ZubaZ ZubaZ

Should the feds open up benefits to married, gay couples?

▼

Should the feds open up benefits to married, gay couples?

from JoeUser Forums

I heard on the news this morning that the lawyer that got gay marriages recognized in Massachusetts is bringing suit against the federal government to recognize legal marriage by the states and provide equal benefits. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/us/03marriage.html?ref=us)

I support the suit.

Over the past six years I've had the honor of officiating five weddings in Texas.  I firmly believe that the ceremonies I performed had very little to do with the state.  Each was a social or religious agreement between two people to be together forever.  The state had no place there.

Where I believe the state has a place is in a separate, legal situation recognizing a contract between these same two people for the purpose of maintaining property, securing benefits, and situations dealing with children.  The state should be there to record that a contract exists between these people.  The state should *not* call it marriage.

In my magic world, the two events would be made separate.  If your faith allowed gay marriages; great!  If it didn't; great too!  Same for your state governments.  And the federal government . .  their job is to interfere with the states as little as possible.  If a state says that a legal contract exists . . then that is that.  Recognize baby!

The following excerpts are the main provisions of the Act:

Powers reserved to the states:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

 

The act itself: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ199.104

 

 

politics
143,359 views 375 replies
Reply #326 from JoeUser Forums Top

presume so. Most rainbows are only seen at certain places.

I have yet to see one that was visible in many distinct places far from each other.
End of quote

everyone has seen rainbows no matter where they live.  Anywhere I've lived or visited, north, south or inbetween I've seen a rainbow after a shower. 

I don't care what the rainbow stood for. A rainbow is a rainbow is a rainbow. It's like the snake which is a snake (and not the devil). For me a word simply means what the word means. I don't need it to stand for anything else.

End of quote

Of course you don't care because it puts a sinker into your dogmatic assertion that the flood was just a local flood.  If it weren't for the rainbow you might be right.  The rainbow puts a kink in your theory Leauki. 

It's funny how you dismiss this tho.

It's the bigger picture that you don't want to look at like I've been saying all along. 

The rainbow was a promise to the "world" that God would never destroy the earth again by flood.  The fact that we still today have local flooding and the fact that we all see rainbows no matter where we are shows this was no local flood. 

This promise was to the world. 

Reply #327 from JoeUser Forums Top

Actually, nobody answered how Noah would have acquired any of the species of animals from Australia or the Americas.

And I think I should make note again of the most important aspect of this:

The Bible does NOT actually tell of a world-wide flood. Neither the Hebrew text nor the Latin translation Lula referred to speak of a world-wide flood.

It was messianic sects who interpreted a story about a local event to be about all humanity. And Egypt did not become a major power less than 300 years after all humanity had died out. A literal reading of the text does _NOT_ give us a world-wide flood.

The questions about the physical impossibility of Noah's task are valid, but they question only the non-literal interpretation of the story. The real, literal story about a flood in the entire land of Aram Naharaim doesn't have these weaknesses. (It's still implausible, but entirely possible.)

I think we have to keep this in mind:

The Bible does NOT tell of a world-wide flood.

(And neither does it prohibit civil unions among homosexual men for that matter.)

 

 

TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #328 from JoeUser Forums Top

everyone has seen rainbows no matter where they live.  Anywhere I've lived or visited, north, south or inbetween I've seen a rainbow after a shower.

End of quote

And you are certain that it was the same rainbow?

 

Of course you don't care because it puts a sinker into your dogmatic assertion that the flood was just a local flood. 

End of quote

What dogmatic assertion? It is YOU who asserts that there was a world-wide flood without any evidence of any kind whatsoever. I merely tell you what the actual text says, and it doesn't say that the flood was world-wide. The people for whom the text was written didn't even have an idea of what "world-wide" is.

The Bible also claims that King Cyrus ruled over all the land (same word). Following your logic he was king of America 2500 years ago. But the Indians had never heard of him to be sure.

 

If it weren't for the rainbow you might be right.  The rainbow puts a kink in your theory Leauki.

End of quote

How so?

 

 

 

Reply #329 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Bible also claims that King Cyrus ruled over all the land (same word). Following your logic he was king of America 2500 years ago. But the Indians had never heard of him to be sure.
End of quote

which scripture are you referring to?  After Cyrus came Rome and then Greece and they too were world wide kingdoms.  But remember it was the "known world."  Alexander conqured the whole "known world."  What Indians are you speaking of?  American? 

What dogmatic assertion? It is YOU who asserts that there was a world-wide flood without any evidence of any kind whatsoever.
End of quote

Your dogmatic assertion that it was only a local flood and therefore you held up Mesopotamia as your example.  You asked me to give you other floods that happened in this area trying to prove that it was only a local flood and that God kept his promise.   In order to believe that Leauki we'd have to say the rainbow was meant for ONLY Mesopotamia and it's not.  The whole world has rainbows and it goes back to the promise that God would never again  destroy  the world by flood. 

And you are certain that it was the same rainbow?
End of quote

why wouldn't I be?  Unless I'm trying to discount this whole story then I guess I'd be fishing around for another explanation.   When we see a rainbow in the sky what does it mean and how is it diff than the one that was first seen by Noah? 

The Bible does NOT tell of a world-wide flood.
End of quote

wrong and you keep repeating yourself Leauki...  you've said this about 20 times already no matter what anyone else has to say.  It does tell of a world wide flood. 

And neither does it prohibit civil unions among homosexual men for that matter.)

End of quote

True.  Nothing about civil unions among homosexuals.  But the principle that this shouldn't even be a question is found in scripture.......a man should not lie with another man nor a woman a woman. 

So I guess if you were talking about homosexual who were abstaining from sex and were only companions.....I wouldn't have a problem with that from a scriptural POV. 

 

 

Reply #330 from JoeUser Forums Top

Actually, nobody answered how Noah would have acquired any of the species of animals from Australia or the Americas.
End of quote

Yes I did.  Are you only saying this because El-D said this even though I said I already answered this?  I said this in #314

2. Scripture says that God himself gathered these animals Gen 7:8-9. When the tsunami happened in Indonesia what was interesting was there were very few dead animals found because the reports were they were running towards higher ground. Gave us a bit of insight what could have happened. It says the fountains of the deep exploded so probably the animals sensed what was about to happen and went to higher ground where Noah was building his Ark.
End of quote

I also said that there is strong indication that prior to the flood the continents of the earth were not separated by vast bodies of water as they are today. 

Remember it took 120 years to build this ark.  Plenty of time for the animals to travel. 

also I just thought it's funny we're having this rainbow discussion given the fact that the homosexuals use that as a symbol for their unity. 

Reply #331 from JoeUser Forums Top

And Egypt did not become a major power less than 300 years after all humanity had died out.
End of quote

who said it did? 

Reply #332 from JoeUser Forums Top

which scripture are you referring to?  After Cyrus came Rome and then Greece and they too were world wide kingdoms.  But remember it was the "known world."  Alexander conqured the whole "known world."  What Indians are you speaking of?  American? 

End of quote

 

I am referring, of course, to the Bible. (I find it odd that you would forget which book we are talking about, but ok.)

 

I do remember that it was the "known world". It is YOU who is trying to tell us that the same word refers to more than the known world, not I. American Indians, yes.

 

 

Your dogmatic assertion that it was only a local flood and therefore you held up Mesopotamia as your example.

End of quote

 

It isn't my dogmatic assertion, it is G-d's dogmatic assertion in Genesis.

 

 

You asked me to give you other floods that happened in this area trying to prove that it was only a local flood and that God kept his promise.   In order to believe that Leauki we'd have to say the rainbow was meant for ONLY Mesopotamia and it's not. 

End of quote

 

No, I asked you to give me other floods that happened in that area to prove your assertion that G-d promised that there won't be another such flood and that hence it must have been a global flood.

 

If there was no other flood like that in Mesopotamia, G-d's promise would have been kept.

 

Which rainbow are you talking about? The one mentioned in the Bible? That was in Mesopotamia and was only seen there. Other rainbows? They are seen wherever they happen. Then and today.

 

 

wrong and you keep repeating yourself Leauki...  you've said this about 20 times already no matter what anyone else has to say.  It does tell of a world wide flood. 

End of quote

 

No, it doesn't.

 

That's the simple fact. Anything else is interpretation.

 

So I guess if you were talking about homosexual who were abstaining from sex and were only companions.....I wouldn't have a problem with that from a scriptural POV. 

End of quote

 

And I am not interested enough in other people's sex lives and hence cannot be bothered with thinking about what they might do. I know of lots of practices forbidden by scripture that can be done in a heterosexual marriage as well, but that doesn't mean that I claim that such a marriage must not happen.

 

Both a heterosexual and a homosexual marriage can be used for (scripturally) legal and (scripturally) illegal purposes.

 

who said it did? 

End of quote

 

Joseph. When Joseph and his brothers arrived in Egypt Egypt was already a great nation and had constructed lots of pyramids. That did not happen in just 300 years since the flood.

Reply #333 from JoeUser Forums Top

also I just thought it's funny we're having this rainbow discussion given the fact that the homosexuals use that as a symbol for their unity. 

End of quote

I guess it represents hope for them.

I found that many homosexuals are very spiritual people.

 

Reply #334 from PolMach Forums Top

No, I don't think you did your research. That's proved by your lack of knowing the scriptures and the other side of the debate. You couldn't have gone very deep at all into the other side. What you did was buy hook, line and sinker what only the secular side is telling you. Any information you got from the Christian side was from the "scientific" side. Be honest El-D. Otherwise you would have known much of what I've been telling you and you did not.
End of quote

Stop making assumptions about me.  My lack of knowing about the scriptures is because I don't study the bible every day.  I did some research a while ago, I will occasionally check verses when referenced in these debates but I don't study the bible like you do.  Just because I can't quote chapter and verse or even remember all the details of a story doesn't mean I have never done any of the research.  Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim (that's basic logic and critical thinking) so if I find any evidence to the contrary, which doesn't have to be much as long as it is actual evidence and not just hearsay, then that is sufficient to disprove that affirmative claim.

The same can't be said of me because I was you once upon a time. Somewhere along the way (in my 20's) I changed from being where you are now to where I am now. It's like walking out of a dark room into the light. The light exposes everything....and then it becomes very clear.
End of quote

The same can be said about you.  You claim that I am merely spouting off what I have heard/read from others.  That's exactly what you're doing.  You are quoting the bible left and right, you are quoting other people who assert that they have made translations from the original texts, etc. at the very least this is believing what you are reading rather than observing the actions yourself.  So I am no more guilty of that than you are.

 

First off the burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not trying to prove a thing. I'm trying to enlighten you and give you something to think about by giving you information that is factual.
End of quote

This is a crock which is why I'm giving up at this point.  For me to buy into your belief structure you have to prove to me that it is true.  If you fail to do so then I am not going to buy into it plain and simple.  You are claiming that the bible is the word of god and that everything in it is historical fact, you must prove this for me to believe it, and no one has been able to do that.

so you don't need any facts to back your claims up?
End of quote

It's not my claims that are in question, it is yours.  You are the one claiming that Noah's story involved a world-wide flood and that his boat was able to hold all those animals and provide for them for the duration.  You are the one who has to back that up not me.  I don't have to disprove your story rather you have to prove it.

Are you always right when you go out on a limb like this? At least I gave you plausible numbers put forth by a taxonomist.
End of quote

Nope I'm not always right.  And I took your numbers and said "assuming that you're right ...".  I never rejected them.  Then I posed a follow up question which still remains in question even if some of the animals were hibernating.

but you once again, are giving me nothing but your opinion and where you want this to go.
End of quote

I don't have to give you anything.  I'm not trying to prove anything.

why not? What are you going on?
End of quote

I'm going on the fact that tsunamis have a very limited effect in-land.  Yes tsunami's are devastating but they can only affect a little ways in-land.  Hurricanes can also be very destructive (Katrina) but again they have a limited range of impact so I could see the story of Noah impacted a limited area like Leauki's version but not a world-wide impact.

So who put all this here anyway? Who put you here? Where did you come from?
End of quote

Quite simply I don't know.  But that doesn't mean that your god exists.  Perhaps it was your god, perhaps it was multiple god like the early greeks believed.  Perhaps it was some alien race.  There are a lot of possible explainations but none of them are based on anything that is verifiable.  I have never said that god doesn't exist only that I currently don't believe that he does, there is a big difference.

They will but I don't think if they found Noah's body there you'd believe it
End of quote

On the contrary if they do find a boat and date it to the proper time period I would be much more likely to buy into the story.  I am rather open to changing my mind, I am just not open to doing it just because the bible says it happened.

So impossible? Are you sure?
End of quote

On the scale that your talking about, yes.

I already answered this. Are you really reading what I'm posting?
End of quote

You did provide an answer to this but it was on another page or lower down on the page and I hadn't read it yet.  I write my responses as I'm reading down the page so sometimes I'm a little late on some information.

You just came out and said there were five people (not eight) on that ark. That's just a simple thing not to know.  You're only being half truthful here. I think you've done the research that tells you what you really want to hear. You didn't know how big the ark was, nor how many animals are thought to be included, nor how long it took to build this boat....yet you are very dogmatic that not only have done your research but that you have concluded beyond question that you have the truth about all this. How can that be when you haven't even got a grasp of the historical account of Noah from the Christian perspective?
End of quote

So I've forgotten some of the details over the years, big deal.  That doesn't mean I didn't do the research at some point.  You constantly misrepresent what evolution states does that mean you have never researched it?  No and I don't make that assumption about you so why do you make that assumption about me?

 

I'm about to post a reply before I've read the next page of replies.  I suppose I should apologize in case you've addressed anything I just put here on that next page, sorry.

Reply #335 from JoeUser Forums Top

which scripture are you referring to?
End of quote

I am referring, of course, to the Bible. (I find it odd that you would forget which book we are talking about, but ok.)

End of quote

Are you doing this on purpose to cause confusion Leauki or to try and squirm out of what you're saying?  I asked you specificially which scripture you are referring and you say.......the bible?  The bible is full of scriptures Leauki.  You made a claim about a specific word  (world) being the same as in Genesis.    Which scripture are you referring?  You are being evasive here. 

American Indians, yes.
End of quote

so you're saying that there were American Indians in America during the flood times?  Are you crazy?  Where are you getting this information from?  Can you back this up? 

Which rainbow are you talking about? The one mentioned in the Bible? That was in Mesopotamia and was only seen there. Other rainbows? They are seen wherever they happen. Then and today.
End of quote

Now, Leauki, I usually find you to be somewhat of a smart guy so I have to say you just like to play dumb on purpose....again to cause confusion.  I keep trying to tell you that the rainbow promise was for the whole world that's why we see the rainbow.  The rainbow was a sign of God's covenant.  He said he put the bow in the sky as a promse never to do that again.  IF IT WERE ONLY FOR MESOPOTAMIA AND A COVENANT FOR ONLY THEM THEN WHY DO WE SEE RAINBOWS ALL OVER KINGDOM COME? 

I know of lots of practices forbidden by scripture that can be done in a heterosexual marriage as well, but that doesn't mean that I claim that such a marriage must not happen.
End of quote

Like what?

Joseph. When Joseph and his brothers arrived in Egypt Egypt was already a great nation and had constructed lots of pyramids. That did not happen in just 300 years since the flood.
End of quote

who said it did?  Joseph said it did?  Egypt didn't become a great nation or world power until AFTER Joseph made it one....remember the famine and what Joseph did?  How rich Egypt became because of the famine?  I don't know off hand from Noah to Joseph how many years there were.  I'd have to go back and check. 

I found that many homosexuals are very spiritual people.
End of quote

we are told in scripture to test the spirits to see if they are from God or not. 

 

 

 

 

Reply #336 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is a crock which is why I'm giving up at this point. For me to buy into your belief structure you have to prove to me that it is true.
End of quote

How can I do that when you don't even believe Jesus walked the earth?  I think if anything we should start from there...at least it's closer to our time than Noah was.  I've told you a whole bunch of times, it's not about me proving anything anyway.  I could talk till I'm blue in the face or in this case, numb in the fingers typing away.  Until God opens your eyes and ears you'll not believe one blooming word I say anyhow. 

Can you prove to me your love for your wife?  Staying with her doesn't prove it.  Having children with her doesn't prove it.  Buying her flowers doesn't prove it.  Not cheating on her doesn't prove it.   How do you prove love?  So I could say to you that until you prove to me your love for your wife I won't believe it.  There's really no evidence but a marriage of convenience. 

You are the one claiming that Noah's story involved a world-wide flood and that his boat was able to hold all those animals and provide for them for the duration. You are the one who has to back that up not me. I don't have to disprove your story rather you have to prove it.
End of quote

I thought I did a pretty good job in explaining how this could mathmatically and feasibly be done.  There's not much more that I can say really.  It's either plausible or it's not.  What do you think?  Is it plausible given the hugeness of the boat and the approximate amount of animals saved? 

Now, when I ask you how you got here and everything you see, you say you don't know.  Why is it you don't have to back anything up but I do?   So who has the better answer?  Can you explain to me why we see a rainbow after a good sunshine shower?   Can you explain to me why the animals went to higher ground when that huge tsunami hit in Indonesia? 

I don't have to give you anything. I'm not trying to prove anything.
End of quote

well I'm not either so should we just forget about it then? 

On the contrary if they do find a boat and date it to the proper time period I would be much more likely to buy into the story. I am rather open to changing my mind, I am just not open to doing it just because the bible says it happened.
End of quote

Well I can give you all sorts of archeological finds that support the bible.  Not the boat, yet, but there are many other very important discoveries over the years showing the bible was at least accurate in it's history.  Which makes sense if the bible was inspired. 

On the scale that your talking about, yes.
End of quote

Mt. St. Helens was a boon for Christians and the lab because it showed how one big catastrophe could do what was previously thought to take thousands of years.   It was because of the sheer power of the blast and the power of the water that emptied out of spirit lake and then forcibly came back down taking acres and acres of trees with it.  So if Mt. St. Helens could have this much power and do so much damage that was thought before to take thousands of years to get to why couldn't a world wide flood do even more damage that looks like it was thousands of years in the making?  It sure would mess up our timing a bit wouldn't it? 

You did provide an answer to this but it was on another page or lower down on the page and I hadn't read it yet. I write my responses as I'm reading down the page so sometimes I'm a little late on some information.
End of quote

ok, that clears that up....you're forgiven....it's what us Christians do best.....:)

So I've forgotten some of the details over the years, big deal. That doesn't mean I didn't do the research at some point. You constantly misrepresent what evolution states does that mean you have never researched it? No and I don't make that assumption about you so why do you make that assumption about me?
End of quote

Details are important when you're debating El-D are they not?    I don't misrepresent what evolution states because I use their own words against them.  They're saying it not me.  But thanks for the confidence in my research.....:)  Please know that I'm not trying to make any assumptions about you.  I'm only going by what you're writing here.  You tell me how much research you've done but when I ask questions that could help you see from the Christian POV you don't know them.  Even the simple ones like how many were even on that ark to begin with.   You only are familiar with one side of this debate.  So maybe you've done your research only one one side of the issue? 

 

Reply #337 from JoeUser Forums Top

First off the burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not trying to prove a thing. I'm trying to enlighten you and give you something to think about by giving you information that is factual.

End of quote

No. You are giving him information that is your faith. If you want to make it "factual", the burden of proof is on you.

I am also giving him information that is my faith. Guess which one of us is doing a better job?

I have an advantage anyway. You are a Christian and have a religious duty to convince people of Christianity. I don't have to convince him of anything, just tell him.

 

Reply #338 from JoeUser Forums Top

I don't misrepresent what evolution states because I use their own words against them.

End of quote

Actually, you constantly and consistently do. And you are very resistent to being corrected.

I am not asking you to understand evolution, but it would be nice if your "Christian principle of honesty", which you used to refer to so often would compel you to take on-board corrections about your misconceptions of other people's points of view.

For example, you have yet again claimed that evolution states that one species becomes another, whereas I have explained to you, in detail, that it does not and that one species can branch into two or more without ever becoming another species. If you were as honest as I believe Christians think they ought to be, you would stop making the claim. But you don't.

And this means that your statement regarding you not misrepresenting what evolution states is a bold lie.

You can imagine how convincing everything you say sounds to me (and others who caught you) when I know that you will happily and knowingly tell a lie to make your point.

 

Reply #339 from JoeUser Forums Top

I am also giving him information that is my faith. Guess which one of us is doing a better job?

I have an advantage anyway. You are a Christian and have a religious duty to convince people of Christianity. I don't have to convince him of anything, just tell him.
End of quote

depends on who you ask Leauki....the atheists and agnostics will love you....the Christians and those who lean towards a belief will love me....so what's your point?  I'm hearing a bit of pride here. 

First off let me make something straight.....I'm not trying to prove a thing......my gift is more in apologetics.....and rarely does a person come to Christ on apologetics.....it may make one think but it's not evangelism.  You ask me questions and I answer.  I'm actually a bigger help to Christians than non-Christians when I get into apologetics. 

oh and you're wrong Leauki....we DO NOT have a Christian duty to convince people of our faith.    See you're not as all knowing as you profess......

It's the Christian duty to tell others about Christ and to be ready to give an answer for our faith.  The convincing is the work of the Holy Spirit.  It's only God who opens eyes, hearts and minds to him.  That is usually done when someone shares his/her faith with them. 

There's three things ALWAYS present when a person becomes saved......the word of God, the soul winner for God, and the Holy Spirit.  All three are necessary elements to salvation in Christ. 

and I'm not even going to reply Leauki to your last post because it served no purpose but to insult me and my integrity. 

 

 

Reply #340 from JoeUser Forums Top

depends on who you ask Leauki....the atheists and agnostics will love you....the Christians and those who lean towards a belief will love me....so what's your point?  I'm hearing a bit of pride here. 

End of quote

Do you actually believe that everyone who is not an agnostic or atheist believes in your interpretation of the Bible exactly?

That's very arrogant indeed.

 

First off let me make something straight.....I'm not trying to prove a thing......my gift is more in apologetics.....and rarely does a person come to Christ on apologetics.....it may make one think but it's not evangelism.  You ask me questions and I answer.  I'm actually a bigger help to Christians than non-Christians when I get into apologetics. 

oh and you're wrong Leauki....we DO NOT have a Christian duty to convince people of our faith.    See you're not as all knowing as you profess......

End of quote

Or perhaps you haven't heard of the "Great Commission".

 

and I'm not even going to reply Leauki to your last post because it served no purpose but to insult me and my integrity. 

End of quote

As did your lie about evolution.

(And I know you wouldn't reply to my assertion. You ALWAYS ignore it when I remind you that you ought to be honest about evolution.)

 

Reply #341 from JoeUser Forums Top

Or perhaps you haven't heard of the "Great Commission".
End of quote

perhaps you haven't. 

Leauki you're calling me arrogant when you yourself are trying to school me on my own book! 

Go read it yourself.......It's at the end of Matthew.  (a good Jewish read btw). 

There's nothing in there or anywhere we are to convince anyone of Christ......

he even said himself.....tell them the news, if they refuse, shake the dust off your feet and move on.

Can you show me one spot where even Jesus tried to convince anyone? 

His was an invitation......not a debate or argument. 

You either come or you don't. 

Leauki, since you keep on asserting that I'm a liar...we have nothing further to discuss. 

 

 

Reply #342 from PolMach Forums Top

So I could say to you that until you prove to me your love for your wife I won't believe it.
End of quote

I've never asked you to believe that I love my wife or even that I'm married.  I can prove that I'm married because we have a marriage license so all I want is for the government to recognize it I couldn't care less if anyone else does.  I also don't care if anyone but my wife knows that I love her, it's a private matter between the two of us.

You however are asking me to believe in God and that the bible is his word therefore you must prove to me that both are true.

I thought I did a pretty good job in explaining how this could mathmatically and feasibly be done. There's not much more that I can say really. It's either plausible or it's not. What do you think? Is it plausible given the hugeness of the boat and the approximate amount of animals saved?
End of quote

You provided some numbers that make it plausible that the boat was big enough, assuming your numbers are correct which I won't dispute because I don't have the time to research it.  What you haven't proven is that 8 people could possible care for that many animals seeing as how it takes a large staff to care for a zoo of animals which contain less animals.  It also takes a decent sized staff to care for the dogs in a kennel which might be the better analogy here.

Can you explain to me why we see a rainbow after a good sunshine shower? Can you explain to me why the animals went to higher ground when that huge tsunami hit in Indonesia?
End of quote

The rainbow is easy, it's just water vapors refracting the light much like a prism does.  You can go in your backyard with a hose and create a rainbow for yourself.  There are theories about the animals but no hard evidence one way or the other.  There is some evidence to suggest that animals can sense micro tremors in the earth or minute fluctuations in the barometric pressure which provide warning to the animals of impending danger (this is possibly why some animals start acting odd when a storm is about to hit).  But at the same time you could just as easily say that God is warning them which is why I never disputed that, only the number of animals and where they came from.

Why is it you don't have to back anything up but I do?
End of quote

As I have said before, I'm not the one trying to prove a case here you are.

well I'm not either so should we just forget about it then?
End of quote

But you are, you are saying that the story of Noah as you have presented actually happened.  If you want to drop this I am more than willing to especially if all you're going to do is accuse me of taking other people's arguments and regurgitating them to you.

Well I can give you all sorts of archeological finds that support the bible. Not the boat, yet, but there are many other very important discoveries over the years showing the bible was at least accurate in it's history. Which makes sense if the bible was inspired.
End of quote

For the evidence that has been found it would make sense whether or not the bible was inspired by God.  It doesn't take God to provide an accurate representation of history.  Not to mention that I'm not disputing those stories at the moment, we have been focused on Noah's Ark.

Mt. St. Helens was a boon for Christians and the lab because it showed how one big catastrophe could do what was previously thought to take thousands of years. It was because of the sheer power of the blast and the power of the water that emptied out of spirit lake and then forcibly came back down taking acres and acres of trees with it. So if Mt. St. Helens could have this much power and do so much damage that was thought before to take thousands of years to get to why couldn't a world wide flood do even more damage that looks like it was thousands of years in the making? It sure would mess up our timing a bit wouldn't it?
End of quote

Not really because Mt. St. Helens was in a limited area, not world wide.  Now if all the water gysers/volcanos on earth all happened to go off at the same time that would provide evidence for your argument, but with the exception of your version of Noah's ark there is no record or even theory to suggest that ever happened to the best of my knowledge, if you have other evidence of that please pass it along I would be very interested to read it.

you're forgiven....it's what us Christians do best
End of quote

Thank you.  It may be what you do best but I have met some that don't do it well at all.

Details are important when you're debating El-D are they not?
End of quote

Details are important when you're trying to prove a point.  I'm not.

don't misrepresent what evolution states because I use their own words against them. They're saying it not me.
End of quote

But you are.  Leauki has pointed it out a number of times like in post #314 "It's the whole fish turning into a bird thing we have trouble with....or a watermelon into a tomato. "  That is a complete misrepresentation of evolution.  Evolution doesn't state that a fish turns into a bird or a watermelon into a tomato, or anthing remotely similar.  What evolution states is that through a series of genetic mutations species evolve because those mutations make them more or less likely to survive long enough to pass on their genes.  Sickle Cell Anemia is a perfect example.  It evolved because of malaria, people with Sickle Cell are immune to it and can then survive long enough to procreate.  Unfortunately they don't live much longer than that because sickle cell eventually kills them.  Humans did not evolve from gorillas or chimps, we do however share a common ancestor with them.  There is a very big difference between that mechanism and what you have stated here.

You tell me how much research you've done but when I ask questions that could help you see from the Christian POV you don't know them. Even the simple ones like how many were even on that ark to begin with. You only are familiar with one side of this debate. So maybe you've done your research only one one side of the issue?
End of quote

I knew some, if not most, of the details once, but like with many things if I don't use that information on a daily basis I have a very difficult time recalling the information and I don't have the time to redo the research now.  At least I was close on the number of people on the ark I was only off by three.  If I asked you to recall the horse power on the car that you owned a few years ago would you necessarily remember it even if you had research it intently before making the purchase?  Probably not and I wouldn't take that as proof that you never owned the car.

Reply #343 from JoeUser Forums Top

But you are.  Leauki has pointed it out a number of times like in post #314 "It's the whole fish turning into a bird thing we have trouble with....or a watermelon into a tomato. "  That is a complete misrepresentation of evolution.  Evolution doesn't state that a fish turns into a bird or a watermelon into a tomato, or anthing remotely similar.  What evolution states is that through a series of genetic mutations species evolve because those mutations make them more or less likely to survive long enough to pass on their genes.  Sickle Cell Anemia is a perfect example.  It evolved because of malaria, people with Sickle Cell are immune to it and can then survive long enough to procreate.  Unfortunately they don't live much longer than that because sickle cell eventually kills them.  Humans did not evolve from gorillas or chimps, we do however share a common ancestor with them.  There is a very big difference between that mechanism and what you have stated here.

End of quote

Very good. That's what I thought. People do notice these things.

And she is representing evolution despite her claims that she is not and despite having been corrected several times. At some point it really becomes a question of integrity.

(Your sickle cell example is a bit too summarised. If I recall correctly it is actually the carriers of sickle cell anemia genes that have an advantage when it comes to malaria, while the rarer case of a person hit by the sickle cell anema condition is eventually killed by it. That's how the gene survives. It does not actually benefit from those that die from sickle cell anemia, only from those that carry the gene but don't get the condition. It's similar to type 2 diabetes in this regard.)

 

 

 

Reply #344 from JoeUser Forums Top

"It's the whole fish turning into a bird thing we have trouble with....or a watermelon into a tomato. "
End of quote

first of all the watermelon into the tomato was tongue in cheek.  But you have to remember I'm a bit older than you...I was taught diff than you.  Lula's even older than I am...so we've heard all this stuff for years and years........We were taught in schools and it was pretty universal that humans came from monkeys, birds came from dinos etc all in the name of Science.  If I remember right......Thomas Huxley was a proponent of the dinos to bird thing. 

Remember Lucy?  She was the supposed ancestor of ours..... ape to man.   Do you just chalk that up to evolutionists embarrasment? 

The evolution that they're teaching now is diff than the evolution I was taught then.  I guess the whole evolution thing did some evolving on it's own.  Without going into an evolution debate (already been there many times)  I only went to public "government" schools so I only had secular Science classes, but yet today, I'm a big believer in the Christian viewpoint of Science when it comes to origins....because that's really where the debate lies anyhow.  How this all got started in the first place. 

and as far as facts go, it's not about who has the most facts but how we interpret the facts.  It really does come down to our bias.  When you peek into my brain I'd hope you'd see the bible in there.  When I peek into an evolutionist's brain I'd see Darwin's book there or some other book on man's theories.  Then when the facts present themselves we go back to our foundation and interpret them as we page thru our biases. 

And I don't even know the HP of the car I have now....

 

Reply #345 from JoeUser Forums Top

But you have to remember I'm a bit older than you...I was taught diff than you.  Lula's even older than I am...so we've heard all this stuff for years and years........We were taught in schools and it was pretty universal that humans came from monkeys, birds came from dinos etc all in the name of Science.  If I remember right......Thomas Huxley was a proponent of the dinos to bird thing. 

Remember Lucy?  She was the supposed ancestor of ours..... ape to man.   Do you just chalk that up to evolutionists embarrasment?

End of quote

I don't know... I read Darwin's book and several biology books written in the sixties and I am not aware of a single book that claims that one species changes into another according to evolution.

Either way, I have told you again and again that the way you describe evolution is WRONG. The fact that you keep doing it basically forces me to doubt your integrity.

And I really cannot imagine that you were actually told that stuff. For example, the ONLY sources for your claims about evolution I have ever seen are Creationist Web sites. I have never ever heard or read a biologist make these claims about evolution. And I read quite a bit about it.

 

I'm a big believer in the Christian viewpoint of Science when it comes to origins....because that's really where the debate lies anyhow.  How this all got started in the first place.

End of quote

I am a believer of the Biblical viewpoint when it comes to _origins_ (of life). But that's not where the debate lies because evolution doesn't say anything about the origins of life. It only refers to the origin of _species_, i.e. it explains where different species come from, not where life comes from.

 

 

Reply #346 from PolMach Forums Top

(Your sickle cell example is a bit too summarised. If I recall correctly it is actually the carriers of sickle cell anemia genes that have an advantage when it comes to malaria, while the rarer case of a person hit by the sickle cell anema condition is eventually killed by it. That's how the gene survives. It does not actually benefit from those that die from sickle cell anemia, only from those that carry the gene but don't get the condition. It's similar to type 2 diabetes in this regard.)
End of quote

You're correct.  Sorry about that.

first of all the watermelon into the tomato was tongue in cheek.
End of quote

I know it was tongue in cheek but it was still a misrepresentation of evolution.

But you have to remember I'm a bit older than you...I was taught diff than you. Lula's even older than I am...so we've heard all this stuff for years and years........We were taught in schools and it was pretty universal that humans came from monkeys, birds came from dinos etc all in the name of Science. If I remember right......Thomas Huxley was a proponent of the dinos to bird thing.
End of quote

That may be but evolutionary theory has changed as new evidence has come in so evolution no longer states that we came from monkeys.  It has been found that we merely share a common ancentor with other primates, the branch for gorillas/chimps and humans is closer than humans and other monkeys.

Remember Lucy? She was the supposed ancestor of ours..... ape to man. Do you just chalk that up to evolutionists embarrasment?
End of quote

Lucy is just part of the link.  It's not evolutionist's embarrasment, it's the scietific process.  When new data comes in the old theories and hypotheses are reassessed and new conclusions/hypotheses are made.  Science is a living thing.

How this all got started in the first place.
End of quote

And that has nothing to do with evolution.  Evolution doesn't explain how anything got here to start with, but how things have evolved over time from what was here before.

And I don't even know the HP of the car I have now....
End of quote

Neither do I.  But I bet you know the color and maybe even the make and model of every car that you've owned.

Reply #347 from PolMach Forums Top

But that's not where the debate lies because evolution doesn't say anything about the origins of life. It only refers to the origin of _species_, i.e. it explains where different species come from, not where life comes from.
End of quote

Exactly.

Reply #348 from JoeUser Forums Top

Kfc posts #336

I don't misrepresent what evolution states because I use their own words against them.
End of quote

Leauki posts:


For example, you have yet again claimed that evolution states that one species becomes another, whereas I have explained to you, in detail, that it does not and that one species can branch into two or more without ever becoming another species. If you were as honest as I believe Christians think they ought to be, you would stop making the claim. But you don't.
End of quote

And I honestly claim the very same thing as KFC...Evolution does state that one species becomes another....

From the World Book Dictionary, A_K Vol 23 page 737, the definition of "Evolution"...

n. 1. any process of formation or growth; gradual development. 2 something evolved; product of development; not a sudden discovery or creation. 3 the theory that all living things developed from a few simple forms of life through a series of physical changes. According to evolution, the first mammal developed from a type of reptile, and ultimately all forms are traced back to a simple single-celled organism. ........9 Philosophy....the theory that a process or progressive change, with the development of more complex entities, characterizes all force and matter in the universe. Evolution is advance from the simple to the complex.

From a 10th grade biology book, by Miller/Levine, in the chapter on evolution, page 269 the definition of "evolution" is "process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient organisms."   

Keeping this definition in mind,

on pg. 271, "In the Origin of Species, Darwin maintained that modern organisms were produced by a process called evolution. Evolution is a process of change over time. Darwin argued that just as each new organism comes from pre-existing organisms, each species has descended from other species over time. If you look back far enough in time, you will see that all species have shared, or common ancestors. Page 272, "Darwin and other scientists have accumulated a vast amount of evidence that proves that evolution has occurred.   

(My emphasis....and this is a lie as no such evidence that proves evolution according to this definition has ever been provided.)

And from a book entitled, "Understanding Science and Nature, Evolution of Life" which is found in just about every public school library or science class...is this

Pages 4-5,7 ..."The oldest known living creature, a bacterium, took form in the earth's oceans some 3.5 billion years ago. In the eons since life has become tremendously diverse. Living organisms now include as many as 30 million species...yet every species----the worms that endure precariously at the bottom of the ocean, the insects that live in the treetops of the tropical rain forest, the tiniest bacterium, the largest redwood tree, the hemlock, and the human being----can trace its origin back to a common, single-celled ancestor. The process by which this transformation occurred is known as evolution.

A new species evolves as it responds to changing conditions on Earth. The pattern of evolution resembles a tree, with the end of each branch representing a species. When a branch splits, life becomes more diverse. One of the first splits in evolutionary history occurred when the eukaryotes--organisms with complex cells---evolved from the prokaryotes, simple single-celled organisms. Other major branches appeared when multicelled eukaryotes evolved from the single celled eukaryotes, and when the plant and animal kingdoms separated. At each split, some trait appeared that distinguished one group of organisms from another."

Page 13, "Naturalists beginning with Aristotle have known that organisms fall into groups that progress from simple to complex. It wasn't until the 19th century that Charles Darwin developed the modern theory of evolution, successfullly explaining how more complex species arose over time from simpler ones.

Another science book entitled, "The Human Race" starts out on page 4, "the earliest human ancestors were ape-like animals, and the only remains they left behind were their teeth and bones which sometimes turned to fossils. The study of fossils human or animal is known as paleontology."

(Truth is those fossils of teeth and bones are proven either fully human or fully ape, there hasn't been any found that were in-between, so this is a lie that is being told to children in public schools.)

 

Reply #349 from JoeUser Forums Top

EL-DUDERINO POSTS: 342

But you are. Leauki has pointed it out a number of times like in post #314 "It's the whole fish turning into a bird thing we have trouble with....or a watermelon into a tomato. " That is a complete misrepresentation of evolution. Evolution doesn't state that a fish turns into a bird or a watermelon into a tomato, or anthing remotely similar.
End of quote

Please read my post #348 carefully...and you can plainly see that KFC has not been misrepresenting evolution.

Evolution does indeed state that there is a pattern of descent of one species evolving over time into a completely different species....it's called postulated evolutionary sequences...evolution claims progressive changes over time...from simple to the more complex. Proponents of evolution have charts and drawings that show Darwin's "tree of life" ; the base of the tree being the one celled organism and the branches of fish evolving to amphibians to reptiles to mammals to humans....

If evolution did occur as they suggest, it should be possible to show lineages and to establish phylogeny i.e. closely identified "tree" structure ancestry in the fossil evidence, but no such thing has been done. Why? Becasue evolution as they suggest never happened..

In contrast to evolutionary depictions of 'tree-like" ancestry, the actual fossil record of creatures and plants found in rocks is one of parallel vertical ancestry disproving Darwin.

 

  

Reply #350 from JoeUser Forums Top

And she is representing evolution despite her claims that she is not and despite having been corrected several times. At some point it really becomes a question of integrity.
End of quote

Leauki,

You're like a dripping faucet....and you know what a bother that is! :S No fun at all.