Evolution vs Creationism---Is there a God? Or is it all just random chance?

[Casual Leftist]

No - he was saying the Pharisees were a lot of hypocrites, asking him questions to get him into trouble with the Occupation forces. You pay taxes to whomever you choose mate, none of my business.

Umm but no, he said render unto Caesar what is his. His name and face where on it. You don't "choose" not to give it to them, it's their property. If you look at US currency it has the name of the US and faces of its revered leaders its Caesar's who unironically also have a Senate and a powerful executive with business in the holy land.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

That tautology doesn't answer the question

sure it does......if there is no criminal action it should not be charged as a crime....as you learned during the failed impeachment attempt.....

Is it not obvious we're talking about terminating the gestation?

it was to me....that is why I corrected your error..........

And yet you still think it would have been wrong to abort the baby diagnosed with a fatal deformity?

from what did you draw that conclusion........I merely pointed out that you were foolish to use that as an example for opposing abortion, since it is such a rare occurrence........

IIRC the deformity was 1 out of 1260 births.

highly unlikely, I doubt that even the occurrence of redheaded children is that high........

I'd guess there are hundreds of thousands of births per year in the US so that's at least 4 figures in cases.

another bad guess since its 4 million.....though I suspect the 4 figures number is still possible......you want to talk about a lot of dead babies, there are close to a million abortions a year in the US......

Are we just talking about late term abortions?

nope.....all of them.....though I will also let you kill all the zygotes you want.......just to keep you happy......

 

[Into the Night]

^^ Straw man fallacy.
There is nothing about religion which is compulsory, and I never suggested there was.

Fallacy fallacy. Neither did I. Pay attention.

If you chose to live a Christian life, if you choose to live the vision Jesus provided us, if you chose to put into practice the Christian doctrines from Luke and Acts, then you need to eschew wealth and possessions, you need to share money and property collectively with the poor, and with the community.

If you do not do these things, then you are not an authentic Christian. At least, according to Luke/Acts.
If you do choose to be an authentic Christian, and live out this vision, then you are much closer to being a Communist than to being a wealthy, landed capitalist.

YOU don't get to be God. True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

What do you think the real number is?

Void question. There is no 'real number'. You are simply making up numbers.

Sure I'm not harshing on consent and all that jazz. But if I told you 1 in 5 people liked cherry soda - would it not be "normal" to like cherry soda?

Define 'normal'. Use of contrived example as a proof resulting in an argument from randU fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Well this is my first interaction with you. Hello Mr. Toucan.

A macaw, actually.

That's a nice slogan of diversity you got there.

Not a slogan. Bigotry is a logical fallacy. So is racism. They are a compositional error involving people as the class.

Do they want to protect children when they vote for an accused sex pest like Roy Moore or Donald Trump?

Accusation is not a proof. Attempted force of argument of ignorance fallacy.

A cut is still a cut when the budget will probably keep growing.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (subtraction<->addition).

And all this stuff about Constitutionality of federal programs vs states rights is fascinating but a far deviation from the topic.

No, it's right on topic. Argument of the stone fallacy.

I've tried avoiding the big ones like cnn and msnbc the MSM isn't pro Bernie either - but at some point you have to ask - what sources are you guys using then? And more importantly what makes your holy sources better than mine?

I am not using sources. YOU are. False authority fallacy.

It is never pleasant, but necessary. If we lived in a different society designed to care for the child,

We do. It's called 'parents'. Repetitious question already answered (RQAA).

or where sex education was the norm instead of abstinence

Abstinence is also sex education. Divisional error fallacy.

(depending on state of course) then maybe abortion would be less necessary.

Justifying the taking of a human life for the sake of convenience is murder. Nothing but.

But we're a ways to go on that front.

Because of attitudes like yours, that figure taking a human life for the sake of convenience is okay, and figure that government is required to teach about sex, and use that as an excuse to justify abortions.

 

[Into the Night]

Judaism does not teach young earth creationism. It is 5780 (Jewish calendar) years since a soul was put into the body of man and thus created a human being. Before that there was a physical being without a soul which did not qualify as man, but as just another animal however intelligent it was. The Torah does not necessitate that the earth was created in 7 24 hour periods, after all the 24 hour periods could only be measured after the creation of the sun and moon. In his book “Genesis and the Big Bang” the physicist Gerald Schroeder reconciles Genesis with the time periods of the Big Bang theory based on relative frames of reference.

While true, the two theories are not necessarily correlated.

The Theory of the Big Bang is not science. It is religion. It is a theory about a past unobserved event. It is not falsifiable. It remains a circular argument, and has arguments extending from it, the very definition of a religion.
The Theory of Creation (which states that life arrived on Earth as a result of the act of an intelligence) is not science. It is religion. Same reasons.
The Theory of the Continuum (which states that the Universe has no beginning or end, it always has been here and always will be) is also a religion.
The Theory of Abiogenesis (which states that life originated on Earth through a series of random unspecified events) is also a religion.
The Theory of Evolution (which states that present day life evolved from more primitive life) is also a religion. Same reasons.
The Theory of Natural Selection (which Darwin created) WAS a theory of science (it was falsifiable). It has been falsified via logical extension and via examples of animals that have characteristics that do not help the animal in any way. It is no longer a theory of science.

We do not know when the Big Bang happened, or even IF it happened. We don't have a time machine to go back in time to see what actually happened. We do not know whether any god, gods, or aliens brought life to Earth or whether life originated here somehow. We cannot go back in time to see what actually happened. A theory of science MUST be falsifiable. Theories that are NOT falsifiable are not theories of science.

Translations between languages is always problematic. The Hebrew 'day' is a period of any length, not necessarily the 24 hour day that it's commonly translated into in English, German, Spanish, French, Chinese, Japanese, or a whole host of other languages. The words translate, but idioms do not.

So the practical upshot is that we simply don't know. There is no way Gerald Schroeder could possibly know. At least he probably made some money selling his book.

 

[Into the Night]

Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.

After birth, a baby is fully dependent on its mother (and father) for its life. Why should being in a womb be any different? Why is it okay to take a human life before or after a birth?

 

[Into the Night]

that Jewish law was written before there was this thing called biology.........we now know scientifically that the the only difference between the unborn child and what American law considers a human being fully invested with constitutional rights is the scalpel that severs the umbilical cord.....

American law is not science.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

American law is not science.

American law should not contradict science......

 

[Mason Michaels]

The gospel of Luke and Acts is practically the world's first Communist manifesto. The Jesus of Luke counsels rich people to share everything they have with the poor, and the first Christians in Judea lived in communes where all property and wealth was shared.

So how did Jesus end up a Blue eyed,Blond,pro-gun,anti-gay capitalist Evangelical Republican?

 

[Mason Michaels]

American law should not contradict science......

Like the Global warming of the Planet?

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

Umm but no, he said render unto Caesar what is his. His name and face where on it. You don't "choose" not to give it to them, it's their property. If you look at US currency it has the name of the US and faces of its revered leaders its Caesar's who unironically also have a Senate and a powerful executive with business in the holy land.

I.e., if you carry round Caesar's money, he can ask you for it. You seem to have forgotten about what Jews were supposed to believe. You think there was a God universally powerful - except for the Roman Empire? Come ON!

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Like the Global warming of the Planet?

we've prevented the dingbat demmycunts from using American law to contradict science on that issue.....humans didn't cause global warming and humans could not have stopped it........

 

[Casual Leftist]

sure it does......if there is no criminal action it should not be charged as a crime....as you learned during the failed impeachment attempt.....

You mistake legal procedure for genuine innocence. There's a reason at sentencing the charge is 'not guilty vs guilty' not 'innocent vs guilty.' I thought we already brought his up in another conversation? Hillary is investigated and accused multiple times yet not even an indictment? She must be innocent then right by your logic? Hey neither Bill nor Trump have been convicted of sex crimes - they must have not occurred then, no? OJ found not guilty - writes a book detaling his crime - innocent? No. Trump did commit a crime. Romney saw that.

it was to me....that is why I corrected your error..........

Sure buddy.

from what did you draw that conclusion........I merely pointed out that you were foolish to use that as an example for opposing abortion, since it is such a rare occurrence........

Rare but real. Unlike say arguments that try to argue a clump of cells - not a fetus - has a soul - and thus cannot be aborted.

highly unlikely, I doubt that even the occurrence of redheaded children is that high........

Red hair isn't a fatal congenital defect.

another bad guess since its 4 million.....though I suspect the 4 figures number is still possible......you want to talk about a lot of dead babies, there are close to a million abortions a year in the US......

First stage abortions within the first 3 months aren't babies. The reason why I asked about attachment earlier is because plan B birth control prevents attachment of the zygote. You said attachment was a part of conception. What about that?

nope.....all of them.....though I will also let you kill all the zygotes you want.......just to keep you happy......

 

[Casual Leftist]

Void question. There is no 'real number'. You are simply making up numbers.

You can accuse me of making up numbers, but to say there is no real number is false. We can't say all women have been raped, but there's also a chance it's not 0 either. The percentage is real, we just can't perfectly detect it for various reasons. But women do talk about it. They can't all be liars.

Define 'normal'. Use of contrived example as a proof resulting in an argument from randU fallacy.

The question was meant to evoke an answer that could lead to a better understanding of what 'normal' possibly means. But it seems that was fruitless.

Well this has been my second interaction with you and I hope it's my last. You've presented a gish gallop of fallacy claims designed to avoid saying anything while maximizing criticism. If this where a debate class I'm sure you'd get a gold star. But for a less formal forum it just shows you're very skilled at avoiding the conversation.

 

[Casual Leftist]

I.e., if you carry round Caesar's money, he can ask you for it. You seem to have forgotten about what Jews were supposed to believe.

They ask in the form of taxes. I assume the local rabbis or some authority figure collected taxes. But please tell me what the Jews were supposed to believe.

And the point is you do metaphorically carry around Caesars money today. Jesus would toss a US coin like a Roman one.

You think there was a God universally powerful - except for the Roman Empire? Come ON!

I don't understand where this is coming from.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

First stage abortions within the first 3 months aren't babies.

they are if the mother doesn't want to kill them...then you pretend they aren't......

if attachment is the final stage of conception and attachment doesn't happen, obviously conception is not complete.......that's why I said I would let you kill all the zygotes your heart desired.....of course, that only leaves you a three day window max......

 

[USFREEDOM911]

we've prevented the dingbat demmycunts from using American law to contradict science on that issue.....humans didn't cause global warming and humans could not have stopped it........

Over the past 2,000 years, the globe has seen:

The Roman Warm Period

The cooler Dark Ages

The Medieval Warm Period

The Little Ice Age

A gradual 300-year warming

Don't believe the hysteria.

The climate is changing.

It always has. It always will.

 

[Into the Night]

American law should not contradict science......

Works for me. Unfortunately, it sometimes does. Congress seems to think they can overturn the 1st law of thermodynamics, for example.

 

[Into the Night]

Like the Global warming of the Planet?

Not science. Define 'global warming'.