Hello Hellop2,

I have a vested interest in this. But lets cut to the chase of this ad homian argument.

What bussiness is this of mine because I am a milkman? Or let me rephase your statement to apply to you:

I am not the "christion" that can be bagged on because I dont know science. With my arguments I have IMO applied rational reasoning stating honestly why I choose to interprate the evidence in the manner I have. But I do have starting assumtions like you have. Can I say that you believe the big bang happen out of nothing? Magic yourself?, If not magic, please repeat in a science lab the BB again for me please. So both "sides" have their starting assumtions which both "sides" can way in the evidence.

Young Earth Creationists, YEC, believe that there was a world wide flood ~5000 years ago. A creationist in the mid 1800 first raised the idea of patheia super continent and tectonic plates moving away but the idea was rejected by "scienceist" for 50yrs later until they could put millions of years into the idea.

YEC came up with the idea of CTP, Catastrophic plate tectonics.
The idea is that the super continent split a part, and the plates moved away at 40kms at first, slowing down as they collided with another continent.
This raised the mountians and lowered the ocean trenches.

Sea Shells on Mt Everest, would be a good evidence of this model.

Flood laid down the layers for the Grand Canyon.
The Grand Canyon layers are all water based, including one layer of sand (under water sand dunes).
Since you have millions of years of the grand canyon, please explain why the border between each layer in the canyon is so horizontally smooth but the part exposed to the atmosphere is all worn away. If millions of years happened, then there would be erosion between the layers but there aint any.

I dont know about limestome and chalk, so I can't comment on such things.

For fossils you need to bury the dead/living thing quickly otherwise you dont get a fossil but it decays away. You dont see you pet cat that died in the back yard turning into a fossil.
Also you dont need millions of years either. There are pictures of hats fossiled, wind mills, axes, etc.. all fossiled in running water. Japanese scienists recently also announce in Japan that it took them only 8 yrs to fossilise something.
Yes there are stupid "christians" who thing God only put it there to deceive us. I am having this argument with my own paster :-( That is what happens when you try to please one religion with another. The outcome is niether are true.

Thank you. usually I just expect to get yelled out.

I am still thinking about that. The preferance might not a choice but the act still it.

With the comment of trolling, I get that often. I thought slashdot was where many people talk about stuff.
Would you prefer if we all thing the same? all shall love google, hate apple, hate sony. oh wait, hate google, love apple, hate sony.
Just how thoese fanboys can express thier believes, why should I be filtered out when I have something you dont agree with? isn't that censorship which the bulk of slashdot dont like?
If you really dont like what I have to say, either ignore me or if I am trolling, down vote me :-( .
Please dont downvote me, I am talking intelligently and not saying "yo dang, you thought the earth of old."

I think it is in the best interest so that all sides know what the real arguments are, and not to keep others thinking of a strawman "christian".

Say you don't like homosexuality, say you don't agree with the practice, but don't call it unnatural.

Sorry, A rose is still a rose by any other name.

Agreed I assume. That reminds me of a pet rabbit I had.

Still is killing your own son/daughter natural? because animals do that as well.

No, humans are not female in the woem, just because they haven't developed a dick yet doesn't mean they are female. All the cells in the baby from day one says wither it's male or female.

Thats interesting. I would need to look up on that.

The commandment existed before the Jews. The argument of over population isn't addressed by lets all by gay, it's about not getting pregnant by either banging less or using the pill. by controlling your urges and not having more than 1 child per adult.

Yes I am aware there are genetic "freaks" out there, if they have these mutations then feel free bang male or female since they are both. If you are fully male than that is not a moral choice.

It's an interesting point about transsexuals having a female brain. With them they believe they are female trapped in a male body. I am not sure what to make out with that else from if you can swing it (before it's chopped off) then you are still a man in a mans body despite you thinking like a girl. reminds me of seeing lady boys in thailand. strangely "cute" until my wife said what they were.

I wondered about this myself, Yes I loved doing that with an ex gf. I came to the conclusion that the bible doesn't speak against it in the context of Man & Woman so there isn't anything wrong.

The above verse is about hypercritical people doing the same thing. Jesus hated that. And those Les & Gay ministers know that.

Cheers

The layer of 3KM thick of coal stretching in the shape of a triangle of each side being 100kms long, is very very big. The size means you would have to have a massive peat bog that sinks exactly at the rate at which the peat grows. If it sank too quickly the water drowns everything. This process would have to have been just right for over 100,000 years. We do not see peat swaps that size anywhere else on else. The flood explains this by the dumping of the huge vegetation in the plant at that time.

That why we get things like the petrified forest in yellow stone, where logs are fossilised vertically through many layers of mud (which normally it would take millions of years to accumulate and the wood would of rot then.).

Ah, my bad. I thought you were serious. well whooosh to me :-(

Of course Gay & Les exist. My statement of God not creating them is because God only create Adam and Eve. All humans since then are children of them. So you and me and not direct creations of God, but only based on the corrupted blueprints of the originals.

somewhere in the bible: Judge not lest you be Judge. and somewhere else a Righteous man judges everything. The dont judge others I would assume applies to hypercrites which Jesus really hated.

I would define natural as something which is designed for. and hence unnatural as something not designed. e.g. (in an bad comparison) plugging a speaker cable into a power socket. When it comes to Humans, it was M & F, it wasn't M & M. The male loves the female. I am aware that gay people view what they do as part of themselves i.e "natural" to them, but feeling that way doesn't make it natural according to the design. The same way how it's feels natural for a catholic priest to "love" a little helpless boy/girl, doesn't make it natural. I believe feelings are not relevant here in what makes it natural.

I dont not believe that my views will change anyone else. Yes I think it's gay sex is indecent just because it's M & M. and not indecent (in private) for M & F (ass)

I give the origin of my views that I am posting from so people know why I think the way I do. I am not too sure how to answer that question of how am I showing love else from I am (trying) treating you with respect as a human. although I disagree with your views (if it is yours or another joke I havn't got) I do not treat you with disrespect like calling you homofagget and yelling at you to go back to Sodam and Gomorrah. You are a human deserving respect, but I can not agree with your views held in this post.

I didn't think anything I would say would convince you. I believe you already made up your mind. I just didn't like the flawed arguments based on those verses that I thought were a real attempt to justify oneself. I also thought maybe you turn away from Christianity because you knew alot of verses (or you got a bunch of Christians nagging you all the time.)

Cheers

I wouldn't say everyone is an enemy. Yes all have sin and fallen short but not everyone is a fool. a fool opposes God. Many try to live a "good" life to their best understanding.

I agree.

I agree. But there was ambiguity in the word "natural", as I could only see it being "natural" like how a floppy disk could corrupt on you when you have important data on it.

That is an interesting decision to make, IMO, I believe both are true. It would be like putting a candy bar in front of a two year old and telling him not to eat it. The first thing he will do is eat it when he thinks your not looking. You "knew" he would do that and he had free will to do/not do that. There are times God will jump in according to the bible and tell people he will destroy a city unless they repent, and the city repented. This show that God can intervene and change the future.

The knowing the future attribute is based on him existing in eternity. The creator who created matter & time has to be outside of space & time in order to create it. Eternity is not lots of time, it's outside of time altogether.

In my christian point of view, (I may be wrong here as I havn't study this area), The Law hasn't been replaced. Jesus fulfilled the punishment required by the law but the law is still there telling what is right / wrong. Grace is given so we are forgiven for trespassing against the law. Like how a cop can let you go for smoking. despite him doing that, it's still against the law.

For point 2: I had a rabbit that would bang everything and anything, female rabbits, male rabbits (back or front), your shoe. I've seen birds shag dead birds. I would probably say that Animals dont have morals installed in them like humans. Some animals eat there own young.

I dont understand that. If your an enemy of God, why not. E.g. Satan would do all he can to spite God.

I think you might have a point here. Being a fallen, sin riddled state that we are in, it could be normal for some people to be gay, wither transitory or permanent. Yet even in that state, it still doesn't subtract that it's against God's will (according to the Bible).

The pizzas analogy I dont think applies, its like saying one person likes blue and another green, while both doesn't matter to God.

This is a generic blanket statement, applies to some, and not to others. If someone doesn't understand something, they may or may not believe in it.

3, I am curious, can you explain the logical fallacies of the Christian God please.

Cheers

There are many flood legends. http://creation.com/many-flood-legends
http://creation.com/australian-aboriginal-flood-stories

Evidence of a global flood, well off the top of my head,

• 1 - the layers of the grand canyon are all smooth, if they were millions of years old they will be rough like the surface layer.
• 2- Each layer in the grand canyon are all water base including a sand layer which had dunes in it (under water dunes)
• 3 - layers of sedimentary rocks spanning 1000s of squared Kms in USA I think it was. - also in Australia but it broken into 2 groups because of another layer overlayed, I can't remember what the "pink color on the map" layer rock was now., look at map around the 3 sisters to see vast areas cut out.
• 4 - a triangle of 100kms each side of coal on the south of Australia, 3 km thick, is very implausible to be a swamp, but easily explain as a flood.

look around and you will find that you can explain alot with a great flood. Blindly saying theres no evidence will only get you applauses from people who dont want to know.

What a cop out. The above quote in Leviticus 20:13, sets the law from God. Arguing that it isn't against the law of USA doesn't mean anything to the "kingdom of God". You could argue that in some African country it is legal to rape and kill, and hence "we're fine there", Next.

Here one must practice killing their father for it to be a sin. If you only do it once then it isn't a sin because you only killed your father once. About "what came naturally": The argument here is that homosexuality isn't normal. The argument goes along the lines of a male is designed for a female. and the union there of is a symbol of the relationship of God to Jews and Jesus to Gentiles. Because some closed closet homos decided to rewrite verse to make homos not listed there, doesn't subtract to what was written.

I call BS on that. There isn't Male, Female, Gay, Les, there are only Male & Female. For a gay man it's still an unnatural act even if he prefers & love doing it.

BTW, As a Christian, I love the gay man but I dont want him to butt fuck me. (Love the man, not the sin) I am very surprise you can quote all these passages yet fail to understand that a gay man isn't a natural thing. You really want to have gay as some natural 3rd choice from Male & Female. and that desire it corrupting your interpretation of the verses. I just thought I should provide an counter argument to your views and (IMO poor) arguments.

It's a simple word to number conversion, it's not like scrabble where z=10, u =1, q=4.
Yes you could debate if this is just all made up but the fact is it is still there adding up.

But you could argue the Genesis PI value is a magic formula.
If you dont know about it, It's a formula for the first verse is something like this from my memory:
(sum of letters * product of letters) / (sum of words * sum of words).

With that you get the value of 3.141 * 10 ^ 70. to my memory, (that is 10 to the power of 70).

Well a valid reply would be that is just a made up formula that very remarkably reaches a value that is recognisable, and you would be right in saying that, but...
If you do that same formula to the New Testament's main creation verse you get 2.7182 x 10 ^ 30.
E wasn't discovered until the 16th century, so it's interesting that encoded in the text that a fisherman written are these advance mathematical constants of the universe in them.

Well feel free to dismiss these observations, as you shouldn't apply theology on them, they are only what Christians say are: signatures of the spirit.
There must be other locations this simple code is used but I haven't looked into these types of codes enough.

Actually Natural Selection was known before Charles Darwin even took his voyage.

The publication of his Origin of Species was in 1859, 20 years later. So Natural Selection is a creationist theory.
I am sure that will make some of you through up in your own mouths. :-)

I see two counter argument points here.
1 - The unborn child are people that will be men & women themselfs. Just because they are unborn doesn't make them not people. (Unless you want to get to the argument of unhuman people are like blacks, asians, jews, 99%ers etc... there not real people so have no rights. )

2 - Scale of "right". Should I be denied life because it's an inconvenience to someone else? How about if someone was holding you hostage for a quarter?
why should I pay quarter of my money to save your live?
In that argument the woman/girl is being greatly inconvenience for 9 months wither or not it's her own fault doesn't matter, the other human is being deprived their right to live.

So how dare those "religious fanatics" are fighting to preserve the right to life (even to you once maybe?) just because it annoys your mother.

So tell me, what is worth more? Your life or you mother being inconvenience for 9 months.

The first chapter gives the order in creation, the second chapter doesn't give an order hence the two do not conflict. It's like me making my bed at 8am then making my breakfast at 9 am. then I rang my mum and said I made breakfast and made my bed. Both are true, only 1 gives the order explicitly.

Are you aware that that in that verse that that word circumference is misspelt there and only there in the entire bible. Normally the Hebrew word is 3 letters long but the misspelt word is only 2 letters long. The scribes would write in the side they believe it to be the 3 letter word "circumference" but they never corrected the "mistake".

As it turns out, if you use the code of a=1 b=2 c=2, for the Hebrew language you get a value of:
3 letter = 111
2 letter = 106.

111 / 106 = 1.0471698113207547169811320754717 notice something with that value? it's 1/3rd of Pi to 4 decimal places
111 / 106 * 3 = 3.1415094339622641509433962264151 which gave an accuracy to 1/15000 of an inch.
pi == 3.1415926535897932384626433832795

Just thought I should mention that next time you feel like trying to boast about something.

Hello LiquidRage, Sorry for the late reply... Yes the above is a good statement of my beliefs. As referring to your link, it states several cases, let me go other each one as much as I can.

That is a interesting point. What is information. The problem here is that data needs to be interpreted. This is a vagueness about this as what constitute info and data. E.g. you would say Mozart's music is designed even if you heard it being played by a learner on a flute that got every 10th note wrong.
1. 1 increased genetic variety in a population i.e. Lenski
In this example they are trying to show how mutations have made the bacteria evolved.
The problem here is that it is devolution. That is a functioning gene got stuck on.
Bacteria ‘evolving in the lab’?
1.2 increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
The argument here is gene duplication is the technique used to gain "information" in DNA so things can evolve. The theory goes on the lines of "part/whole of a gene/chromosome" which is then free to mutate into something useful while the other picks up the stack.
I have just been reading up on this so I can reply to you (hence my delay in replying (that and work and doing stuff with the wife)), A creationist view here (I assume ID as well) is gene duplication does happen, it's proven many times over. But gene duplication is usually very bad in humans and animals. An example of gene duplication is Down’s syndrome. (the reverse is Turner syndrome). The genes *tend* interact badly with each other and when done artificially in mice, they dont survive. *Tends mean that I read a case where the double up of a gene helped out a lemur to process food when the doubled gene mutated.

I thought I should point out that although genes/chromosomes can duplicate, it doesn't mean it's evolving. As a classic example from a site: Gene Duplication

What caught me by surprise is strangely it's seems to be very common and tolerated in plants, but when the plant does this it can suffer from a fitness cost like in mutations and natural selection.
I thought I should also point out this plant which will revert it's DNA if it needs too.

1.3 novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
Sorry but I was having a hard time searching for Knox. I would like a last name so I could know what they are talking about.


1.4 novel genetically-regulated abilities
Just skimming by this. Nylon Bacteria
2. Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway
Sorry my eyes glazed over while looking into this. I am not a chemist :-( Rough shot at the subject, Unless they can show the same bacteria having 2 halves and another generation having it fused, they are just guessing about it's "evolution" pass. Also an alternate solution was it was a whole and a mutation split them into 2, another mutation can join them up. again sorry I couldn't be bother looking too deeply into this.

Zhang lemurs. Gene Duplication
It can happen. The double up actually helped.

Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar
The doubling up didn't kill the yeast, and a beneficial effect like the Zhang's lemurs. Again, they are still Yeast like how Epulopiscium fishelsoni are still bacteria with 85000 copies of a gene.


3. Noise (i.e. mutations) creates cancers, tumors, and all kind of sicknesses. If you dont believe me, step infront of a fukushima power plant. If you start to glow green like the hulk, I am wrong. If you get brain cancer, I win. (I'll be sad for you :-P )
Also noise builds up over time so it can't be selected against. good read if you want to see the other side of things.


4. Dear God, not the computer simulations argument again. This is BS. (I am a programmer, argument to my authority here.)


Summery: Gene duplication does happen, sometimes can help, usually bad in animals with pair chromosomes. Usually *good for plants. It still doesn't give evolution it's goo to you as it's usually hostile to the host. (if they even get to survive) For doubling up of a feature it can be great, e.g. lemurs or yeast.

Still it's mutations that causes the "evolution", even in the duplicated gene. (e.g. the lemor in RNASE1B)

The doubling up of genes does not give lizards the ability to grow wings. It doesn't give control/regulatory/communications/IC structures etc.. it can double up a already existing feature (which can be good), or fowl up other stuff (bad).
So the above statement of mutations not adding information should say "complex" information. Like in the case of "Epulopiscium fishelsoni", at 85000x a gene is duplicated and 25x the size of a human dna and it's still a bacteria.

I hope my argument shows support to justify to you the above statement still holds on correct.


Cheers
I hate Slashdot's formatting.

I didn't mean to state that you trying to deceive, you seem genuine in your comments. please forgive me if I offended you, my words are not meant to insult you or put you down.