anything about same-sex behavior, and that God inspired those verses. The Bible contains at least some errors, interpolations, and forgeries.

46+yrs I have studied the whole Bible, some parts many times. God knew many would try to twist His word so He used an unchangeable system in redundancy. God's 66 legitimate Bible books forever bind God's foundation, structure, mindset and one true message to His OT&NT eternal truth. Neither God nor Jesus ever change. Homosexuality was always against God's purpose-the story of Adam&Eve are in fact stating God's purpose concerning 1 man and 1 woman marriages. It was man not God who kept trying to sidestep what God intended-Adam&Eve not Adam&Steve.

In an article at ...infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon..html]The Formation of the New Testament Canon... Dr.
Richard Carrier shows that the formation of the New Testament canon was questionable.

Actually, the four Gospels are regarding the four dimensions of our reality=seamless garment. The book of John connects the whole Bible to the four Gospels. God transcends all of man's shortcomings and even though the Catholic church botched and obscured just about everything that Jesus taught they did succeed in putting the correct book in the canon, even though later they added books and supposed parts of books (Apocrypha/lost books) that have no business what-so-ever in being part of the Bible. These book additions do not hold to the same foundation, structure, mindset or eternal truth. they contradict, blur, add, distort or just repeat things already in God's 66 legit Bible books &/or they can't be authenticated. Many just can't seem to trust that our all powerful God can also make sure His word is secure from all attempts to distort or discredit what God intended.

Research has shown that geography, family, gender, and age are important factors that influence what people believe. The century that a person is born in is also important. Under certain circumstances, you probably would not oppose homosexuality. If all Christians who live in the U.S., and oppose homosexuality, had been raised in Muslim homes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, surely far fewer of them would have ended up becoming Christians.

It doesn't matter what environment man happens to be in nor what man does God and His purpose trumps everything the world approves or pursues (God left the unsaved in the hands of Satan, the ruler of this world). At the right time God will separate out those who are His, regardless of what restraints are in the way at present. I can also tell you this is for sure, homosexuals will not be among them. Many ways SEEM right but its end=death, the 2nd death.

 

[Agnostic75]

Please reread what I wrote. Homosexuality is obscene and disgusting in the eyes of the overwhelming majority WHETHER OR NOT they are willing to let queers do their thing safely.

Which countries in the world are you referring to? Iceland has had an openly lesbian prime minister. So has Ontario, Canada.

An Internet article at The Global Divide on Homosexuality | Pew Global Attitudes Project shows that homosexuality is widely accepted in many countries.

Why?

Because if a man walks up to a man at random and proposes homosexual sex, the overwhelming majority -- nine in ten most likely but certainly two out of three -- will reject it at once with a feeling of revulsion.

Quite naturally, most heterosexual men are not interested in having sex with gay men, but I doubt that anywhere near the majority of gay men ask heterosexual men to have sex with them. Surely many do not.

Society may be willing to tolerate obscenity. That does not make it un-obscene.

What makes anything obscene?

What society tolerates is not necessarily the best judge of morality. When the U.S. was founded, women, black people, and native American Indians were not allowed to vote. A hundred years ago, the majority of people believed that is was obscene for women to wear bikinis at beaches.

And anything that nine out of ten would not do, period, IS obscene.

You are not making any sense. Sexual identity is not a choice. Since about eight out of ten teenagers develop a heterosexual sexual identity through no choice of their own, they obviously have no interest in same-sex behavior, but many heterosexuals have no problem with people who develop a homosexual sexual identity through no choice of their own, who quite naturally have no interest in heterosexual sexual behavior.

What do you recommend that homosexuals do, practice abstinence?

Do you consider homosexuality among animals to be obscene? How do you account for homosexuality in over 1500 species of animals and birds? Why are all bonobo monkeys bisexual?

 

[Agnostic75]

46+yrs I have studied the whole Bible, some parts many times. God knew many would try to twist His word so He used an unchangeable system in redundancy. God's 66 legitimate Bible books forever bind God's foundation, structure, mindset and one true message to His OT&NT eternal truth. Neither God nor Jesus ever change. Homosexuality was always against God's purpose-the story of Adam&Eve are in fact stating God's purpose concerning 1 man and 1 woman marriages. It was man not God who kept trying to sidestep what God intended-Adam&Eve not Adam&Steve.

But the Bible contains at least some errors, interpolations, and forgeries.

Many just can't seem to trust that our all powerful God can also make sure His word is secure from all attempts to distort or discredit what God intended.

Do you believe that a global flood occurred, that the earth is young?

Even the majority of Christian biologists reject creationism, and accept theistic evolution.

If is not difficult to change the Bible. For example, even today, when billions of people know something about the Bible, some skeptics could change parts of it, take it to some remote jungle regions of South America, and deceive at least some of the natives at least some of the time. That would have been much easier to do centuries ago.

Research has shown that geography, family, gender, and age are important factors that influence what people believe. The century that a person is born in is also important. Under certain circumstances, you probably would not oppose homosexuality. If all Christians who live in the U.S., and oppose homosexuality, had been raised in Muslim homes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, surely far fewer of them would have ended up becoming Christians.

It doesn't matter what environment man happens to be in nor what man does God and His purpose trumps everything the world approves or pursues.......

On the contrary, a moral God would consider environment to be the most important factor of all regarding how he judges people. If today's skeptics saw Christians perform miracles like the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed, some of them would become Christians. Obviously, the same thing would have happened if Jesus had performed miracles all over the world.

Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Acts 8:6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip
spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.

Acts 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Hebrews 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Even after the Holy Spirit had supposedly come to the church, in the NIV, Acts 14:3 says:

"So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to perform signs and wonders."

From a Christian perspective, would any skeptics who died during the past 100 years have become Christians if they had witnessed those kinds of evidence?

From a Christian perspective, would all Christians who are living today have become Christians if they had been raised in Iran by Muslims?

 

[payak]

Tired of the lies regarding bonobo monkeys.

Their same sex encounters are an expression of dominence over the weaker members, that is basically rape, it's not mutual as one is showing his dominence for reasons of control not sex, the weaker is simply submitting to the stronger.

Due to their lower intellect they formed a class and control system using rape not sex.

note the bonobo youth are raped to, should they be an eg for our behaviour.

 

[Agnostic75]

Tired of the lies regarding bonobo monkeys.

Their same sex encounters are an expression of dominance over the weaker members, that is basically rape, it's not mutual as one is showing his dominance for reasons of control not sex, the weaker is simply submitting to the stronger.

Due to their lower intellect they formed a class and control system using rape not sex.

Consider the following:

Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexual activity generally plays a major role in bonobo society, being used as what some scientists perceive as a greeting, a means of forming social bonds, a means of conflict resolution, and postconflict reconciliation. Bonobos are the only non-human animal to have been observed engaging in all of the following sexual activities: face-to-face genital sex (though a pair of western gorillas has been photographed performing face-to-face genital sex, tongue kissing, and oral sex.

Bonobos do not form permanent monogamous sexual relationships with individual partners. They also do not seem to discriminate in their sexual behavior by sex or age, with the possible exception of abstaining from sexual activity between mothers and their adult sons. When bonobos come upon a new food source or feeding ground, the increased excitement will usually lead to communal sexual activity, presumably decreasing tension and encouraging peaceful feeding.

That shows that all same-sex behavior among bonobo monkeys is not dominance behavior.

Note that the bonobo youth are raped too, should they be an eg for our behaviour.

Note that humans are destroying the earth's environment, should that be an eg for animal behavior? Quite obviously, humans should not do everything that animals do, and animals should not do everything that humans do. It all gets down to what animals do that is beneficial for them, and what humans do that is beneficial for them. It is usually beneficial for homosexuals to have safe sex. That is true whether or not other animals practice homosexuality for pleasure.

Since sexual identity is not a choice, it is quite odd that you said that homosexuality is disgusting.

Do you accept common descent?

 

[Katzpur]

Tired of the lies regarding bonobo monkeys.

Their same sex encounters are an expression of dominence over the weaker members, that is basically rape, it's not mutual as one is showing his dominence for reasons of control not sex, the weaker is simply submitting to the stronger.

Due to their lower intellect they formed a class and control system using rape not sex.

note the bonobo youth are raped to, should they be an eg for our behaviour.

Very interesting! Thank you for clarifying that.

 

[payak]

Since when does Ontario have a prime minister.

 

[payak]

I'm not the one comparing the behavour with apes, they were making the comparisons themselves.

Did you read the part about females sexually bonding to maintain dominence of the males, did you read the part about them having sex with those who are to young to reproduce, did you miss that.

Do you think underage sex is natural, your points would indicate you do as its as you say natural animal behaviour created by god you say.

homosexuality is disgusting in my view, why does that bother you, your free to do it.

 

[payak]

At least we all seem to agree on one thing, the behaviour is animal like.

 

[voice crying]

But the Bible contains at least some errors, interpolations, and forgeries.

List a few here so I can look at them.

Do you believe that a global flood occurred, that the earth is young?

Even the majority of Christian biologists reject creationism, and accept theistic evolution.

This I am sure of: A global flood occured. The Bible shows Pangaea did exist-Gn1:9. To move large continents great distances takes a huge amount of water at extremely high water pressure below&btwn continents-Gn7:11. Tectonic plate movement, continental drift, volcanoes, earthquakes&surface floods wouldn't be enough to cause such great movement&keep large continents intact.

If these "earth mover" actions caused such great distance movement, the continents would've had many more very large tears&much greater splits. Its highly unlikely they would be able to cause such necessary uniform movements over&over over many 1000s of miles w/o some areas giving way from uneven irregular changes in pressure(s)&momentum against various levels of friction&other resistance. Therefore, some unimaginable huge flooding had to occur.

Earth isn't young but the Bible doesn't give earth's age. Theres some indications Creation days aren't 24hr days. The sun, moon&stars were not put in place until Creation day4. For sure God didn't rest from Creation for only 24hrs. Therefore, each Creation day could be anywhere from near zero to billions of years. God occupies infinity, outside of time&no cause needed can exist. For God it wouldn't matter how long He took as to Him its instant.

God didn't use an Evolution(Ev) method or Big Bang(BB) to create the universe or life. God "spoke" the universe&life into existence. Science has permanent limits&Ev is not true:

We don't have a common ancestor. Fact must be separated from speculation.

Species splits within a species, subspecies&strains don't prove Ev. Changes are minimal when taken against millions of diverse species=limited adaptation.

Also, any "new" non interbreeding limit taking place within a species isn't proof for Ev-i.e. fruit-flies/mice/finches don't become moths/rabbits/bats. Theres only adaptive changes within its species"kind".

Many call Ev whats ONLY Micro-adaptation, confuse truth(offends many)&hate or impose human limits&labels to God's abilities=dumb limits. Ways"SEEM"right but its end=death:

W/o UNCUT film starting before 1st signs of life to today=speculation=similar species' parts in another are just more species. The scientific-method can't prove the BB/BBnc/Ev/Abiogenesis theories. They're billions of yrs old COLD cases&we DIDN'T SEE it done.

Ev Creation processes=a blind man building a car he's never heard of, seen, touched, heard or rode in-it can't be done w/o 1st teaching him about car functions&parts assembly for it to work. Cells have same limits. W/o an IDr we'd not exist:

*1. We have 2 lungs, kidneys, ears, arms&legs-each has NEAR PERFECT 3D MIRROR-IMAGE companion organs/limbs(NOT A COPY). IT CAN'T B EXPLAINED AWAY. To make mirror-image organs takes FULL REVERSE ENGINEERING, knowledge of its companion's functions&purpose or it can't be created to perfection found in nature=2 WITNESSES in nature=KILLS Ev/Abiog claims).

2. Our bodies are highly symmetrical 1 side to the other-impossible w/o an outside overview POV for full knowledge of whole life-form.

3. Cells&organisms are just copies of, copy parents'&all ancestors' acts. You won't find a bird building a better nest than parents, chicks build even better nests&bears passing better life to cubs. Cells have 2 LIVES-1 copying parents&1 SECRET-working on changes or IDr is Creator.

4. The fossil record doesn't have millions of trial/error phyla that should exist if NatS or fittest survivor is the Creation source. Odds are so great against near perfection for many millions of greatly diverse species, such precision cant happen w/o 1st having full knowledge for what to do(even adding billions of yrs beyond start of this universe can't solve the problem). If not true millions more misfits with mistakes, having only 1/3 eyes in odd places, 1 leg growing out of a head, where a fin, arm, wing should be, etc would exist, not the perfection seen in nature.

5. Picture u boxed(+near 0 intelligence)within microscopic cell, smaller than a text period&no way to sense much beyond your cell=real limits, so how can you invent millions of such diverse species to perfection in nature? NO OTHER ORGANISMS EXISTED so cells are great geniuses or Ev's a lie.

6. Cells need DNA to function. DNA's useless w/o a cell so which came 1st a cell or DNA? DNA's very complex(esp for higher life-forms)so odds against figuring out&using DNA(in correct sequences/related processes)is many magnitudes higher than for pc prog code. Its useless w/o an IDr to identify&assign its proper order. Give apes books, they cant learn from whats written w/o intelligence. DNA's COMMON to ALL LIFE-98% of another species' DNA doesn't=Ev.

7. Look at the amount of ID, knowledge, time&energy used to create&improve(many mistakes)airplanes. If ppl didn't"learn"what to do we'd still be grounded.

8. Creation's astronomically more complex than airplanes. More complex an organism is, it multiplies ID&knowledge needed to create it. Creation source is God or it couldn't exist let alone evolve(adaptation not Ev is built in for survival).

9. Earth has the best orbit, gravity, axis, spin, atmosphere, magnetic field, water&the moon has the right size&orbit for tidal cycles. Also, many foods taste good for life. Just 1 or 2 small differences for orbits&environments&most likely life would be different, higher life-forms die in short time if it survived.

If is not difficult to change the Bible. For example, even today, when billions of people know something about the Bible, some skeptics could change parts of it, take it to some remote jungle regions of South America, and deceive at least some of the natives at least some of the time. That would have been much easier to do centuries ago.

Skeptics could alter the Bible&use it to get over on some ppl but the truth would come out b/c real Bible texts are all around the world. Especially now, it wouldn't take long to discover false documents.

On the contrary, a moral God would consider environment to be the most important factor of all regarding how he judges people. If today's skeptics saw Christians perform miracles like the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed, some of them would become Christians. Obviously, the same thing would have happened if Jesus had performed miracles all over the world.

See Jn20:31. God knows the heart&environment for all ppl. He'll judge on whats in a man's heart. All Jesus did was done in accordance with God's plan. God's plan was for Jesus do His work among ppl of His chosen nation. This is b/c it is where whats in the OT originated&it contains all of what Jesus was to teach from.

Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Acts 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Acts 8:6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip
spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
Acts 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
Hebrews 2:4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Even after the Holy Spirit had supposedly come to the church, in the NIV, Acts 14:3 says: "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to perform signs and wonders."

From a Christian perspective, would any skeptics who died during the past 100 years have become Christians if they had witnessed those kinds of evidence?

From a Christian perspective, would all Christians who are living today have become Christians if they had been raised in Iran by Muslims?

God has a time&season for each event He carefully planned out to happen at its proper time. God doesn't just make up things as He goes along. He doesn't play dice with the universe. All will take place just as God said it would, not one dot will be missing. He declared the end from the beginning&will for the last time, divide the waters from the waters. God can't make a mistake ever.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Oh dear where to begin...

This I am sure of: A global flood occured. The Bible shows Pangaea did exist-Gn1:9. To move large continents great distances takes a huge amount of water at extremely high water pressure below&btwn continents-Gn7:11. Tectonic plate movement, continental drift, volcanoes, earthquakes&surface floods wouldn't be enough to cause such great movement&keep large continents intact.

False. No support for your argument has been given and geology is firmly against you unanimously.

If these "earth mover" actions caused such great distance movement, the continents would've had many more very large tears&much greater splits. Its highly unlikely they would be able to cause such necessary uniform movements over&over over many 1000s of miles w/o some areas giving way from uneven irregular changes in pressure(s)&momentum against various levels of friction&other resistance. Therefore, some unimaginable huge flooding had to occur.

Very very wrong. Still geology is against you. The size of the earth's crust is so thin that anything on its surface would be extremely small in compairson to the massive mantle layer that we KNOW exists. Why would you think that the power of water is weaker than the lava flowing in the mantle that is hundreds of thousands times thicker than the deepest ocean?

God didn't use an Evolution(Ev) method or Big Bang(BB) to create the universe or life. God "spoke" the universe&life into existence. Science has permanent limits&Ev is not true:

Unbased wrong-ness continues. Evolution has more evidence than just about any other scientific theory out there. The big bang is less supported but very very very strong. Your bible and ignorance does not counteract these facts.

We don't have a common ancestor. Fact must be separated from speculation.

All evidence is against you. All of it. Litterally all of it. Your spitting in the wind to prove there is no such thing as wind. You don't understand what a scientific fact is.

Species splits within a species, subspecies&strains don't prove Ev. Changes are minimal when taken against millions of diverse species=limited adaptation.

You just described evolution. Species split within species and continue making changes. That is all. And of course changes are minimal. Though they add up later. I"ll be getting to that below.

Also, any "new" non interbreeding limit taking place within a species isn't proof for Ev-i.e. fruit-flies/mice/finches don't become moths/rabbits/bats. Theres only adaptive changes within its species"kind".

Go ahead. Keep moving goal posts. In a few decades when we smash this limit of "kind" you and other creationists will make new excuses.

Many call Ev whats ONLY Micro-adaptation, confuse truth(offends many)&hate or impose human limits&labels to God's abilities=dumb limits. Ways"SEEM"right but its end=death:

Evolution is only made up of micro-adaptation. That is the definition of evolution. Macroevolution was only meant as a way to describe the accumulitive acclimation over vast periods of time. Scientific theory should never have to have an intrinsic relationship with god. Why? If Christianity was the one true way and the bible was correct then there would be evidence for it and all the science would naturally follow suit. That is not the case however.

W/o UNCUT film starting before 1st signs of life to today=speculation=similar species' parts in another are just more species. The scientific-method can't prove the BB/BBnc/Ev/Abiogenesis theories. They're billions of yrs old COLD cases&we DIDN'T SEE it done.

But there is evidence for all of them. There is zero evidence for the creationism claim. Don't bring them down to the same level. Though also take note that abiogensis is not toted as unyielding fact in the same way evolution is. Thats because evolution has earned that right. Abiogensis specifics have not yet attained the amount of evidence needed. Though it is getting there.

Ev Creation processes=a blind man building a car he's never heard of, seen, touched, heard or rode in-it can't be done w/o 1st teaching him about car functions&parts assembly for it to work. Cells have same limits. W/o an IDr we'd not exist:

Wrong. Incorrect analogy created by either propaganda you've heard elsewhere or just your own innate thoughts based in ignorance of the specifics of evolution. BTW ignorance is not an insult. It simply means you don't know something. It isn't a shot at you specificly on any personal level.

*1. We have 2 lungs, kidneys, ears, arms&legs-each has NEAR PERFECT 3D MIRROR-IMAGE companion organs/limbs(NOT A COPY). IT CAN'T B EXPLAINED AWAY. To make mirror-image organs takes FULL REVERSE ENGINEERING, knowledge of its companion's functions&purpose or it can't be created to perfection found in nature=2 WITNESSES in nature=KILLS Ev/Abiog claims).

Its called patterns. Patterns exist in nature. One could just as easily say the sun is round, the planets are round therefore god because its impossible for them all to be round.

2. Our bodies are highly symmetrical 1 side to the other-impossible w/o an outside overview POV for full knowledge of whole life-form.

Within each and every one of your cells is the same DNA. If we were advanced enough technologically we could build an entire "you" from a single cell.

3. Cells&organisms are just copies of, copy parents'&all ancestors' acts. You won't find a bird building a better nest than parents, chicks build even better nests&bears passing better life to cubs. Cells have 2 LIVES-1 copying parents&1 SECRET-working on changes or IDr is Creator.

Wrong. Very very wrong. We sexually reproduce to allow genetic variation as well as mutations.

4. The fossil record doesn't have millions of trial/error phyla that should exist if NatS or fittest survivor is the Creation source. Odds are so great against near perfection for many millions of greatly diverse species, such precision cant happen w/o 1st having full knowledge for what to do(even adding billions of yrs beyond start of this universe can't solve the problem). If not true millions more misfits with mistakes, having only 1/3 eyes in odd places, 1 leg growing out of a head, where a fin, arm, wing should be, etc would exist, not the perfection seen in nature.

Irriducable complexity arguments have been blown out of the water. You will never have 1/3 an eye but you can have a light sensitve nerve. Then that never becomes more complex. Then membranes develop. Then the nervous system becomes more complex. This process goes on till we reach what our eyes are today.

If something exists today its predecessor doesn't necessarily have to have the same function.

5. Picture u boxed(+near 0 intelligence)within microscopic cell, smaller than a text period&no way to sense much beyond your cell=real limits, so how can you invent millions of such diverse species to perfection in nature? NO OTHER ORGANISMS EXISTED so cells are great geniuses or Ev's a lie.

Perfection? No such thing. And evolution is the answer. Slow development over time.

6. Cells need DNA to function. DNA's useless w/o a cell so which came 1st a cell or DNA? DNA's very complex(esp for higher life-forms)so odds against figuring out&using DNA(in correct sequences/related processes)is many magnitudes higher than for pc prog code. Its useless w/o an IDr to identify&assign its proper order. Give apes books, they cant learn from whats written w/o intelligence. DNA's COMMON to ALL LIFE-98% of another species' DNA doesn't=Ev.

DNA actually came first. But prior to that it was another chemical chain that was simpler that began to replicate itself. That is the basis of organic chemistry. Groupings of this advanced chemistry is what later developed into cells and then more advanced life.

7. Look at the amount of ID, knowledge, time&energy used to create&improve(many mistakes)airplanes. If ppl didn't"learn"what to do we'd still be grounded.

Evolution is 99.999999% mistakes but with every good mutation it stays in the gene pool while the bad is removed. Within the amount of time its very possible. ID means nothing essentially as complexity isn't only created by intelegent sources.

8. Creation's astronomically more complex than airplanes. More complex an organism is, it multiplies ID&knowledge needed to create it. Creation source is God or it couldn't exist let alone evolve(adaptation not Ev is built in for survival).

Baseless claim in the face of evidence to the contrary.

9. Earth has the best orbit, gravity, axis, spin, atmosphere, magnetic field, water&the moon has the right size&orbit for tidal cycles. Also, many foods taste good for life. Just 1 or 2 small differences for orbits&environments&most likely life would be different, higher life-forms die in short time if it survived.

non issue. If the earth didn't have this then we wouldn't be here. Ergo we could only be here if these circumstances were met. Its like a whale wondering what the chances were of him being in the ocean rather than the desert.

 

[payak]

this is getting boring

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

At least we all seem to agree on one thing, the behaviour is animal like.

Sure. Just like drinking milk is animal-like. Or interracial breeding. Or caring for one's young.

Actually, since we ourselves are animals, I would say that all human behavior is animal-like.

 

[SkepticThinker]

At least we all seem to agree on one thing, the behaviour is animal like.

So is heterosexual sex.