Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your position(s) will have problems, as long as you persist in using the Bible as a combination science textbook, history textbook and infallible encyclopedia. You would be better off seeing it for what it is... a collection of stories by primitive human authors trying to make sense of the world around them, influenced by theological and political goals, massaged through many rounds of translations and edits... containing occasional pearls of wisdom.
The Warren Flew debate I have on DVD, seen it multiple times, I have the book also. Youtube has it for free to watch. The debate was 4 nights long in 1976. 20 minutes per person, 12 sessions.
And you keep making claims about it. Can you not provide a rational argument yourself, because I do not trust your claims, nor do I want to chase claims again
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyKurreto
You keep confusing objective truths (geometry example) with objective MORALITY. Morality doesn't depend on the volume of a triangle or the surface area nor anything else of the sort, Morality is thought and actions of human beings. You cannot quantify that the same way you deal with objective truths in physics.
Objective morality would be an objective truth. If you did not understand this, you are in no position to debate. If you did and misrepresented this, then you are dishonest.
And all I need to do to is produce 1 objective truth to refute your position, which I have done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyKurreto
People have always asked the question: which came first? Chicken or the egg? I say chicken did because God made all life as it is. I have absolutely no problem answer the question one bit. You however do a problem with answering the "woman or baby" .
No, logically it must be the baby, as it MUST have a human genetic sequence. The woman must only be close, but that raises the problem of not having a clear boundary. It is like asking at what point are you up a hill? Or when did Latin become French?
But if they were not talking about the boundary problem, then it was irrelevant, and only used to try and make the opponent look less credible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyKurreto
I can answer that one also, a woman before a baby, it was man then woman, then baby to be precise, but you see how I answer it? Can you try now???? My position has no problem.
Your answer has the problem that we have no evidence for it. None. It is a claim, but we have never seen this happen. We see genetic changes all the time.
Your position(s) will have problems, as long as you persist in using the Bible as a combination science textbook, history textbook and infallible encyclopedia. You would be better off seeing it for what it is... a collection of stories by primitive human authors trying to make sense of the world around them, influenced by theological and political goals, massaged through many rounds of translations and edits... containing occasional pearls of wisdom.
yup. I always say "Put your bible (or any evidence) in the pile of evidence. Now lets discuss why you are weighting the way you are."
No, logically it must be the baby, as it MUST have a human genetic sequence. The woman must only be close, but that raises the problem of not having a clear boundary. It is like asking at what point are you up a hill? Or when did Latin become French?
But if they were not talking about the boundary problem, then it was irrelevant, and only used to try and make the opponent look less credible.
Agreed. Although I said yesterday that neither mother nor baby came first, I was really referring to the implied notion that there must have been a "poof" moment when one individual magically appeared, in all its humanness. But Harry is correct... if we're going to get logical or technical about it (or both!), the human baby must have come first, before there would have been a fully grown human (either man or woman). Harry is also correct, that the slope of the hill (i.e., the appearance of evolutionary changes) is so gradual, that the boundary will necessarily be very blurry. It is typically only in hindsight (millions of years of hindsight) that we can look back and say "this is now a different species or sub-species."
We are not done evolving, and never will be. There are Southeast Asian populations that spend so much time diving that their bodies are gradually evolving to allow them to stay underwater longer. Once we started domesticating animals and drinking milk, European populations evolved the ability to digest that milk (which previously would have stopped after breastfeeding, like in most mammals).
All of which brings us back to my major point: mother or baby is an irrelevant "gotcha" question, if one understands a little about evolution.
Those people did wrong, they are not following the new testament, I cannot be judged by others wrong doing hundreds of years ago. Peace with all is the goal.
I am not judging your act ion ar all. But you claim that a Christian theocracy would be better than a democracy for the United States but fail to recognize tjat there is no example that demostrate s that. You are dreaming of a utopia base d on your religious beliefs and cannot see the dangers it could impise on those who do not share your beliefs. Ruling a country by the Bible what happens to the LBGT. The liberals Muslims, Jew s and atheist s living there now?
I
I can very much judge you on your words ypu currently speak. I
And you still refuse to daybwhat happen s to those who refuse to live what you call the healthy live.
Your position(s) will have problems, as long as you persist in using the Bible as a combination science textbook, history textbook and infallible encyclopedia. You would be better off seeing it for what it is... a collection of stories by primitive human authors trying to make sense of the world around them, influenced by theological and political goals, massaged through many rounds of translations and edits... containing occasional pearls of wisdom.
Having experienced the overarching consciousness that establishes our Reality, I would have to add the inspirations or influences of that consciousness (aka God). For me, God is part of the spiritual menagerie responsible for the sausage-making that produced the Bible (and any other spiritual efforts).
And you keep making claims about it. Can you not provide a rational argument yourself, because I do not trust your claims, nor do I want to chase claims again
Objective morality would be an objective truth. If you did not understand this, you are in no position to debate. If you did and misrepresented this, then you are dishonest.
And all I need to do to is produce 1 objective truth to refute your position, which I have done.
No, logically it must be the baby, as it MUST have a human genetic sequence. The woman must only be close, but that raises the problem of not having a clear boundary. It is like asking at what point are you up a hill? Or when did Latin become French?
But if they were not talking about the boundary problem, then it was irrelevant, and only used to try and make the opponent look less credible.
Your answer has the problem that we have no evidence for it. None. It is a claim, but we have never seen this happen. We see genetic changes all the time.
Evolution is assumption based 100%
We've never witness any such thing in life or a lab. Did the baby form out of slime?
Or did the baby come from a genetically different life form? Which is scientific? When have we ever seen a life form be born of a genetically different life form?
You make a joke, we got to stay friends so I will always have a laugh at this kind of stuff. Humor typically follows the illogical like yourself. Thanks for making my day.
How did the human lung system develop from a simple life form when breathing is required for several minutes to stay alive? Its a complicated breathing system, and here you are assuming it gradually changed when all the complexity relies on every single component in order for it to actually work. Explain that!
We've never witness any such thing in life or a lab. Did the baby form out of slime?
Or did the baby come from a genetically different life form? Which is scientific? When have we ever seen a life form be born of a genetically different life form?
You make a joke, we got to stay friends so I will always have a laugh at this kind of stuff. Humor typically follows the illogical like yourself. Thanks for making my day.
How did the human lung system develop from a simple life form when breathing is required for several minutes to stay alive? Its a complicated breathing system, and here you are assuming it gradually changed when all the complexity relies on every single component in order for it to actually work. Explain that!
Evolution does not occur in the time span of a TV commercial. Nor can it be fully explained to you in a post on a forum.
You are correct a hu.man did not come directly from a single cell organism. However evolution does not make such a silly claim. You are asking questions in a skattergun approach all over the place. I dont think you even wish to know anything about evolutiin as ypur mind is already made up.
We've never witness any such thing in life or a lab. Did the baby form out of slime?
Or did the baby come from a genetically different life form? Which is scientific? When have we ever seen a life form be born of a genetically different life form?
You make a joke, we got to stay friends so I will always have a laugh at this kind of stuff. Humor typically follows the illogical like yourself. Thanks for making my day.
How did the human lung system develop from a simple life form when breathing is required for several minutes to stay alive? Its a complicated breathing system, and here you are assuming it gradually changed when all the complexity relies on every single component in order for it to actually work. Explain that!
By the way have you witmessed God creating life forms ib life or the lab?
Yours is all asdumption based.
First you assune that there is a God
Next you assume that if there is a God it is yours
We've never witness any such thing in life or a lab. Did the baby form out of slime?
Or did the baby come from a genetically different life form? Which is scientific? When have we ever seen a life form be born of a genetically different life form?
You make a joke, we got to stay friends so I will always have a laugh at this kind of stuff. Humor typically follows the illogical like yourself. Thanks for making my day.
How did the human lung system develop from a simple life form when breathing is required for several minutes to stay alive? Its a complicated breathing system, and here you are assuming it gradually changed when all the complexity relies on every single component in order for it to actually work. Explain that!
Actually, scientists have indeed watched evolution take place in labs.
This kind of post clearly illustrates why we don't do science threads.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Objective morality would be an objective truth. If you did not understand this, you are in no position to debate. If you did and misrepresented this, then you are dishonest.
Having experienced the overarching consciousness that establishes our Reality, I would have to add the inspirations or influences of that consciousness (aka God). For me, God is part of the spiritual menagerie responsible for the sausage-making that produced the Bible (and any other spiritual efforts).
