27 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere are a host of characters in the bible who are identified as polygamists. There are several passages that deal with the practice of polygamy and the rules pertaining to it. While not the norm, it was certainly common enough. There was certainly no prohibition against it. So I wouldn't go patting yourself on the back about being so much better than the beasts of the field.
lol, yes and it was also essentially destructive then also, for example Solomon had in excess of 300 wives and they drove him to serve other gods, destroying his faith and relationship with God, so you see ringy you bad ol putty cat, its generally accepted as being destructive, one not need harp on about broken marriages, unwanted children, dysfuncti ...[text shortened]... hen why not just say so, no need to berate the poor boy, a simple , 'we don't know would do'.
I berate Josephw, not because he is an idiot, but because he so proudly flaunts his idiocy. As though it were the sign by which the Lord will know his own.
27 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettyes you are correct my friend, really you are, God did however warn them against multiplying wives for themselves, and although he seems to have tolerated it, i do not think that he condoned it. there are of course disastrous examples of the consequences of contravening Gods stance on marriage, most famously David and Bathsheba, which brought untold misery on David for the rest of his life. see the previous post for the differences between humans and animals, hope you like it - regards Robbie.
There are a host of characters in the bible who are identified as polygamists. There are several passages that deal with the practice of polygamy and the rules pertaining to it. While not the norm, it was certainly common enough. There was certainly no prohibition against it. So I wouldn't go patting yourself on the back about being so much better than the ...[text shortened]... so proudly flaunts his idiocy. As though it were the sign by which the Lord will know his own.
27 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRules? What rules? You yourself have said that god tolerates polygamy. Apparently to such an extent that the OT has rules pertaining to its proper exercise. So which is it? Does god tolerate it, or does he punish people for practicing it? Or does it depend on which side of the bed he got up on that day? For some he'll look the other way, while for others he'll bring untold misery upon them for the rest of their life. What fickle standard of morality is that? Or is it such a negligible standard as to be indiscernible from that adhered to by the beasts of the field?
yes you are correct my friend, really you are, God did however warn them against multiplying wives for themselves, and although he seems to have tolerated it, i do not think that he condoned it. there are of course disastrous examples of the consequences of contravening Gods stance on marriage, most famously David and Bathsheba, which brought untold ...[text shortened]... previous post for the differences between humans and animals, hope you like it - regards Robbie.
27 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRegarding the post about the TIME article...I don't get it 🙄
sorry i had to paste this, it brought me much gleeful joy and is dedicated to all da bad putty cats out there,
No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals.' So began a feature article on evolution in TIME magazine ('How Man Began', March 14, 1994). The more I thought about this sweeping statement the more I began to w ...[text shortened]... up, the source:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/differences.asp
27 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwI'll tell you the same thing I told robbie. If you want a plausible evolutionary account of the development of the human moral faculty, try Joyce's The Evolution of Morality. There are other books out there as well, but I think this one is quite nice.
Just a whole lot more blah blah blah!
My question is this: What mechanism within evolution caused the development of morality within the human race?
If you think I posed the question incorrectly, then please feel free to rephrase it anyway you'd like.
I've been exposed to the theory of evolution since I was a kid. You know, a little creature crawls r an easy answer. I don't think there is one. Just some simplified idea about possibilities.
Or you can be a lazy and intellectually dishonest sack like robbie and waste everyone's time with ignorant, disingenuous dialogue.
27 Dec 08
Originally posted by josephwThe theory of evolution assumes matter to exist. It does not address the origin of matter.
According to the theory of evolution, did all matter exist first or did it evolve from nothing?
How did things not made of some material substance evolve?
Where did the vacuum of outer space come from?
From what source within the course of evolution did man develop laws to govern human conduct?
I don't know what you mean by "things not made of some material substance".
The TOE does not address the origin of the vaccuum of outer space. I don't know the answer to the question, but I posit that it came when space increased during the Big Bang, spreading out the matter that already existed until it was spread out enough to be called "vaccuum" in some places.
I don't understand what you mean by "from what source within the course of evolution". Human conduct came to be because it helped our ancestors breed and survive.
27 Dec 08
Originally posted by josephwLike others have already clearly indicated, your questions don’t make much sense.
According to the theory of evolution, did all matter exist first or did it evolve from nothing?
How did things not made of some material substance evolve?
Where did the vacuum of outer space come from?
From what source within the course of evolution did man develop laws to govern human conduct?
…According to the theory of evolution, did all matter exist first or did it evolve from nothing? ..…
The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of matter.
Therefore the origin of matter is totally irrelevant to evolution.
……How did things not made of some material substance evolve? ...…
Such as? Are you talking about mind? -if so, mind is a process of the brain and we evolved by natural selection to have brains to have this brain process because having a mind helps us to survive and that is just how evolution works -so what is the problem? It just evolved in the same way at all other beneficial features for our survival -by natural selection.
…Where did the vacuum of outer space come from?...…
Relevance? The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of vacuum.
…From what source within the course of evolution did man develop laws to govern human conduct?...
Are you talking about the development of moral beliefs or are you talking about the development of legal law?
Either way, you could say this comes mainly from cultural evolution which is not the same thing as biological evolution. Which are you talking about?
06 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethis is one of the more fun links you posted. although an interesting read(literature)
sorry i had to paste this, it brought me much gleeful joy and is dedicated to all da bad putty cats out there,
No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals.' So began a feature article on evolution in TIME magazine ('How Man Began', March 14, 1994). The more I thought about this sweeping statement the more I began to w ...[text shortened]... up, the source:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/differences.asp
it doesn't communicate anything other than the fact that "No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals" is clearly wrong when taken out of context. who knows what the arguments of the author of that article were. this is how a demonstration starts: you put forward a premise and you go on to prove it. the pastor who wrote the fun characterization of what makes us humans forgot to tell us what the times article mentioned in support of its original premise.
06 Jan 09
they don't even try to bring arguments to support their claims. and they flat out tell us that the idea of a common ancestor "denies the authority of God’s Word". Mind boggling.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/evolution
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of new species, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits—a concept that creationists and evolutionists agree on. The creationist model of how life spread across the globe after the Flood of Genesis uses many of the same principles of natural selection and adaptive radiation that are used in the evolution model. One of the main differences is that the biblical creation model recognizes that one kind cannot change into another and that the changes are a result of variation within the created kinds—not descent from a single common ancestor. As a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, representing a loss of information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds to emerge. Accepting the idea of a single common ancestor denies the authority of God’s Word.
06 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi…They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on EXISTING traits..…(my emphasis)
they don't even try to bring arguments to support their claims. and they flat out tell us that the idea of a common ancestor "denies the authority of God’s Word". Mind boggling.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/evolution
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of new species, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resi ...[text shortened]... to emerge. Accepting the idea of a single common ancestor denies the authority of God’s Word.
“EXISTING” traits? What do you mean by that?
Obviously natural selection can only act on “existing” traits in an individual. If that is all you mean then I should point out that “natural selection acting on EXISTING traits” practically IS the same thing as evolution (except it fails to mention the fact that new mutations occasionally occur and the consequences of this) and thus if something is evidence for one then it is evidence for the other.
-or do you mean traits that existed before, say, bacteria evolved resistance to antibiotics? If so, that is not the way bacteria probably evolved antibiotic resistance. First some of the bacteria are exposed to antibiotics and each time they are exposed, all that are exposed die (leaving behind only those that where not exposed). But there are constant new mutations all the time so that, eventually, by chance, one of those mutations gives one of those bacterium resistance to the antibiotic. Then natural selection does the rest.
The point is the mutation for antibiotic resistance can come after rather than before any of the bacteria where exposed to antibiotics. Do creationists deny this simple fact? -I hope not.
06 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwThis is an ultra simplified idea -but it comes out of philosophy instead of theology:
Just a whole lot more blah blah blah!
My question is this: What mechanism within evolution caused the development of morality within the human race?
If you think I posed the question incorrectly, then please feel free to rephrase it anyway you'd like.
I've been exposed to the theory of evolution since I was a kid. You know, a little creature crawls ...[text shortened]... r an easy answer. I don't think there is one. Just some simplified idea about possibilities.
The nature of the Human urged him to live within societies, and these societies must rely on complexes of laws -there must be some common rules for every member. For, without law, society is going down the drain.
Moral law is an invention of the Human, designed to help him to establish a healthy environment;
Nothing Holy 😵
06 Jan 09
1 edit
i am truly glad that you enjoyed it Z dude, but as for me, im on a chess fest! since black beetle, (peace be upon him, forever and ever, amen), very kindly gave me a gift of subscription, therefore you will be truly saddened that i may not visit the spiritual forum as much as you would like, but do not weep for me my friend, i will pop in from time to time, to check my variations, but in the meantime i may petition the forum members to canonize beetle, to make him a saint! St. Beetle, although i do not think that being an atheist he would acquiesce, after all, it would seem rather strange if the contrary were true, i mean if i for some reason we were made honorary atheists. 😀
06 Jan 09
Originally posted by Zahlanziooops, this should have been in reply to this statement, was playing in a tournament until 4:am this morning, please forgive
this is one of the more fun links you posted. although an interesting read(literature)
it doesn't communicate anything other than the fact that "No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals" is clearly wrong when taken out of context. who knows what the arguments of the author of that article were. this is how a demonstration ...[text shortened]... humans forgot to tell us what the times article mentioned in support of its original premise.
i am truly glad that you enjoyed it Z dude, but as for me, im on a chess fest! since black beetle, (peace be upon him, forever and ever, amen), very kindly gave me a gift of subscription, therefore you will be truly saddened that i may not visit the spiritual forum as much as you would like, but do not weep for me my friend, i will pop in from time to time, to check my variations, but in the meantime i may petition the forum members to canonize beetle, to make him a saint! St. Beetle, although i do not think that being an atheist he would acquiesce, after all, it would seem rather strange if the contrary were true, i mean if i for some reason we were made honorary atheists.
06 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePlay chess
i am truly glad that you enjoyed it Z dude, but as for me, im on a chess fest! since black beetle, (peace be upon him, forever and ever, amen), very kindly gave me a gift of subscription, therefore you will be truly saddened that i may not visit the spiritual forum as much as you would like, but do not weep for me my friend, i will pop in from time t ...[text shortened]... range if the contrary were true, i mean if i for some reason we were made honorary atheists. 😀
an play alot
You ll njoy
drrrivin wise
an Bonnie Glasgow
will be even better too
Who needs underpants
afterrrall😵