My story
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2011, 07:00 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2011 07:04 PM by BlackEyedGhost.)
RE: My story
@nontheocrat It also talks about the sons of Benjamin taking wives from the festival. I don't know if it was with the consent of the women or not. Also note in this passage, however, it's not God talking and telling them to do this, but the elders. The Exodus passage is interesting. To start, men in those days had to give ther daughters in marriage. This passage deals with when a man sold his daughter as a slave instead of giving her away in marriage. The interesting thing here is that it seems more to be protecting the woman's rights than condoning rape. The woman has been sold, but it's still treated as marriage if the master designated her to himself. He isn't given the right to get rid of her as a normal slave because of this. If he designates her to one of his sons, he has to treat her as a daughter. And if he takes another woman and thus commits adultery, he's required to continue treating her well and providing for her. If he doesn't do that as he should, she can be let free of him. Tbc again.
@nontheocrat The Zechariah passage isn't God condoning or seeing to it that the women of Jerusalem will be ravished, but He's warning them of what's going to happen.
(18-05-2011 06:56 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  Sooooo, when Moses tells his men to "keep all virgin women and children for themselves" in Numbers 31:17-18 ...was it because virgin teenagers are notoriously skilled at carpentry or tilling the fields and thus, would make excellent slaves?

"...that have not known a man by lying with him"

Why would a woman's virginity be the deciding factor, if sex wasn't the reward? Even if it is referring to marriage, forced marriage by your captor is still technically rape, it's just that now your rapist is married to you and in biblical terms, that means he now owns you.

Marriage in biblical terms requires men to treat their wives well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2011, 07:42 PM
RE: My story
(18-05-2011 07:00 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  Marriage in biblical terms requires men to treat their wives well.

And I'm sure that NONE of the Israelite men ever disobeyed that requirement! LOL!

Seriously BEG, you HAVE to see how hard your are twisting logic to try and avoid the obvious. And it doesn't even matter, god committed a lot worse than rape in the Old Testament...

He killed so many people (including innocent children) as well as commanded the Israelites to do so as well that there is no excusing him. Often he killed people who had nothing to do with the supposed offense in the first place. Look at the children destroyed by the mythical global flood of Noah, the children residing in Sodom and Gomorrah when it was burned. He had Israel utterly wipe out nations, we put people on trial for Crimes against Humanity for genocide, but Jehovah does it and gets called holy!

Look at 2 Samuel 24 where god gets pissed at the Israelites and moves David to take a census, then he uses the census (that he motivated) as an excuse to kill 70,000 Israelites. So we can add deception to the mass murder charge in this instance. With a god like that on your side, who needs enemies?

“There is no sin except stupidity.” Oscar Wilde
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2011, 07:55 PM
 
RE: My story
(16-05-2011 05:24 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  @Filox I've looked into alternatives to Young Earth Creationism and believe me when I say they're worse. They're contradictory to themselves and if I were to accept one of them I'd likely have to toss out the credibility of the Bible anyways. Besides, the real issues here are abiogenesis and evolution. Both of which have the same answer of natural impossibility by irreducible complexity. In evolution even if 50 of the steps are possible, all it takes is the 51st to be impossible for the entirety of the theory to be ruined. And there are far more than 51 steps in evolution required to bring about life as we know it today. There are even steps in evolution that can be pointed out that scream impossibility. Such as the junction of abiogenesis and evolution with the original self-replicating life form that also has the potential for evolution. Even the simplest naturalist theory presents more problems than answers. Do you get now why I can't accept evolution as an answer to how life as we know it arose?
@Filox As for proof of a young earth, there aren't really any super set in stone ways of dating things like that. Dating methods are basically a best guess thing. The radio-isotope dating method requires you to first guess the original amount of starting material, assume that no end product was present at the beginning or added at any point throughout, and assume that no starting product was removed at any point. Other dating methods are generally historical based. You must go to historical documents (like the Bible) in order to place anything in a certain time period. This is also best guess and thus open to bias. Other methods are less common but include things like studying other subjects and comparing it with the theories of origins. Such as linguists looking at the phonemes of various languages and dialects to support the "from Africa" theory or people looking at the characters of the Chinese language to support Creationism. The latter is less of a strictly historical method. I might finish later.

Why do I get the feeling you never went outside answers in genesis to get this awful level of understanding?

Could you give one, just one example of irreducible complexity? If so you can present it to the scientific community and be forever immortalized in history as the person who disproved evolution, and as for abiogenesis would it shock you to find out we have created RNA in the lab by simulating an early earth environment?
Here is the thing about a theory, its not a guess, its not a hypothesis, it is the best possible explanation for all the facts and are disputed by none. The theory of evolution is more solid a theory then atomic, germ and gravity but you wouldn't discredit them now.

I'm trying to remain civil about this but you undermine the entire scientific method while at the same time you take advantage of the life it has given you and for me that is horrifically insulting, and to make it worse you don't have to be a YEC to be a good Christan and you don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution. YEC are struggling to maintain a population for the same reasons geocentrics and flat earthers are so few in numbers, because its demonstrably wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

This is a list of why YEC is wrong, if it doesn't cover some of your questions then feel free to ask and we can inform you on them.

I'm not even going to bother with how awful the bible is since chances are you will just try to interpret the "word of god" your own way despite the words on the page which the very fact there are thousands of different interpretations for the exact same writing should speak for itself.
Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2011, 08:45 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2011 09:05 PM by BlackEyedGhost.)
RE: My story
@nontheocrat Many Israelites did disobey that. However, the Israelites were people, not God. I haven't twisted logic. I've only presented my understanding of the texts. You may see it as twisting logic because your understanding of them is different and, you think, obviously right. Because you and others think it's right doesn't make it so. Same goes for me. I'm aware of the things God did and commanded in the Old Testament. He killed people and ordered people killed in order to accomplish His will including women and children. My questions: At what point does a child become an adult? At what point is a person responsible for their own actions? How bad can the natural consequences be for any given wrong action? Everyone is responsible for their sins which have the potential to cause untold destruction every time. If God decides it's right to rid the world of any given person, He knows best. For Him to kill isn't murder, but justice. I don't expect you to accept this, but it's how I see it.
@Atheist Troll Thanks for the link. As for irreducible complexity, my name won't go down in history because it's already been done. Try the bacterial flagellum or the ATP synthase molecule. Do a Google search, I'm sure there's more. I love how people always say that things like that are created by simulating an early earth environment, but never question it beyond that. What sort of evidence do we have that the early earth had an environment like that? Usually the only evidence is that it's required for certain life-involved chemicals to have possibly evolved. However, I'm not aware of the synthesizing of actual RNA. I've heard of synthesizing amino acids, but not RNA yet, so I'll have to look into that, so thanks. There are still scientific people who consider evolution a hypothesis. I don't care much for what you call it, what I care about is if it's true. I love the scientific method. I don't undermine it. It requires you to ask questions, and that's one thing I'm doing. Tbc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2011, 09:21 PM
 
RE: My story
(18-05-2011 08:45 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  @nontheocrat Many Israelites did disobey that. However, the Israelites were people, not God. I haven't twisted logic. I've only presented my understanding of the texts. You may see it as twisting logic because your understanding of them is different and, you think, obviously right. Because you and others think it's right doesn't make it so. Same goes for me. I'm aware of the things God did and commanded in the Old Testament. He killed people and ordered people killed in order to accomplish His will including women and children. My questions: At what point does a child become an adult? At what point is a person responsible for their own actions? How bad can the natural consequences be for any given wrong action? Everyone is responsible for their sins which have the potential to cause untold destruction every time. If God decides it's right to rid the world of any given person, He knows best. For Him to kill isn't murder, but justice. I don't expect you to accept this, but it's how I see it.
@Atheist Troll Thanks for the link. As for irreducible complexity, my name won't go down in history because it's already been done. Try the bacterial flagellum or the ATP synthase molecule. Do a Google search, I'm sure there's more. I love how people always say that things like that are created by simulating an early earth environment, but never question it beyond that. What sort of evidence do we have that the early earth had an environment like that? Usually the only evidence is that it's required for certain life-involved chemicals to have possibly evolved. However, I'm not aware of the synthesizing of actual RNA. I've heard of synthesizing amino acids, but not RNA yet, so I'll have to look into that, so thanks. There are still scientific people who consider evolution a hypothesis. I don't care much for what you call it, what I care about is if it's true. I love the scientific method. I don't undermine it. It requires you to ask questions, and that's one thing I'm doing. Tbc.

Sorry, neither of those are irreducibly complex, heck you can youtube videos explaining it. The problem with irreducible complexity is that people thinking it had to preform the same function throughout the entire evolutionary process but this is a false assumption. Removing a piece will stop it from preforming its current function but it doesn't stop it from preforming other more basic functions.
Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2011, 10:13 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2011 10:19 PM by BlackEyedGhost.)
RE: My story
@Atheist Troll For now I'll take your word for it. Here's something that's by definition both complex and irreducible. A self-replicating mechanism that also holds the capacity to change during replication without losing its replicating capacity. Without those two things evolution can't happen.
I guess I'll just forget about that Tbc earlier since the only thing left to say there was that I'm willing to tackle any and all of those topics that are mentioned in that link.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2011, 10:39 PM
RE: My story
Why is it that creationists (members of my own family included) seem to think that scientists are leading their own conspiracy to make the world believe in the 'clearly false' idea of evolution? What would scientists gain from that? Science is dedicated to testing the evidence, compiling it, and then drawing conclusions. The scientific community wouldn't start a massive conspiracy to promote a theory they knew to be incorrect. I really struggle to understand how anyone can believe that. BEG, I respect that you are independent minded enough to look at things for yourself but don't you think that if irreducible complexity had been demonstrated that the theory of evolution would have been ditched by now by mainstream science.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2011, 10:47 PM
 
RE: My story
(18-05-2011 10:13 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  @Atheist Troll For now I'll take your word for it. Here's something that's by definition both complex and irreducible. A self-replicating mechanism that also holds the capacity to change during replication without losing its replicating capacity. Without those two things evolution can't happen.
I guess I'll just forget about that Tbc earlier since the only thing left to say there was that I'm willing to tackle any and all of those topics that are mentioned in that link.

I assume you mean DNA? RNA world hypothesis is the best I can find at the moment. Even Michael Behe doesn't believe DNA is irreducibly complex, maybe tomorrow I'll find the source again, he tends to change his mind alot. It will take a little real research to really find out the best answer but that is the reason why we are trying to make perfect RNA in the labs. Also I believe the RNA we created in the lab can only replicate about 50% of itself, I'll need to find the actual papers published on it sometime but its almost 1am for me now so a later date.
Always remember, its much quicker to claim something is irreducibly complex then it is to prove it is not,
Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2011, 11:43 PM
RE: My story
@Atheist Troll I meant what I said. It doesn't have to be DNA. Nor is DNA self-replicating. I realize that it's easier to claim something is irreducibly complex than to disprove it. That's why this will be my last suggestion unless I do in fact find something better than all of the previously stated. The RNA world hypothesis presents more problems than answers for simple self-replicating life (or pre-life). It requires a great deal of circumstance to even get RNA in the first place and it doesn't self-replicate effectively. Check this site out http://theory-of-evolution.net/chap10/RN...tion-3.php
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2011, 12:25 AM
 
RE: My story
(18-05-2011 11:43 PM)BlackEyedGhost Wrote:  @Atheist Troll I meant what I said. It doesn't have to be DNA. Nor is DNA self-replicating. I realize that it's easier to claim something is irreducibly complex than to disprove it. That's why this will be my last suggestion unless I do in fact find something better than all of the previously stated. The RNA world hypothesis presents more problems than answers for simple self-replicating life (or pre-life). It requires a great deal of circumstance to even get RNA in the first place and it doesn't self-replicate effectively. Check this site out http://theory-of-evolution.net/chap10/RN...tion-3.php

Ugh can't sleep. That website is propaganda, I would trust its information as much as I trust Ben Stiens god awful mocumentary, the only sources its lists is a Darwins black box, basically Michael Behe failed hypothesis of intelligent design, actually its not even a hypothesis as he refused to submit any observations or evidence for his claims to make it to peer reviewed and is not at all considered scientific literature.

It was exposed during the Dover trial that ID was simply creationism by another name, even the ID textbook definition of ID was that all animals appeared fully formed, birds with wings, fish with fins, ext. No self respecting biologist even considers ID because there is simply not one shred of evidence to support the claim. If someone had evidence then we would gladly accept it, science is objective and non biased by default, that is why we have the scientific method and ID failed to pass and intended to strong arm itself into science by the courts and it failed yet again.

I don't understand your resistance to evolution either, unless your a YEC it doesn't conflict with any Christan beliefs, heck even the pope accepts evolution guided by god. You don't have to break evolution to prove god exists and the existence of evolution doesn't disprove god.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: