frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


          
+ NEW DEBATE

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Evolution?

m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
The evidence for evolution is literally so rife and paints a more rational picture of our origin than god. Fossils like tiktalik and archaeopteryx and taung child fossil and lucy and neanderthal fossil, pseudogenes like w3nta which gives us tails, atavisms like the lizard snake or the ape human , homologies we have similar morphologies to apes and bats, humans, cats and whales all have the same bone structure but different function in the hand except longer and thicker or smaller and narrower bones but the same structure or layout proving we are all connected by a common ancestors , comparative embroyology proves we all have a common ancestor, comparative DNA like being 98% similar with apes and vestigial features like the human coccyx, wisdom teeth and the harmful appendix. This is a brief list and does not include other lines of evidence like biogeography. 

If you deny evolution, why do you deby it despite all the evidence?

If you accept evolution, how do you fit the fact that humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes over millions of years with the story that the first guy was created from mud in heaven in one day and that the first woman was created from his rib on the same day before apes and other animals were created.
joecavalrypassedbilldropoutErfisflatrandalaarongmelanielustSilverishGoldNovanatbaronsmelefand 1 other.
  1. Evolution or adam and eve19 votes
    1. Evolution
      26.32%
    2. Adam and eve
      73.68%

Comments

  • joecavalryjoecavalry 96 Points
    I believe in god and evolution.

    Scientits have discovered fossils which theoretically prove evolution exists. These fossils come from different times, but the same species. They depict the species evolving through time. I also believe that god had made everything including these fossils. If I were put on the spot, I would have to say I believe in Adam and Eve more than the theory of evolution do to faith and overall evidence.
    passedbill
  • passedbillpassedbill 41 Points
    I believe in Adam and Eve. It seems to have the most evidence of occurring and is in line with my faith.
  • melanielustmelanielust 204 Points
    Arguments like these are tricky because it almost solely depends on whether or not you are religious. If you are religious you are far more likely to believe in creation, and very little can be done to convince someone otherwise. If you aren't religious, and believe in evolution, it is much the same story.
  • PowerPikachu21PowerPikachu21 60 Points
    edited June 12
    @melanielust I might be able to be persuaded if your arguments for Creation are good enough (which would be challenging, since evidence for a God, let alone Creation, is lacking). Also, is there evidence that Adam and Eve existed, let alone made from mud and someone's ribs?
    dropoutmelanielustsensessions
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    There is no more practical evidence for evolution than there is for God. Appeals to authority/popular consensus. Even in a lab, with some of the so called smartest guys on the planet have never produced macroevolution results. This is with help. There are literally thousands of transitional skeletons missing between ape and man. 
    melanielustEvidence
  • @Erfisflat That picture has no information, really. It just assumes it's correct in saying "Earth is flat". We had a Flat Earther in debate.org as well, though he never used pictures like that, and used actual evidence to support his conclusion.
    m_abusteit
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @Erfisflat That picture has no information, really. It just assumes it's correct in saying "Earth is flat". We had a Flat Earther in debate.org as well, though he never used pictures like that, and used actual evidence to support his conclusion.
    I think he did use pictures, in our debate, I showed you how Disney made most of the images of earth and pluto, mercury, etc. You know, the number one reason I get for people believing the earth is a spinning ball is "pictures from space"? Have you read the debate here called the earth is flat?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 12
    I spent two years on that forum topic "ask a flat earther" I've only been here a few weeks bruh. @PowerPikachu21
  • randalrandal 53 Points
    @Erfisflat , please tone down your arguments. I agree, Earth is indeed flat. The theories that Scientitst are proposing can't be accurate. Also, how would there be hovering water? 
    melanielustm_abusteit
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @randal
    How exactly should I "tone down" my arguments? I haven't insulted anyone. I'm glad you've figured out the shape of the earth. What is hovering water though? 
  • melanielustmelanielust 204 Points
    @PowerPikachu21
    I get what you're saying. I don't believe in creation, never have. Sometimes I play devil's advocate so often that people don't know what my opinion really is
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    For the people claiming that there isway more evidence for adam and eve than evolution, where is the evidence? I can make as many claims as I want. They all fail without evidence.

    For those who claim that i am appealing to authority, please elaborate on how i am doing so? I provided you with fossils you can look up for yourself. For the pseudogenes and vestigials, you can look up the examples i provided and they will be confirmed from multiple different sources. 

    For this one flat earther in this thread, do you actually beleive the earth is flat? Lol. Ok how do you explain, ships seeming to sink the horizon, how do you explain day and night. If the earth is flat shouldnt the light hit all of it at once? How do you explain that during a lunar eclipse, the shadow that is casted on the moon is round? If the earth is flat shouldnt it be a horizontal line casted on the moon?  How do you explain the countless images of the round earth taken by NASA, ISS and russian space agencies.

  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    For the flat earther, where in the bible does it say the world is flat?
    sensessionsmelanielust
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    For the people claiming that there isway more evidence for adam and eve than evolution, where is the evidence? I can make as many claims as I want. They all fail without evidence.

    For those who claim that i am appealing to authority, please elaborate on how i am doing so? I provided you with fossils you can look up for yourself. For the pseudogenes and vestigials, you can look up the examples i provided and they will be confirmed from multiple different sources. 

    For this one flat earther in this thread, do you actually beleive the earth is flat? Lol. Ok how do you explain, ships seeming to sink the horizon, how do you explain day and night. If the earth is flat shouldnt the light hit all of it at once? How do you explain that during a lunar eclipse, the shadow that is casted on the moon is round? If the earth is flat shouldnt it be a horizontal line casted on the moon?  How do you explain the countless images of the round earth taken by NASA, ISS and russian space agencies.

    All refuted here.
    http://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/4941#Comment_4941
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 13
    @m_abusteit
    Oh and for future references, please tag the user you are speaking to with @ to avoid talking to yourself. It helps conversations to flow. As far as evolution, one line of question. 

    When the first living thing developed a sex organ, how did it procreate? Was the male genitalia creature, which is supposed to be a mutation, coupled by a nearby female genitalia bearing creature? Since this type of mutation has never been observed, do you still consider this science? Or will you admit the entire theory of evolution is pseudoscience? 

    sensessions
  • sensessionssensessions 18 Points
    @erfislfat , before I began my argument I would like to mention that I respect and understand your arguments.

    I begin my argument by saying that Evolution is in fact true.

    The process of evolution is at this time almost scientifically proven with over whelming evidence including physical evidence such as fossils of animals throughout time depicting the process of evolution which is the core of the evolving human and animal race.

    I am a believer in my religion and the process of humans and also animal evolution. The factors may not have to mix.

    @Erfisflat , I am ending my argument by restating my opinion of evolution being almost fully scientifically proven and also accurate. 
    aarong
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @erfislfat , before I began my argument I would like to mention that I respect and understand your arguments.

    I begin my argument by saying that Evolution is in fact true.

    The process of evolution is at this time almost scientifically proven with over whelming evidence including physical evidence such as fossils of animals throughout time depicting the process of evolution which is the core of the evolving human and animal race.

    I am a believer in my religion and the process of humans and also animal evolution. The factors may not have to mix.

    @Erfisflat , I am ending my argument by restating my opinion of evolution being almost fully scientifically proven and also accurate. 
    Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but falsely stating that evolution is a fact does not make it so.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @Erfisflat   the first living thing was unicellular not multicellular. I assume you dont know much about science since you advocate for a flat earth. Unicellular organisms reproduce by mitosis or doubling and splitting themselves. The first male genitilia and female gentilia were either a mutation or just specialization of cells. The first thing did not procreate with itself. It just doubled its genetic material then divided it to create another organisms. When they formed colonies or the first simple multicellular organisms, they began to specialize into different genitilia. Although some continued asexual reproduction. Vertebrates evolved from invertebrates and we see that invertebrates to this day can repriduce asexually.

    Are you a troll?

    How can you call evolution pseudoscience with all the evidence there is for it? 

    You literally believe the earth is flat despite all the photos there are. You are in denial you just want to believe. Really dude? Flat earth despite all the photos and you have enough courage to call evolution pseudo science yet believe in a flat earth?

    The fossils dont prove we came from dirt. They prove we came from a common unicellular ancestor with all other life on earth. That unicellular eukaryote evolved into simple multicellular life forms then jawless fish then fish then amphibians then reptiles then mammals then eventually primates and humans. You are the one who believes we are made from dirt or mud or ribs or whatever god uses. 

    You still have not shown me what is the evidence for a flat earth nor where it says so in the bible.

    You still have to disprove the evidence for evolution and show me evidence for creationsim.

    melanielust
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @Erfisflat your link redirected me to an earlier  post by you where you say you dont like the round earth "theory" and you stating you are not satisfied with scientism. In fact the only argument you make for your case is that the horizon is flat. Thats because the spherical earth is very massive compared to tiny humans. Imagine an ant on an 8 ball for pool then imagine an ant on the surface of the unisphere, the horizon will look flat due to the sheer size of the unisphere compared to the ants. You still need to refute the evidence for the round earth and provide where it says the earyb is flat in the bible.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @Erfisflat   the first living thing was unicellular not multicellular. I assume you dont know much about science since you advocate for a flat earth. Unicellular organisms reproduce by mitosis or doubling and splitting themselves. The first male genitilia and female gentilia were either a mutation or just specialization of cells. The first thing did not procreate with itself. It just doubled its genetic material then divided it to create another organisms. When they formed colonies or the first simple multicellular organisms, they began to specialize into different genitilia. Although some continued asexual reproduction. Vertebrates evolved from invertebrates and we see that invertebrates to this day can repriduce asexually.

    Are you a troll?

    How can you call evolution pseudoscience with all the evidence there is for it? 

    You literally believe the earth is flat despite all the photos there are. You are in denial you just want to believe. Really dude? Flat earth despite all the photos and you have enough courage to call evolution pseudo science yet believe in a flat earth?

    The fossils dont prove we came from dirt. They prove we came from a common unicellular ancestor with all other life on earth. That unicellular eukaryote evolved into simple multicellular life forms then jawless fish then fish then amphibians then reptiles then mammals then eventually primates and humans. You are the one who believes we are made from dirt or mud or ribs or whatever god uses. 

    You still have not shown me what is the evidence for a flat earth nor where it says so in the bible.

    You still have to disprove the evidence for evolution and show me evidence for creationsim.

    Maybe you misunderstand my question. When the first male genitalia "evolved", and that organism couldn't asexually reproduce,  did the first female genitalia simultaneously evolve, so those organs could be passed down? Since those early life forms probably had a very short life span, it's illogical to say this magical series of events happened. And, yes, (macro)evolution is by definition pseudoscience, since it has never ever been experimentally proved. 

    " Really dude? Flat earth despite all the photos and you have enough courage to call evolution pseudo science yet believe in a flat earth?"

    Yes, water is always been experimentally proved to rest with a flat surface. The proof is there. But you'd accept a image (there are no actual photos of earth as a ball) as evidence?  Here you go, thisimage of God should disprove evolution. 

    Furthermore,you haven't read the debate, if you had, you wouldn't be calling images scientific proof.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @Erfisflat

    "Evolution of genitilia"

    Your question makes no sense. Sexual reproduction is not a neccessity of life that had to happen. We could have lived without sexual reproduction and lived off asexual reproduction alone. Its a mutation that evolved and survived. You are thinking about it all wrong. However, scientific peer reviewed magazines like Nature and Scientific American have found lots of evidence that genitilia evolved by a mutation in hox genes that survived because of sexual selection and was caused by an environemntal pressure. Sexual reproduction began without sexually distinct organs. Evidence suggests gendered organs probably began as organs in the same individual (as in many plants), then the capacity evolved in some species for individuals to become gender diversified by their environment (as in many reptiles, some developing male organs, some female), and then finally these gender differences became locked into DNA as a chromosome mutation. 



    "Water on a surface"

    Unless the earth has gravity. There is dust on the moon. Why doesnt it fall off? Gravity.

    "Macroevolution"

    Macroevolution is when two distinct slecies are created. Ever heard of antibiotic resistant bacteria, E. Colu long term evolution experment, peppered moth experiment and the fruit fly experiment? There are many more those are the ones off the top of my head. But in each of those experiments, a differnet species was created/evolved that could not reproduce with the original species.

    "Images"

    Photographic evidence includes videos such as he first video by armstrong on the moon of earth and the earth was spherical. There are also photos from MULTIPLE agencies proving the earth is sphere. Why would they all be lying?
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @Erfisflat

    "Evolution of genitilia"

    Your question makes no sense. Sexual reproduction is not a neccessity of life that had to happen. We could have lived without sexual reproduction and lived off asexual reproduction alone. Its a mutation that evolved and survived. You are thinking about it all wrong. However, scientific peer reviewed magazines like Nature and Scientific American have found lots of evidence that genitilia evolved by a mutation in hox genes that survived because of sexual selection and was caused by an environemntal pressure. Sexual reproduction began without sexually distinct organs. Evidence suggests gendered organs probably began as organs in the same individual (as in many plants), then the capacity evolved in some species for individuals to become gender diversified by their environment (as in many reptiles, some developing male organs, some female), and then finally these gender differences became locked into DNA as a chromosome mutation. 



    "Water on a surface"

    Unless the earth has gravity. There is dust on the moon. Why doesnt it fall off? Gravity.

    "Macroevolution"

    Macroevolution is when two distinct slecies are created. Ever heard of antibiotic resistant bacteria, E. Colu long term evolution experment, peppered moth experiment and the fruit fly experiment? There are many more those are the ones off the top of my head. But in each of those experiments, a differnet species was created/evolved that could not reproduce with the original species.

    "Images"

    Photographic evidence includes videos such as he first video by armstrong on the moon of earth and the earth was spherical. There are also photos from MULTIPLE agencies proving the earth is sphere. Why would they all be lying?
    post an image
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    How does evolution answer the question of morality?  

    Why does everyone push macroevolution when literally no one has ever seen it.  The 'evidence' for evolution hasn't been around as long as the Bible has been and the evidence came after the claim.  Not good.  
    kmelkevolution17
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @m_abusteit

    The first is a CGI film from the ISS, which is fake, the proof is here, if you can figure it out on your own 


    The second is a painting, and can be proved fake here.


    and the last was just an actual cut out and paste of this

    Onto a soundstage where they filmed the lunar landings.

  • @SuperSith89 , good point and I agree with your logical argyment.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @SuperSith89 @kmelkevolution17


    Objective morals do not exist. Morals and morality is subjective. Slavery is not ok now but it was ok back then. Womens rights is ok nos but not ok back then. Gender rights ok now but not ok back then. Animal rights ok now but not ok back then. Polygamy ok in middle east and india but not ok in the west. Cannibalism is ok in parts of africa but not ok anywhere else. Child martiage is ok in the middle east but not ok anywhere else. Female genital mutaltion is ok in africa and the middle east but not ok anywhere else. Gays are accepted in the west but killed in almost all other countries like in the middle east, russia and china and india and latin america. Morality is not objective. Even justice is different. In islamic countries, a murderer is beheaded. In western countries, its a jail sentence. Even if morality was objective it would not come from god who has a track record of mass genocide, sex slavery, child abuse, homophobia, sexism, mass murder, rape, pillage and plunder and who throws you in eternal flaming hell because you did not love him or were his friend ir you were born in an isolated village in india or china and died with original sin because you had no idea what christianity is or who is jesus was.
    SuperSith89
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    edited June 15
    @Erfisflat   those videos are just a bunch of conspiracy theorists and frankly the videos do not meet the burden of proof. They are just unsatisfactory and provide weak evidence or arguments. So the original pictures are still sustained. Those pics and vids come from authentic reliable sourves. How do you explain go pro experiments that literally went to space and tooke pics without the fish eyelens. 




    You still have not responded nor disproved my above evidence and did not tell me where in the bible it says the earth is flat. If you dont respond in the next reply, it was nice talking.

    Explain how flight Pan Am flight 50 went in a straight line over both poles and still ended up where it started. How could you go over both poles and circumnavigate vertically on a flat earth?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @Erfisflat   those videos are just a bunch of conspiracy theorists and frankly the videos do not meet the burden of proof. They are just unsatisfactory and provide weak evidence or arguments. So the original pictures are still sustained. Those pics and vids come from authentic reliable sourves. How do you explain go pro experiments that literally went to space and tooke pics without the fish eyelens. 




    You still have not responded nor disproved my above evidence and did not tell me where in the bible it says the earth is flat. If you dont respond in the next reply, it was nice talking.

    Explain how flight Pan Am flight 50 went in a straight line over both poles and still ended up where it started. How could you go over both poles and circumnavigate vertically on a flat earth?
    In your first video, you can pause at 1:54 and clearly see concave earth, indicating a fisheye lens, and one unverifiable 50 year old flight doesn't convince me or anyone for that matter. Your 2nd video is dead I think. 
    natbarons
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @Erfisflat
    Thats NOT thr horizon. That light pollution. Otherlight from the same spaceship sent is collected by the camera and forms a concave entry into the apparature. This is called light pollution when other light enters and distorts the further light. That was not the horizon at 1 54 that was light pollution. Go pro issues a statement they did not use any fisheye lenses for their cameras on the rocketship launch. 

    Here is another link to the second one

    .... 





    Unfortunately, you did not address the things i told you so nice talking to you.
    Erfisflatmelef
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @Erfisflat
    Thats NOT thr horizon. That light pollution. Otherlight from the same spaceship sent is collected by the camera and forms a concave entry into the apparature. This is called light pollution when other light enters and distorts the further light. That was not the horizon at 1 54 that was light pollution. Go pro issues a statement they did not use any fisheye lenses for their cameras on the rocketship launch. 

    Here is another link to the second one

    .... 





    Unfortunately, you did not address the things i told you so nice talking to you.
    another obvious fisheye lens. Pause it at 0:46 to see what the horizon looks like
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @m_abusteit

    All gopro cameras have fish eye lenses, they even include a tutorial and correction software to remove the effect. 
    https://gopro.com/support/articles/how-can-i-remove-the-distortion-fisheye-effect-in-gopro-studio
  • melefmelef 32 Points
    @m_abusteit , I agree with you. 

    @erfisflat , I respect your argument, but all the evidence that our rpicse don't have actual photographic or video graphic evidence, while the other side does. You can't provide that type of evidence, because there isn't moments whichever price should your theory is false. Please keep all argument so regarding that debate out of this debate which is about evolution.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @m_abusteit So you are saying there is no right and wrong.  If there is no moral conviction, then through evolution, the laws we have don't matter because everyone has their own morality.  Rapists have their own morality, murderers have their own, and the other groups you mentioned have theirs.  Then if there is no absolute truth then we have no right to convict them as that is our truth and not theirs.  This idea if more fleshed out here: http://crossexamined.org/do-objective-moral-truths-exist-in-reality/

    Also, give me evidence of God being hateful, a murderer, and the other claims you made.  Do we have any right judging the creator anyways?  If He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient then He obviously knows more than us and knows more about the situations that many judge Him on.  You may say He is not those three things, but having God be all these things is needed for our universe to run.  You need an infinite being to govern a finite universe and our universe if not finite.  It has a beginning and it is coming to and end.  You do agree with that. 

    Without knowing the full story during the OT times, there is no way to convict God, if that was even a fair thing to do.  He holds the future, the present, and the past and He has a plan for every single person.  Jeremiah 29:11 "11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 15
    @melef Honestly,  I agree, to an extent. Whether or not the earth is flat should be discussed in debate. I've told @m_abusteit the same thing, but, a flat, stationary earth is evidence of ID, he knows this, which is why he insists on giving proof of a spherical earth, that I continue to debunk.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    And is the argument that 'someone growing up never hearing about Jesus' pretty invalid?  I don't think there is one country that has not had some way of hearing.  Through youtube, twitter, anything on the internet, thousands of missionaries, and just word of mouth through non-believers.  Our world has made it very hard to stay isolated from anything.  
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @melef

    I would not even waste my time on him. I already explained to him what light pollution is and how the specific go pro for this rocket did not have a fisheye lens. I already told him that the concave appearance is light pollution and not the horizon and he did not even touch on the other 20 pieces of evidence like round lunar eclipse, flights over antartica and time zones so just save yourself and do not waste your time. He will go around saying he debunked my evidence when he failed at debunking photographic evidence which is just one line of evidence from the sea of evidence i provided earlier in one of my posts.  
    Erfisflat
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    edited June 15
    @m_abusteit So you are saying there is no right and wrong.  If there is no moral conviction, then through evolution, the laws we have don't matter because everyone has their own morality.  Rapists have their own morality, murderers have their own, and the other groups you mentioned have theirs.  Then if there is no absolute truth then we have no right to convict them as that is our truth and not theirs.  This idea if more fleshed out here: http://crossexamined.org/do-objective-moral-truths-exist-in-reality/

    Also, give me evidence of God being hateful, a murderer, and the other claims you made.  Do we have any right judging the creator anyways?  If He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient then He obviously knows more than us and knows more about the situations that many judge Him on.  You may say He is not those three things, but having God be all these things is needed for our universe to run.  You need an infinite being to govern a finite universe and our universe if not finite.  It has a beginning and it is coming to and end.  You do agree with that. 

    Without knowing the full story during the OT times, there is no way to convict God, if that was even a fair thing to do.  He holds the future, the present, and the past and He has a plan for every single person.  Jeremiah 29:11 "11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."
     I am nor saying there is no right and wrong. I am saying that right and wrong do exist but they are definetly not objective and they differ from one person or culture to another.

    "If there are no moral convictions, the laws we have dont matter because evryone can have his own morality"

    They do matter but they are just subjective for example, beating your wife in the west is a jail sentence but in the middle east and russia, there is no punishment against it. Cannibalism is ok and legal in eastern and western african tribes, there are laws against cannibalism in almost all countries. No laws against homosexuality in the west, middle east and russia they are killed as well as in china and india and africa and latin america.

    "Evidence god is hateful"

    God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).

    God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there.  He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3).  He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses (Joshua 6).  In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!

    Just about every other page in the Old Testament has  God killing somebody!  In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church!  In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered

    The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 & Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9).  This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.

    Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says it’s OK.  If more people would actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more atheists like myself.  Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven:  For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (Matthew 19:12).  I don’t know why anyone would follow the teachings of someone who literally tells all men to cut off their privates.

    The  God of the Bible also was a big fan of ritual human sacrifice and animal sacrifice.

    And just in case you are thinking that the evil and immoral laws of the Old Testament are no longer in effect, perhaps you should read where Jesus makes it perfectly clear: It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid (Luke 16:17).

     Punishing ‘Immorality’

    Leviticus 20:9

    If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
    20:10If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
    20:13If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.
    Deuteronomy 22:20-1If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.

    Exodus 35:2

    For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.

    On Destroying Other People

    Deuteronomy 7:1-2When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.
    20:10-17When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. 
         However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.

    On the Evil of Biblical Law

    Ezekiel 20:25-26I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by; I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.

    On Slavery & Subjugation of Women

    Ephesians 5:22-24Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
    Exodus 21:20-21If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
    1 Peter 2:13Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men.
    2:18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

    Leviticus 25:44-45

    Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

    "Universe has a beginning"

    No. Before the big bang the entirety of matter and energy in this universe existed in a singularity. This singularity is eternal because energy and matter can not be created nor destroyed according to the firdt law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of matter and energy. So it was most likely eternal. Before the big babg and outside the singularity, there was no time since that dimesnsion only became applicable in the big bang so nothing could exist. Without time, your god could not exist not even for one second.


    "There is no way to convict god"

    Why? How do you know he even exists? What is the evidence?

    "Fate of the unevangilized" 

    Actually yes. A lot of villagers in africa, bangladesh and sri lanka and china have no idea who jesus was or wtf christianity is. Even before the internet and globalization, how did people in the far areas of the world like native australians and native americans and the chinese learn about jesus before the internet. Europenas only started sharing jesus and other christian ideas since 1500 which means that in those 1500 years between jesus and the age of exploration, people who lived and died were all unevangilized. What happened to the people before jesus.

    If you want me to continue this debate, include answers to tue following questions in your reply. 

    Do you believe in evolution?

    If you dont, why not?

    Do you believe in the big bang?

    How old is the earth?

    What is its shape? 

    Is our solar system helio or geo centric?


  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    But the law should not mean anything to me because that is their idea of morality and it does not apply to me.  Right and wrong cannot exist without objective morality because no one is officially wrong no matter what.  You even said it differs person to person, so the government has no right in jailing me.  That's because their morals are different.  You accept part of it, you accept all of it.  

    Again, no one has a right to judge God based on His laws for a world that existed thousands of years ago and His actions based off of your own understanding.  Thinking you can judge Him off of what He did is just foolish and illogical.  Do you know everything that happened back in the OT?  Were you there?  What God did is justified because He is God.  I'll ignore the verses because I stated this before.  I would like to emphasize my point on the world being much different so long ago.  This is 2017.  That was a time long before anyone you know was born.  We just got past segregation less than a hundred years ago.  Imagine a thousand.  2,000.  3,000.  (I am highly curious as to where you heard about God promoting human sacrifice.  Isaac?  That was a test and He never allowed Him to touch Him.)

    Your argument about the universe having no beginning is extremely flawed.  For one, it is impossible for a finite universe to exist forever.  Infinity is not something the human brain can even process.  Nothing can ever represent infinity, it's just how matter is.  God does not apply to that law, or to any laws of time because if He is to be infinite, then He must be outside of the natural laws as nature cannot be infinite.  This concept is a basic scientific one, that the universe cannot exist outside of a finite reality.  It would have to have a larger cause.  The law of cause and effect proves that.  Larger causes would have to bring our universe to be, and that cause needs to be infinite and outside of the natural reality.  

    Even if there were people who never heard of Jesus, God ensures no one will have never heard of His message.   "The truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God" (Romans 1:19-20, New Living Translation).  No matter who you are, you will know His message.  He has ensured this much.  Now I have no idea what happened before Jesus, but I know the punishment then was death and God made Himself known to all then.  The way to God then was sacrificing clean animals. They could go to heaven, but Jesus became the ultimate sacrifice for all mankind.  

    I do not believe in evolution.

    Because there is no solid evidence as of yet.  Scientists have even proven that life could not have been created without intelligent design.  http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Oct/3/ten-major-flaws-evolution-revised/
      
    Not at all.

    Around 6,000 or 7,000 years old.  http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/
     
    It's not flat, if that is what you are getting at.  I do not agree with ErfisFlat on that I assure you.  Even if he was, what does it matter?  Does it change my daily life?  No.  I will still go to college, work, and play video games.  It has no effect on me.  

    Helio-centric.   
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    Oh no, I saw Ephesians in there.  You see, Paul wrote a letter to the church of Ephesus only.  Those laws applied to them and they were commands from God on how to improve themselves.  
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @SuperSith89

    "Morality"

    Thank you for admitting that morality is subjective and changes from person to person. Therefore there is no need for evolution to address morality or objective morality since morality is not objective but subjective and developed in a cultural context. If morality is not objective, it does not have to come from anywhere since it is not universal. Subjective morality just comes from the agreement of what some people think is ok to do and not ok to do and this varies from person to person. 

    "No one can judge god"

    Bad argument. Your argument saays you cant judge god coz you dont know the circumstances. We do know, the OT does record the leading "sins". For example, god burnt down sodom and gomorrah for homosexuality and completely destroyed the whole city. God punished homosexuality very severely and in a very barbaric way. Today in western countries, homosexuality is ok. What god thought was immoral, western countries think is moral which proves morality to be subjective. Do you tuink homosexuality is a good enough reason to destroy the whole city and kill everyone in it? What do you think would happen to someone who said "i hate homosexuals and i will kill everyone and i will destroy the whole city"? If someone said that today, they would be sent to a mental health correction facility.

    "Infinity and matter"

    Infinity exists. Divide rhe circumference of a circle by its diameter, you get pi which is infinite. 

    According to the law of conservation of matter and energy, matter can not be created nor destroyed which mean it has existed around forever. 

    There was no time for anything to exist before the big bang outside of the singularity so not even time for god. Without time, god cant exist not even for one second. 

    If infinity does not exist, how did god exist for an infinite eternity doing nothing before the creation of the universe?


    "Fate of the unevangilized"

    Those people in remote vullages and before jesus, did not learn of christianity and judaism so they could not have heard of his message or prophets.

    "Ephesians" 

    Does not matter if mark or peter or paul wrote it. If its in the bible then its supposedly from god and you have no problems whatsoever with what god says. So what even uf it was sent to ephesus. Its till an immoral act no matter how it was done or commanded against.

    "Heliocentric"

    Against the bible.



                                                                                 The mobility of the sun

    The most important biblical quote supporting a geocentric universe can be found in the Book of Joshua. This will be used as the starting point for our scriptural cosmology.

    Joshua 10:12-13
    Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

    The miracle of Joshua appears again as a reference in The Book of Habakkuk.

    Habakkuk 3:11
    The sun and moon stood still in their habitation at the light of thine arrows as they sped, at the flash of thy glittering spear.

    Why is this a miracle when the sun is stationary anyways? It is obvious from this verse the sun rotates around the earth and that it is a miracle for the sun to stop rotating the earth. In science, the sun is stationary and does not orbit the earth and therefore does not stop or need to stop. Notice how it does not say it made it appear to stop. It flat out says the sun and the moon stood still (stationary).

    Psalms 19:4-6
    yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man RUNS HIS COURSE with joy. Its RISING is FROM the END of the heavens, and its CIRCUIT to the END of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat. This verse plainly says the sun runs a circuit from one end of the heaven to the other end.

    Ecclesiastes 1:5
    The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

    There is no place where the sun rises.


    The mighty God, even JEHOVAH, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof (Psalm 50:1).   There would be a rising place (start of the   ) and a setting place 

                                                                            The stability of the earth

    On the other side of the geocentric coin, if the sun moves then the earth must not move. There are a few passages which more-or-less forbid the motion of the earth.

    1 Chronicles 16:30
    tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, NEVER TO BE MOVED.

    Psalms 93:1
    The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved.

    Psalms 96:10
    Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."

    In addition, the notion of an earth with a "foundation" is quite common. This leads one to conclude that the earth is quite stable.

    The Hebrew word “yahsad” is used of the foundations of the earth in the following passages: Job 38:4; Ps. 78:69, 102:25, 104:5; Is. 48:13, 51:13, 51:16; Zech. 12:1.

    It is I who have firmly set its pillars.
    - Psalm 75:3

    1 Samuel 2:8. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them.

    2 Samuel 22:16
    Then the channels of the sea were seen, the foundations of the world were laid bare, at the rebuke of the Lord at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.

    Psalms 18:15
    Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bare, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.

    Psalms 102:25
    Of old thou didst lay the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

    Proverbs 8:27-29
    When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,

    Isaiah 48:13
    My hand laid out the foundation of the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens; when I call to them, they stand forth together.

    Psalms 104:5
    Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken. 

    But what about earthquakes?

    Job 9:6
    who shakes the earth from its place, and its PILLARS tremble.

    Isaiah 24:18
    He who flees at the sound of the terror shall fall into the pit; and he who climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble.

    Job 9:6
    who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble.

    Job 38:4-6
    Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements — surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone?


    "Not flat" 

    Against the bible.


    The shape of the earth

    In any case, the earth is not spherical. According to the Scriptures, from a very high spot (heaven, for example) one could see the entire earth such that nothing would be hidden. Such a thing is not possible with a spherical earth as the opposite side can't be seen directly. This implies that the earth is flat.

    Job 28:24
    For he looks to the ENDS of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens.

    Psalms 19:4-6
    yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.

    Daniel 4:10-11
    The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

    Matthew 4:8
    Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;

    Isaiah 40:22
    It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

    From a great distance, a sphere would look like a circle. Perhaps the phrase "circle of the earth" refers to the outline of the earth? Perhaps. But then how could one see "all the kingdoms of the world? Those on the back hemisphere would remain hidden. The next passages should remove this confusion.

    Psalms 136:6
    to him who spread out the earth upon the waters, for his steadfast love endures forever;

    Isaiah 44:24
    Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb; "I am the Lord, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth — Who was with me? —

    If the earth were spherical, one would use a verb other than "spread out" to describe its creation (balled up, gathered up, gathered together, anything but spread out). One might say they "spread out" batter to make pancakes but no one would ever say they "spread out" hamburger to make meatballs. The earth in the Bible was "spread out" because it is flat.

    This next verse appears to describe an earth that tele-literate humans would recognize.

    Job 26: 7
    He stretches out the north over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.

    The highlighted portion reads like a description of the earth as seen from outer space. The remainder is entirely obscure, however. What void are they talking about? What does it mean to "stretch out the north"? Help me somebody.

    The extent of the earth

    Not only is the earth flat, it is also finite.

    Psalms 103:12
    as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us.

    On a spherical earth, one could travel east or west indefinitely. This passage seems to be saying that there is a limit to the directions east and west. That is, after some long journey, one would run out of east or west having reached the end of the earth. This contention is further justified in numerous passages.

    Deuteronomy 28:64
    And the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other; and there you shall serve other gods, of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known.

    Deuteronomy 33:17
    His firstling bull has majesty, and his horns are the horns of a wild ox; with them he shall push the peoples, all of them, to the ends of the earth; such are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and such are the thousands of Manasseh.

    1 Samuel 2:10
    The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces; against them he will thunder in heaven. The Lord will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king, and exalt the power of his anointed.

    Job 28:24
    For he looks to the ends of the earth, and sees everything under the heavens.

    Job 38:13
    that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?

    Psalms 19:4-6
    yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.

    Psalms 22:27
    All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him.

    Psalms 46:9
    He makes wars cease to the end of the earth; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear, he burns the chariots with fire!

    Psalms 48:10
    As thy name, O God, so thy praise reaches to the ends of the earth. Thy right hand is filled with victory;

    Psalms 59:13
    consume them in wrath, consume them till they are no more, that men may know that God rules over Jacob to the ends of the earth;

    Psalms 61:2
    from the end of the earth I call to thee, when my heart is faint. Lead thou me to the rock that is higher than I;

    Psalms 65:5
    By dread deeds thou dost answer us with deliverance, O God of our salvation, who art the hope of all the ends of the earth, and of the farthest seas;

    Isaiah 41:9
    you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, "You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off";

    Jeremiah 51:16
    When he utters his voice there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and he makes the mist rise from the ends of the earth.

    Daniel 4:10-11
    The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

    Mark 13:27
    And then they will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

    The edge of the earth

    The phrase "the midst of the earth" from Daniel implies that not only does the earth have a boundary it also has a center. Since trees grow only on the earth's surface, the earth's center must also be on its surface. A sphere has its center beneath its surface which means that the earth is not a sphere but some sort of plane geometric figure. This raises another question. What is the shape of the earth's boundary? The answer is somewhat puzzling.

    Job 26:10
    He has described a circle upon the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

    Job 37:3
    Under the whole heaven he lets it go, and his lightning to the corners of the earth.

    Proverbs 8:27-29
    When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,

    Isaiah 11:12
    He will raise an ensign for the nations, and will assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.

    Isaiah 40:22
    It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

    Isaiah 41:9
    you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, "You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off";

    Ezekiel 7:2
    "And you, O son of man, thus says the Lord God to the land of Israel: An end! The end has come upon the four corners of the land.

    Revelation 7:1
    After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on the earth or sea or against any tree.

    Revelation 20:8
    and will come out to deceive the nations which are at the four corners of the earth, that is, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea.

    Who hath established all the ends of the earth?
    - Proverbs 30:4

    "Age of earth"

    Against science. Growth rings prove some trees are older than the the age range yoi gave. As of 2013, the oldest tree-ring measurements in the Northern Hemisphere extend back 13,900 years according to Reimer, Paula J.; et al. (2013). "IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP".Radiocarbon55: 1869–1887.doi:10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947. Some light has been travelling for 13.7 billion years according to

     http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/102-the-universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/the-big-bang/594-how-has-light-from-13-billion-years-ago-not-passed-us-by-beginner .

    Some rocks have been dated to 4.5 billion years.

    "Big bang"

    Against science. The expansion and eedshift of galaxies, cosmic microwave background radiation and abundance of primordial elements prove the big bang.

    "Evolution"

    Against science. Check the op for evidence.
    SuperSith89
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    So you basically admit no one is ever at fault?  Murder isn't wrong anymore then?  Alright, let's get rid of our laws then because there is no right anymore!  It's only subjective anyways, this person has his own truth!  He feels right about murdering, so we have NO RIGHT in putting him in jail because that is HIS morality and not ours.  Yeah, go on believing that.  I don't even want to continue this because that is a sick thing to actually believe.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @SuperSith89  

    I said it is subjective for murder to be wrong. I said nothing about my own morality. Isaid morality is subjective and some people believe murder is fine because thats their morality and they think that is right like murder of homosexuals and non believers in islam as in surah 9 verse 29.they are okay with murder. I am not. My own morality is aligned with western values.  However murder under some circumstances is okay in other cultures. Nazis were okay with murder too.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/3/8/morality-is-objective-and-we-can-prove-it/

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-elerick/are-morals-subjective-or_b_504262.html

    You see I think you have confused choice with morality.  The Nazis chose to murder, but were they right?  No, everyone you ask agrees with that.  Did they THINK they were right?  Yes.  That word, think.  Big word when it comes to free will.  You have a choice to follow objective morals or not.  It does not mean you are right though.  You have blurred that line and mixed the two.  
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @SuperSith89

    Who decided what objective morals are. To the nazis, you THINK murder of other races is wrong. They think that it is moral and willl even say it is objectively moral. You are too self-centered. Actually if you ask arabs, russians, indians, religious extremists and african tribes that practice cannibalism, murder is ok. You think it is not. They think it is. To you, they THINK they are right and you think they are wrong and only you are right. Vice versa for them.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @m_abusteit So are you telling me the Nazis were right?  Are you telling me that what they did was fine?  Tell me honestly.  
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    And are you saying anyone who has ever murdered is right?  That they are not at fault?
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @SuperSith89

    Dude can you stop with the strawmen fallacies alrrady. I said the nazis thought they write and I disagreee with them. To them, you THINK you are right but you are wrong and they are right, at least thats what they think. You think something elese. I think something else. To them, we both THINK we are right but we are wrong. To us, the nazis THINK they were right but they are wrong. 
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @m_abusteit But there is no right and wrong if objective morality does not exist.  You are just stating they are justified since they are right.  You stated they are wrong there, so aren't you proving objective morality by stating that?
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    edited June 17
    @SuperSith89 ffs man, i am telling you right and wrong do exist but what is right or wrong differs from pwrson to person and from culture to culture therefore objective morals do not exist. What i think about morality is subjeective and changes all the time. When i was a muslim, i used to think gays and non believers should be killed and women should have no rights. That changed now and the exact opposite of everything which proves morality changes and is not objective and so therefore is subjective. Right and wrong are just the differing perceptions of morality according to different cultures and individuals. There are no universal moral values because morality and whats right or wrong changes from person to person.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    I agree with @SuperSith89 Most people know it is wrong to kill someone, steal, etc. Even the first time every Nazi soldier killed, he knew it was wrong.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @m_abusteit But do you admit the nazis were justified at all?  Do you, because you seem yo be trying to.  
  • melanielustmelanielust 204 Points
    @SuperSith89

    I don't think he's trying to justify the Nazis, he's just saying that from their perspective, they were doing the right thing.
    Which of course is reprehensible.
    But they were so corrupted that their version of morals were completely different than what is accepted.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @SuperSith89

    I am saying from their prespective, their right and wrong included killing people is okay. 200 years ago, slavery was ok and was the norm. Slave owners back then included in their right and wrong (morality) that slavey is the right thing to do. Arabs in their right and wrong is ok to kill homosexuals. All of these moral values are different in the west now since murder and slavery and ethnic cleanising and homophobia are all rejected since they do not align with western views and values. I align with western views and values and rejext thw nazis, arab morality and all the ethings above just like the west. My point is morality is subjective and not objective and differs from culture to culture and from person to person which means morality evolved from the agreement of the individuals of a culture on a set number of rules and those rules differ from culture to culture (subjective). 

    If i see anymore ad hominem or strawmen fallacies like "so you support the nazis" then i am just going to leave this debate. 
    melanielust
  • melanielustmelanielust 204 Points
    I agree @m_abusteit . Morals are not objective, and in some people's minds the things that you and I find horrendous are not actually horrendous. We can lament other people's morals all we want and fight against them, but we can't change that other people simply don't understand our own morals. That mindset doesn't mean you sympathize with lesser morals, @SuperSith89 .
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @m_abusteit@melanielust Maybe, but I think you both don't realize the terrible consequences of this thought process.  You are saying that each person has his own morality, so each person has their own idea of what is right.  Imagine if criminals today got onto this thought process.  I can see them using that as an excuse to get out of punishment and believe me, it would work.  Why would it work?  Because it is just how their morality is and we just cannot change that.  They have a human right to do what they wish since it is what they think is right.  Just because people differ in their idea of right does not mean they differ in morality.  Morality exists anywhere, but some people choose not to listen to it.  Ever get that twinge of guilt when lying?  Do you think that just might be God telling you to go the other way through morality?  I think no matter who you are this is true.  Right and wrong are the same no matter where you go.  Murder is never right, even if you THINK it is, and I don't care if people do it or not and are fine, they will feel guilt eventually.  No one can escape that.  

    So I keep bugging you on the nazi thing because you are saying they are partially justified because there is no absolute right or wrong.  That would take the blame off of them, ISIS, cannibals, and other monsters throughout history.  
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    I agree with @SuperSith89. Most of us have some sense of what is right or wrong. I think your environment can sometimes make you forget or disregard that basic aspect of ourselves. 
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @SuperSith89

    You are presupposing westerrn morals and they are presupposing nazi morals. Everyone has their own morals. Thats the problem. When you are saying the nazis are not justified, you are presuming western morals because that is what you are used to. When you are saying murder is wrong, this is based on your western morals. An arab or indian or rusian or african  would say murder is okay under some circumstances. You might be yelling right now that i am nazi and that murder is obviously wrong but that just proves my point tthat you are presupposing western morals. An arab would have agreed with my statment because he is aligned with arab morals.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @m_abusteit You missed my entire point.  My gosh.  Here is a quote from this website, https://carm.org/what-is-wrong-with-subjective-morality, that I think justifies my point even more.  

    "Is an action such as rape actually morally wrong by nature? When we ask the question, particularly of someone who is not a Christian, we get a lot of different answers. Some say that it is wrong because it hurts people.  But, then why is hurting someone wrong?  After all, some people like to be hurt.  In addition, if morals are subjective, then the rapist can say that raping someone is right, even though the one getting raped will say it is wrong.  Which is the right position?  How does one subjective opinion stand up against another and actual moral truth emerge? "

    Another good point: "Moral values would have to be assigned by people. But then, which people? Also, would morality be determined by popular vote? Or, do individuals claim moral values for themselves and then seek to blend in to the moral values of everyone else? But the problem is that people contradict each other and all sorts of things. It would be a problem to determine what is actually is right and wrong when morals are subjective and people disagree all the time.  Furthermore, if people were to appeal to something "just being wrong", then they are not appealing to the subjective preferences but to a standard outside of themselves. This would be inconsistent with the idea of subjective morality and would be borrowing from the Christian worldview which teaches there are absolute morals to which all people are subject."

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.858184-If-morality-is-subjective-what-makes-your-morality-better-than-Hitlers

    http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-truth.htm

    It's a simple philosophical answer!  Subjective morality will destroy this world if people really start to go with it.  "Everyone has their own morals. Thats the problem."  You made my point.  Why believe in a flawed theory?  Objective morality gives you an all powerful creator ,that knows so much more than the creation, making the rules, and the rules all make sense!  The ten commandments: No other gods before me.  Is this so bad?  When you worship other gods, you get ISIS and cannibals.  Make no idols.  Not bad either.  Money is a good example.  What happens when someone makes money their idol?  You get divorce, suicide, and a pretty sad life.  Not take the Lord's name in vain.  Not so hard.  Who likes swearing anyways?  Pretty unprofessional.  Remember the Sabbath.  Who doesn't want one entire day off each week.  Imagine if every business in the world followed this.  Honor your father and mother.  Who doesn't?  This is a great rule.  No murdering.  Pretty obvious.  Killing should never be justified.  You take a life full of potential, even when that person wasn't the greatest.  Do not commit adultery.  That and number 6 are laws today still.  Lots of problems that come through adultery.  You shall not steal.  Good one there.  Shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.  Do not covet.  Both good ones too.  Are they easy to follow?  Not all the time, but they are fitting with how the world works.  How it should work.  What if everyone followed these?  No more ISIS, terrorism, basically no prisons, no 9/11, no holocaust.  That is a world I would love.  
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    "Subjective morality will destroy the world if people really start to go with it"

    Dude, this is your entire thesis that you keep regurgitating. I already told and showed you multiple times how morality is subjective in different cultures and religions like how you can beat your wife and kill homosexuals, non-believers in arabia and be considered moral and be glorified while doing this in the west will get you a life sentence. 

    I do agree with you that objective morality might make the world a better place but it is hard to convince people with a different morality than you like isis or the nazis that you are right and they wrong. However, for the billionth time morality is not objective, it is subjective and whats right and wrong differs from person to person and from culture to culture so evolution does not have to answer the morality question since morality is subjective and was just the consensus of a group of people in the same place (culture) about what they thought was ok and what they thought was not ok or would harm them.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @m_abusteit  Believe in that then.  Believe in a world where the nazis weren't wrong.  Have fun living in a world where a child rapist could get out of jail because that is his morality.  
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    edited June 22
    @SuperSith89

    are you kidding or serious? To the nazis and the child rapist, what they are doing is right, to us it is wrong. It is different for everyone. In your  worldview you should not kill others. In Islamic, nazi, Mafia, gang, latin america, africa, it is literally ok and encouraged to kill others such as homosexuals. It is different for everyone, that is the definition of subjective. The founder of islam, muhammad was married to a six year old, to him and all other muslims that is ok and moral, to us westerns that is not fine. It is different for every culture. You are painting a very unflattering picture of your comprehension and cognitive skills.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @m_abusteit  I'm 100% serious.  A world without objective morality cannot exist.  Who makes the rules in a subjectively moral world?  How are right and wrong decided anyways?  Why do we have prison if those people have their own version of right?
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @SuperSith89

    Different cultures make different rules and laws in a subjectively moral world which is what happens. Different cultures have different laws like anti-homosexulaity in arabia and anti-hompophobia in the west. Its all up to the individual, society and culture.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    "In order to refute this argument, one needs to recognize the difference between beliefs and truths.  What people believe is not what is important.  People have different beliefs about things all the time, but what matters is which beliefs are true.  In the first argument an example was given about two people who believed different things about there being life on Mars.  Both people cannot be right.  Either there is life on Mars or there is not.  Those are two different beliefs, but only one is true.  The same argument applies to cultural relativism.  While different cultures believe different things, the fact that they have these beliefs does not result in truth.  Either one is and the other is not, or they both are not true."  From that website that you ignored.   
  • ImbsterImbster 72 Points
    edited June 22
    @SuperSith89

    Objective morality is highly improbable because even the Church couldn't uphold all Bible morals. The Dark Ages happened and that is definite proof that the Bible is never the basis of objective morality. Morality is something we pick up from the influence of others or ancestors in modern cases, Values Teachers. Values Teachers shove their idea of morality into a child. How can a priest become a child molester? He had theology, seminars, outreach and even exposure to different churches of their region yet an ordinary atheist would prevail to be moral or specifically not be a child molester. Why would the very young child allow the priest to do such to him? The child molesting priest diverts the child to his perverse encouragement using biblical texts. Why is it that then? Wouldn't that mean logic plays a HUGE part in morality? That the human mind plays a bigger role in morally upright values than God dwelling inside the human heart?

    Did anyone become morally better when Spain had colonies and the FRIARS 'took good care' of the people? The only people treated right where the seminarians and nuns, heck our ancestors at that time were insulted with 'Indio'. Well I guess insulting isn't part of the 10 commandments which religious people just shallowly followed before. Anything subjectively deemed wrong by any man that is not part of the 10 commandments is right. If I took God's idea of objective morality then killing is necessary when 0 people in a region don't follow 'the code of objective morality'. That when someone is being raped, sometimes it's best not to stick your nose into their business affair. That it's ok to take foreskins from the philistines despite their own beliefs. 

    The idea of morality developed through multicultural beliefs and the age of reasoning thanks to modern philosophers. What did the christians do when Epicurus spread his idea of living with his friends in communes? They took it over and turned them to monasteries. The Greeks could've further developed and further spread the idea of living with friends in one house and letting them do their work as they please and have meditation periods. Those were amoral things that could've had great impact but the christians had their own subjective morality. Amoral or morally neutral wasn't even a term recognised by christians before.

    The pope at the time of the middle ages wanted to take back Spain and only make it for all christians, that seems politically selfish and unnecessary based on territorial laws but they did. They deemed it moral to tear down mosques, kill muslim parents and force muslim children uphold their beliefs and Spain finally became all holy again with the "correct religion" in power and control.

    This all proof that christians and catholics still have subjective morality. Let their children play violent games or Bible related games? Introduce them to other religions or never speak of them? Allow them to be independent or always be at their side securing their life? God allowed us to be independent. Is that the objective morality we should show to babies? It's a choice between two means with known consequences and free will supports subjective morality. It does not mean a text significantly summarised every moral thing possible, it is the only thing that dictates what is moral.

    So if you're going to throw that murder is then could be possibly justified then yes because there is a definition to murder and it is unlawfully killing someone. Now if someone were about to kill you and you accidentally killed him, in my country, the law protects that. Therefore it is not recognised as murder for us because that killing to protect one's life or more importantly the police force and military's lives is lawful, clearly recognised by the law.

    If the military was afraid to kill because they would go to hell, then why have a military? Does the military have to worry about murder? We need to defend ourselves and it's subjectively moral that we compete with the defences and security of other countries to fight terrorism.

    Every definition of morality or moral demands an established code properly defined or in the very least it be relating to highly recognised principles.

    I will use the New International Version but this is the site I've been digging
    https://www.gotquestions.org/war-Bible.html

    This commentary proves that all these aren't metaphorical
    http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-complete/exodus/21.html

    Highlights
    Exodus 21:
    12
    Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.
    (Isn't this the death penalty?)
    13
    However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate.
    (What is God doing???)
    14
    But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.
    (Clearly Understood God)

    The whole chapter supports death penalty but what about states or regions that don't? Do they have a say against the Bible as a religious person? Did political candidates ever know that death penalty is bible approved? 
    People shouldn't just stop at the ten commandments and tell themselves alright those are the only laws in the Bible ever mentioned. They should read more to learn more of the laws that God set up.

    If the human rights department would even defend it's wrong to take another person's life because they have taken another/others based on the ten commandments, the value of life in Genesis well I have Exodus 21.
    Understanding God here, he knew that 'thou shalt not kill' isn't enough, that crimes concerning taking lives would still occur and so set up such penalties that doesn't really support love and compassion, repentance and forgiveness.

    m_abusteit
  • EvidenceEvidence 59 Points
    The evidence for evolution is literally so rife and paints a more rational picture of our origin than god. Fossils like tiktalik and archaeopteryx and taung child fossil and lucy and neanderthal fossil, pseudogenes like w3nta which gives us tails, atavisms like the lizard snake or the ape human , homologies we have similar morphologies to apes and bats, humans, cats and whales all have the same bone structure but different function in the hand except longer and thicker or smaller and narrower bones but the same structure or layout proving we are all connected by a common ancestors , comparative embroyology proves we all have a common ancestor, comparative DNA like being 98% similar with apes and vestigial features like the human coccyx, wisdom teeth and the harmful appendix. This is a brief list and does not include other lines of evidence like biogeography. 

    If you deny evolution, why do you deby it despite all the evidence?

    If you accept evolution, how do you fit the fact that humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes over millions of years with the story that the first guy was created from mud in heaven in one day and that the first woman was created from his rib on the same day before apes and other animals were created.


    Here is two pictures, everyone agrees that one was Intelligently Designed and created, and Evolutionists claim the other just evolved from amoeba on a wet rock.
    Can you tell which one took over a hundred years of Intelligent design, engineering, machining and programming, and which one "just happened"?

    http://www.beyonddesignchicago.com/asimo-robot-a-great-advancement-in-technological-intelligence/

    https://www.daysoftheyear.com/days/systems-engineer-day/

    If you picked the System Engineer to have evolved through care-less Mother Natures random selection, and after that speciation, then can you answer me a simple questions regarding this next video?




    Time 0:21

    What was that "common ancestor" that Pastor Dawkins is pointing at that gave birth to a Chimp, a Bonobo, and a white human suburban housewife?

    A. Gorilla
    B. Orangutan

    Please none of that





    "it took millions and billions of Carl Sagan years for them to evolve", .. I just want to know what was that creature in that "point/moment" in time Dawkins is pointing at?
    Thank you.

  • ImbsterImbster 72 Points
    @SuperSith89 you seem to have missed that subjective morals is what got the Christians the dominant religion today through numerous conquests and territorial claiming maybe a little bit of killing too. The world would be destroyed with only subjective morality?

    Have you so much faith in God you have no faith in man? The best thing to lay out right here in front of you is God didn't directly teach you morals. Tell me an experience you learned english terms concerning values directly in your visions, dreams or prayers. You had to take the subjective morals of a book, a Holy book, internet reading, your friends, your teachers and your parents. There are people with good morals and we never acknowledge nor appreciate them simply because they aren't lost sheep? At least they're the sheep that bring good influence to others and continue to flow helpful subjective morals.

    I appreciate my teachers so much for teaching me morals logically and molding my abilities to judge on my own but who do others appreciate? God? Call me stupid but I didn't just read the Bible to understand sharing is caring but I needed examples and demonstrations from other people who have learned the same things I am learning. I needed to see everyone's subjective view of a logical flow in such actions. And there I found it, it's not moral to give money to people who already have 10 times as much as me as I look at their wallet. But when their wallet is nearly empty and they are hurting that is the right time. People have desires to gain objects without spending or trading too much of theirs so they spend the goodness of people on themselves. Give money to the poor? For them to eat? No I give food to avoid that they buy other things. Is it bad to doubt people even when they're already very unfortunate or is it good to directly tackle their needs?

    What about spoiled people always talking back to their parents? Are they morally wrong or they are always just expressing their feelings and desires in a violent manner? And the parents? Are they tackling it correctly or tackling them? It's a long chain of subjective morality here. If a child goes against the 4th commandment to save his dear life from his mother and father I say let the child. Child abuse isn't even defined in the ten commandments What about emotional abuse? Don't subjectively moral people have a say?

    In any given philosophical illustration anyone is bound to have shared morals with another. The problem here is you just accept the 10 commandments are enough. But what's truly behind the text? It's education. The 10 commandments are nothing without a medium to make anyone understand it. How would a two-year old understand adultery without someone to have to educate them as they grow?

     If one man shares the morals he views as good then others will or will judge.
     
    1 Samuel 15:3 NIV
    Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

    Deuteronomy 29:17-18
    But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, in order that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God

    God kind of admits morality is passed on and influenced and so destroys them without any diplomatic action or even educate them or brainwash them with good morals.

    The ten commandments all make sense but what the creator did no. I would leave the children out of this especially that they didn't have atomic bombs yet there was a way to save the young ones. Saul didn't follow this and he left a few of his creation alive and God was annoyed and rejected him as king because of. Are we really supposed to have total obedience and submission??? God was mad cause Saul didn't help him send them all to heaven??
    Evidence
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @Imbster  Let me explain this.  Objective morality means that there is one right and one wrong, but that does not mean everyone follows that set of rules.  Just because the Catholics during the crusades did terrible things, that doesn't mean they defy objective morality.  They chose not to listen to what was right and went with their beliefs instead.  Your argument doesn't disprove objective morality, but rather proves it.  It proves there is free will and choice for whether or not you fill follow the absolute truth.  That priest is still wrong no matter what.

    I would like to direct you here: http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/RA/k/776/Does-Scripture-Allow-for-Self-Defense.htm for your next point that carried out for a while there.  I don't know why you gave me the first link as that justifies that chapter and verses shared.  

    I would also like to mention how that verse was written by Moses under the divine inspiration of God.  Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament at about 1445 B.C.  https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_678.cfm.  That is almost 4,000 years ago.  That world was deeper in sin, had no Savior to pay for their sins, and it was just entirely culturally different.  Killing was an essential part of the law then to wipe out evil and even today it sometimes is.  If we hadn't bombed Hiroshima, Japan would have killed many more innocent lives.  They had still persisted after Nagasaki!  There was no stopping them after wiping out an entire city!  There was no peaceful solution and death was sadly the only answer.  Did innocents die?  Yes, but worse would have come if we had not done anything.  The Nazis were never going to stop for anything.  In war, those things happen and back then death came for breaking the law.  So no, today states do not have to follow this because of this verse: Luke 22:20, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."  Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Covenant that Moses and God made, and made it so it no longer binds to us.  Clean animals were to be sacrificed to atone for sins, but Jesus put Himself up in that place for all people after his crucifixion and resurrection.  The old law exists, but no longer binds to us and we will not be judged for not following those as far as I know.  Either way, our sins are washed away. 

    I'd like to point out that this debate on evolution has gone off the rails now and is no longer about evolution :/
  • ImbsterImbster 72 Points
    @SuperSith89
    well if there was an objective morality what is it's nature and how do reach it is the only concern but without such yet we are governed by subjectivism. Well in going back to evolution a lot of things christians scientists have argued have been disproved by bio chem tests.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @Imbster  The only way to reach it is by being rid of sin and that is impossible until we are in heaven with God and the devil has been vanquished for good.  The only way to do that is through accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior.  John 14:6 " Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.""  

    I actually explained how dating methods are flawed in the other debate awaketonowhere started.  I also explained how God created a mature Earth in that.  Go check that out for your claim that evolution and bio chem results disprove creation. 
    Evidence
  • ImbsterImbster 72 Points
    @SuperSith89
    not creation in particular but the need for a supreme being to have intelligently designed such and also disproving a christian scientist's view of irreducible complexity.
  • EvidenceEvidence 59 Points
    Erfisflat said:
    I agree with @SuperSith89. Most of us have some sense of what is right or wrong. I think your environment can sometimes make you forget or disregard that basic aspect of ourselves. 


    I agree, if we just look at he complexity of our physical creation this body alone, where we sense the slightest disturbance like a tiny virus, the whole body reacts.
    Now imagine if we were this complex robot, where we would have to go to the manufacturer and get hooked up to a monitor to find such a small thing as a physical virus, it could take years to diagnose.

    So of course we KNOW rights and wrongs, good and bad's, it is within us, and in nature itself.
    There was no need for any Bible before the fall because every human knew right from wrong naturally. Even after the fall, after Cain killed Able, Adam taught his children right from wrong for another 930 years, and his children taught their children.

    But after Adams death, men became more and more rebellious against God, and seemed to deliberately deny what nature itself taught them, we see this when they created their own gods, idols made of wood and stone where they started sacrificing even their own children to these false gods. It got so bad, that we see God tried to wipe man off the face of the Earth.

    Look at how the Bible starts out, "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth, .. you shall not kill, steal, .." I mean duh, what, it popped out of nothing? This shows just how deranged man has become for God to have to tell them this??

    As man became wiser, it was inevitable that man comes up with a better idea for creation than saying someone sculpted a body from clay, and Zeus comes along and gives them life. Even today people use that story for Gods creating man, when the Bible is clear that God created man from dust particles, one quantum particle at a time. But no, man twists that and says them quantum particles came from nothing, and for no apparent reason assembled itself.

    Anything but Gods version that's in the Bible, which is evident in nature. Things just don't pop out of nothing and assemble themselves, and if the satanic Big-bangers would even believe that, they would not have built the LHC which purposely tries to create a Big-bang, lol.

    if Big bangs happened from and in nothing, then with all the gazillion particles we have around now, they should be Big-Banging every second, .. by themselves. But after 13.75 Billion years, seems like our Flat Earth is it.
    Unfortunately for 666CERN, even with all the ingredients to create a universe including the most important ingredient Mr. Higgs "boson", and the LHC working 24/7 they cant make it work, .. lol.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    edited June 23
    @Imbster He is talking about this objective morality  


    Exodus 21:2-6 (NASB):   


    2If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. 3If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. 4If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

    Beating slaves
    Exodus 21:20-21 (NASB): 20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
    Exodus 21:26-27 (NASB): 26If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.
    This beautiful morality
    Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): 5Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.
    1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): 1All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. 2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.
    This wonderful objective morality
    “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

    “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Corinthians 14:34-35)


    “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

    This objective morality
    A Hebrew girl who is raped can be sold to her rapist for 50 shekels, or about $580 (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

    Numbers (31:18) God’s servant commands the Israelites to kill all of the used Midianite women who have been captured in war, and all of the boy children, but to keep all of the virgin girls for themselves.

    purification ritual to prepare a captive virgin for life as a concubine. It requires her owner to shave her head and trim her nails and give her a month to mourn her parents before the first sex act (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

    This beautiful god-given objective morality
    Deuteronomy 17
    If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
    Which is all justified because of this :
    Mathew 5
    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven
  • Evidence said:

    There was no need for any Bible before the fall because every human knew right from wrong naturally. Even after the fall, after Cain killed Able, Adam taught his children right from wrong for another 930 years, and his children taught their children.

    I'm not Christian myself, but if you believe in the word of the bible I can't see how this fits.

    How could Adam and Eve have known of Good and Evil before the fall? The entire rationale for The Fall is that they ate from the Tree of Knoowledge of Good and Evil and then came to understand Good and Evil. Prior to that they had no conception of it.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    edited June 23
    @Evidence

    Your first post made absolutely no sense. How do system engineers creating robots like asimo prove god? 

    For the second part, all of human races evolved from one species called homo habilis. Homo habilis evolved from austrolopithecus genus which evolved from a common anscetor to all primates (orangutan, gorillas, apes, chimpanzees, humans).

    We look like we fit our environment because we evolved to fit our environment. Our environment is not fine tuned for us, we are fine tuned for our environment because we evolved to fit our environment and our niche.

    We are complex because complexity of living things evolved overtime too. From simple unicellular life that form multicellular colonies to very simple life forms to jawless fish to more complex fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals, each step is more and more complex.
    ErfisflatSuperSith89
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @Imbster ;

    This is the objective morality of the bible that he is talking about

    Exodus 21:2-6 (NASB):

    2If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. 3If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. 4If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ 6then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently.

     (Exodus 21:7-11 NASB)7If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. 8If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. 9If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. 10If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. 11If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
    Exodus 21:20-21 (NASB): 20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.Exodus 21:26-27 (NASB): 26If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.
    Exodus 21 (NASB):If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone.
    Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): 5Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

    1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): 1All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. 2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.
    Leviticus 25:44-46 (NASB) suggests how Israelites can utilize the full human resources of slaves: 44As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.

    “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

    This beautiful  objective morality
    Ephesians 522 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.
    Deuteronomy 17If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
    and this beautiful god given objective morality
    At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women. (2 Kings 15:16)

    Which was accepted and justified by our lord and saviour jesus crust, amen.
    Mathew 5
    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @m_abusteit  Where are the fossils to these species you talk about?  Lucy?  The fossil that was forced down our throats in the 80's and was called the missing link?  The one that turned out to be fake and then evolutionists just swept that under the rug?  Yea....

    Now.  Exodus was written by Moses at about 1465 BC.  Around that date at least.  What year is it?  Oh yes, 2017.  Rules applied to what the world was like then, which you could counter saying Jesus said to follow the law, yet may I point you to this verse: Luke 22:20 "20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.".  Jeremiah 31:33 "33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people."  You see now the laws of the old covenant with Moses are no longer binding due to the fact that Jesus became the ultimate payment for all of ours sins.  Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."  The laws set before Jesus was crucified and resurrected no longer apply to us and our way to Heaven.  

    1 Timothy and 2 Timothy were written to Timothy.  I hope you realize this.  Most the books during the New Testament are letters to the churches during that time and to certain people.  Same with Ephesians.  Written to the church of Ephesus.  Also, don't you dare cut out verses 25-29 of Ephesians 5.  "25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— "  Imagine if men followed this rule to the dot.  Loving a woman as much as Himself and as much as Christ loved the church.  Jesus fulfilled every single law of the church.  Would any woman have a problem submitting to a man who treated her like that?  Probably not.  

     
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @SuperSith89

    "Lucy" 

    Swept under the rug? are you pulling this out of your ? Lucy is the best example we have of Australopithecus afarensis. She has bipedal locomotion, upright posture, sloped lower face, no chin and has arms well past her hips based on the skull and the partial skeleton retrieved. It is literally one of the best Australopithecus afarensis we have. Where did you get that she was swept under the rugs. 

    http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/australopithecus-afarensis

    You  can compare human skull and skeleton with that of lucy and a chimp above.

    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141127-lucy-fossil-revealed-our-origins

    "Exodus"

    You idiot just played yourself so hard.  How can you claim those were the rules and morals god gave those specific people and that the rules for 2017 are different when two posts ago you said that morality is absolutely objective and whats right and wrong does not change from culture to culture or from individual to individual. You cant claim morality is objective then claim that both exodus and 2017 can have different morals.

    "New covenant"

    None of these verses declare anything about the old testament. They merely say jesus has started a new testament with the christians or with his followers. Saying anything among the lines of "dont follow the old testament guys" would shatter mathew 5

    "New testament letters"

    Why does it matter who it was written to, it still condones slavery. are you saying it matters who specifically chooses to have slaves and that it is moral under any case for anybody to have slaves?

    Well the bible does 

    Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): 5Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

    1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): 1All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. 2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.

    "Loving wives"

    Too much love

    “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

    Why must the women be silent?

    "“When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.” (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)"

    “Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.” (Isaiah 13:15-16)

    Wh
    at happened to the new testaments' letters being only send to a specific church, You told me first timothy was only being sent to timothy and is not applicable anywhere else. Does not that mean that Ephesians only apply in ephesus and not anywhere else.

    You obviously dropped 
    all the slavery, infidel killing, genocide, sex slavery verses because you can not rebut them.

  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @m_abusteit  Lucy was discovered to have been a major hoax, but that news is nowhere to be found these days.  Now they have changed evolution to fit the discovery and brainwashed people into believing it to be true.  You still have yet to show me any transitional fossils.  

    Rules and morals are two different things.  Even though those rules are by God, the rules are no longer binding, thus not binding to us through morality.  I find it funny how a non-believer thinks they know more about the covenants than a Christian who studied it for years.  You just pick and choose verses and then forget the other ones entirely so it fits your view.  Jeremiah 31:31-34 "31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
        “when I will make a new covenant
    with the people of Israel
        and with the people of Judah.
    32 It will not be like the covenant
        I made with their ancestors
    when I took them by the hand
        to lead them out of Egypt,
    because they broke my covenant,
        though I was a husband to[a] them,[b]”
    declares the Lord.
    33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
        after that time,” declares the Lord.
    “I will put my law in their minds
        and write it on their hearts.
    I will be their God,
        and they will be my people.
    34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
        or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
    because they will all know me,
        from the least of them to the greatest,”
    declares the Lord.
    “For I will forgive their wickedness
        and will remember their sins no more.”

    Remember their sins no more.  Sounds like Jesus dying for our sins later on.  This verse proves it.  Also, it explains it here: https://www.gci.org/law/otlaws

    Now I looked up slavery in the Bible and researched a bit and was surprised by many things in this article https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-slavery.html.

    1: Slavery was different back then and was not centered around race.  It was an economic thing.  It also wasn't as bad.  Many verses command the masters to be fair to them.  It even says to furnish them when they are let off.  Deuteronomy 15:12-15 "12 “If your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. 13 And when you let him go free from you, you shall not let him go empty-handed. 14 You shall furnish him liberally out"

    2: The Bible condemns man stealing like what happened with the African slave trade.  Exodus 21:16 "16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

    3:  The Bible has a purpose, and that is not to reform society.  It tackles issues from the inside out.  Those who become saved after being slaves to sin then see how slavery of others is wrong now.

    Why must women be silent?  In some churches the women were not taught how to read.  They were supposed to sit in  the back of the church and listen to the sermon, though they knew little of what was said.  Many would cry out to their husbands and ask what was said right in the middle of the sermon.  That is why they were to remain quiet. A few of those rules were for specific churches at that time.  Not all, but some.

    Too much love?  Good comeback I guess.  Or not.  That's all you can come back with?  There is no such thing as too much love.

    Now I may have been mistaken on the letter being strictly for them, but a few of the odd rules are meant specifically for those people/churches.  

    You never addressed those topics, thus I did not discuss them.  At least slavery is explained above.  On murder: http://coldcasechristianity.com/2013/the-difference-between-killing-and-murdering/.  Murder and killing are different in the Bible.  Murder, being premeditated is not allowed.  The actual Hebrew word for the ten commandments is murder and not kill.  http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/murder.html.  I don't claim to know everything about those passages in the Bible ,but I do know God knows what He is doing.  
  • @m_abusteit  Lucy was discovered to have been a major hoax, but that news is nowhere to be found these days.  Now they have changed evolution to fit the discovery and brainwashed people into believing it to be true.  You still have yet to show me any transitional fossils.  
    So what you're saying is you have no evidence to support your claim and the evidence actually supports the people opposing you? Why would you expect anyone to convince anyone with this?
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 51 Points
    edited June 24
    @SuperSith89

    http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i5f.htm#sthash.lmIS7qaF.dpuf -  That's not actually evidence. It's a random dude on the internet with no expertise saying how he doesn't believe it and asking leading questions.

    https://www.icr.org/article/1072/#sthash.lmIS7qaF.dpuf - This one presents evidence, but false evidence with fallacious logic. For instance it appeals to the fact that Richard Leakey and unnamed others supposedly view this fossil with some suspicion in regards to whether it was a direct ancestor of humans and not an accidental composite.Not only is this an argument from authority logical fallacy, I believe this was Leakey's position around 30 years ago before more Australopithecus afarensis skeletons were found and when the Lucy Skeleton was put on tour a few years back he complained about possible damage to it and described it as an ancestor of humanity.

    Aside from from they only provide two further arguments to support their claim:

    - That the knee joint doesn't belong to the skeleton, which if you read your own article down to the bottom they were forced to retract because it turned out the knee joint was the right one and their claim was false due to having  misunderstood the details of the situation.

    - A single line from a book written 30 years ago which is provided without context and as it isn't commonly available (I just checked online) can't be checked. 

    It provides no verifiable evidence to support your view.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @SuperSith89

    "Lucy"

    Stop making claims without evidence ffs. If you claim Lucy is a hoax, I expect you to prove that.

    "Transitional fossils"

    If you  actually care about the truth and the evidence and not just wanting to prove others wrong and to prove yourself right  then check out The university of Maryland's collection and pictures.

     https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/slides09.pdf

    Skip to the human evolution section and they will give you a diagram of all the intermediate species with pictures of skull fossils.

    We have fossils of every single intermediate species between humans and the common anscestor of primates including but not limited to Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy), australopithecus africanus (Taung chuld fossil), homo erectus and homo habilis. a few of those fossils are on the Smithsonian virtual online museum. Check it out.


    "Rules and morals"

    Morals are rules, and those morals rules are in the bible where it says for example if whoever does whatever, kill him. Thats a rule concerning morality or moral rules.

    "OT laws"

    The verse you provided just says he will establish a new covenant with the people of israel. nothing about laws at all. Even if it did what you are trying so hard for it to mean, it would contradict mathew 5.

    "Pick and Choose"

    Wtf does this even mean? IF the bible is a perfect book by a perfect man, should not all of it be perfect, what do you mean by pick and choose. Even if I pick and choose and find contradictions between two passages like mathe 5 and whatever new covenant passage that was, you have literally affirmed that there are contradictions in the bible that I should not pick and choose.

    "Slavery"

    If you are condoning slavery just so you could prove your faith is not wrong, that is when you know you need to stop.  

    actually most of what you said is pure bullshit. Slaves were prisoners of war, children or kidnapped people and its trade was ok and it was definetly racial since most slaves were black or outcasts. The church realized they were wrong in the 6th century or 500 years later and decided to not abolish slavery but to give the slaves some rights like getting married.

    http://www.ephesus.us/ephesus/slavery_in_ephesus.htm


    "The Bible condemns man stealing like what happened with the African slave trade."

    You say this then go right away and uote exodus. Two paragraphs above you say that the ot laws are not in use anymore. are you schizophrenic? 

    "beating and submitting to your wives"

    When I said too much love , i was being sarcastic ffs. I uoted two bible passages that show that women are inferior and should have no authority and should have their hands cut off if they tried to separate a fight between two males.

    "Women's silence"

    So they should be silent because they asked questions about the sermon and what they did not understand? Is this the type of critical thinking you would teach your kids?

    "Murder and killing are different"

    They are synonyms buddy.


    You have not even addressed killing children.

    This not only shows modern civilized secular society would reject the barbaric practices in the bible like killing non-believers, beating and cutting off women's hands, teaching women how to submit and be silent and mass genocide and killing children ancd condoning slavery all carried out and encouraged by your illogical trinitarian god  (seriously how do you have three persons each being fully god and claim there is one god at the same time, there is no escape you have to admit each is fully god because jesus was FULLY god and fully man - hypostatic union. But then if each person is god and there are 3 persons, there are 3 gods). This shows objective morality does not exist and that all of our morals are subjective.
    SuperSith89
  • @m_abusteit

    Got to disagree. Manslaughter is a type of killing but is legally distinct from murder. That's before we even get into types of killings which are completely legal like self defence, killing an enemy in a war, states executing condemned criminals or killing animals for food.

    Murder refers to a specific subset of killings. All murders involve killing, not all killings are murders.

    Agree in general with the rest.
    SuperSith89
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 24
    @m_abusteit @AlwaysCorrect

    "Lucy" and "Taung chuld fossil"

    Since it's initial discovery, numerous “Australopithecine” skeletons have been found. many leading evolutionists agree that Lucy is simply an extinct type of ape, similar to modern pygmy chimpanzees and nothing more. They may have walked slightly more upright than most apes, but were not bipedal or erect, could not talk, spent most time in trees, and walked on all fours. Lord Solly Zuckerman and Professor Charles Oxnard did 15 years of research on Australopithecines along with a team of five specialists coming to the conclusion that all the various specimens of Australopithecus they examined were only an ordinary ape genus and definitely not bipedal.  The French Science and Life magazine ran the cover story in May 1999 “Goodbye Lucy” writing about how “Lucy” the most famous fossil of Australopithecus was not the root of the human race and needs to be removed from our supposed family tree. There should be thousands of transitional fossils. Not one of them is valid.

    http://www.nationalacademyofsciencesrefuted.com/human_evolution_error.php

    http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html

    https://books.google.com/books?id=qKSFk3DdfWwC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=Solly+Zuckerman+and+Professor+Charles+Oxnard+did+15+years+of+research+on+Australopithecines&source=bl&ots=wAA0B6cyp9&sig=QCJrIsp2uhu6TuL85tVzFNSM2fs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjA8o6W29bUAhUEeSYKHffDC84Q6AEIJTAD#v=onepage&q=Solly Zuckerman and Professor Charles Oxnard did 15 years of research on Australopithecines&f=false
    SuperSith89m_abusteit
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @m_abusteit  I'll let @Erfisflat deal with the lucy thing, but onto the rest.

    Murder and killing are still two different things and the rule for killing is separate than the moral law of murdering.  Murder being premeditated and killing being either accidental or a part of war or self defense.

    Matthew 5:17-18 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law UNTIL EVERYTHING IS ACCOMPLISHED."  Jesus was referring to His death and resurrection here.  The law was to be followed and He would fulfill it until He died to make the new covenant in which we are washed of sin through Jesus and new laws are set in place.  Some of the only laws that still bind to us though are the ten commandments.  

    What I mean by pick and choose is that you pick a Bible verse that without anything else will serve you, but leave out other verses that server the Bible's message that is opposite yours.  Like with Matthew 5.  

    That article you gave proves my point on slavery dude.  At the end it says: "In the 6th century AD because of the influence of Christianity, slaves gained some more rights such as participation in unions or real estate. Also slaves who had shown trustiness to their lord would be set free. It became possible for a slave to buy his or her freedom with the money he/she had saved. Because of these it is possible to read about slaves who became bankers or merchants later in their life during history."  This quote proves they had a much better life than ones during the civil war era.  You also disregarded any verse and failed to provide a historically accurate source.  http://archive.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_Slavery1.pdf

    I am not schizophrenic thank you very much.  I am justifying the laws of the OT, which you seem to want to attack.  You try to use the verses against the current day and then you go on to say the laws were stupid for that time and immoral.  I am fighting both points.  

    Does 1 Timothy say to beat your wives?  No, a rule is the old covenant does!  Submitting and beating are opposite to each other.  Submitting does not mean a man can do whatever to his wife, but merely the wife letting the husband be the ruler of the home as long as he treats her like he should and puts God first in his life.  

    I did not explain why they must stay silent well enough.  The husbands would have them stay silent, which everyone should at a sermon, and have them wait to ask questions until after the service.  Of course I will teach my kids this.  Stay quiet and ask questions later.  It's rude otherwise.  

    For the rest I don't really have an answer.  I can't explain why everything happens in the Bible, and I'm not afraid to say it.  I'll justify slavery in the Bible, but the rest I'll have to give up on because I can't really guess to why and only know that God is God and He is justified.



  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @SuperSith89
    I'm assuming, since I've seen no response, that it's been dealt with.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @Erfisflat  Maybe not.  I'd like to add that only 40% of it is found.  How can you know exactly how it was when the knee was in an entirely separate place and it only works when you say the hip is bent, yet only one is there with nothing to compare to.  
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @SuperSith89 of all the "transitional" fossils I've ever researched, they all turned out to be either hoaxes or just apes or men.
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    edited June 24
    @Erfisflat

    "Lucy and Taung child"

    Making up things and then cititng really weak and biased sources is not how things work. Give me an authentic peer-reveiwed journal that says they have been discovered to be hoaxes. Something like the BBC would be reliable not some christian in his basement with interent who decided to make a website, make clams and not even cite sources and references. Even if it is an extinct type of primate, then that is the whole point of evolution that primates evolved into different forms like Lucy over millions of years and finally reaching humans.

    http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141127-lucy-fossil-revealed-our-origins#sthash.bAoptaKx.dpuf


    Could you provide me with the flat earth model including the orbits of the sun and the moon? Both orbits have to be present?
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    "Murder and killing"

    Still both are not justified in western secular societies but they are present in the bible meaning that morality is not objective and that the bible is primitive and barbaric.

    "Pick and choose"

    So there is a contradiction because different passages have different implications on the ot.

    "slavery"

    We are talking about the ephesian letter in the first century not the 6th century ad. The ephesian letter condoned the slavery in the first century which was kidnapees (stealing), children and prisoners of war. Later the church realized they messed up and they advocated to give the slaves some rights 500 years later.


    "Beating your wives"

    That verse is in deutronomy. first timothy says they should submit and have no authority over men which still implies inferiority.

    "Silence"

    The same verse says they are not to talk or speak at all in church not even to ask anything. This does not even fit your justification.

    1 Corinthians 14:34 "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says."  

    Notice how paul appeals to the law.


    "Conceding the rest"

    That's understandable.

    But I want to know the evidence you have for god or creationism or that the bible is true. What evidence do you have for any of those things?


    @SuperSith89
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    edited 12:30AM
    @Erfisflat

    "Transitional fossils"

    Research these and compare them to ape skulls and human skulls


    AL 288-1
    AL 444-2
    TM 266 (Toumai)
    ardi
    DIK-1 (Selam)
    KNM-WT 40000 (Flat Faced Man)
    AL 444-2
    Taung 1
    BOU-VP-12/130
    STS 5 (Mrs. Ples)
    MH1 (Karabo)
    KNM ER 1813
    KNM ER 1470
    OH 5
    D2700 (Dmanisi Skull 3)
    DNH 7 (Eurydice)
    Sangiran 17
    Bodo

    Just a few, I dont want to overwhelm you.

    You must have a lot of empirical evidence for christianity since the tons of fossils we have do not satisfy you. Mind sharing the evidence?
    Erfisflat
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @m_abusteit  You really have an excuse for everything I say and argue with these strawmen fallacies in my arguments.  
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @m_abusteit

    A peer reviewed article in a scientific magazine based on a 15 year study by evolutionists  is far from "some christian in his basement with interent who decided to make a website, make clams and not even cite sources and references."

    As far as a flat earth model, I don't subscribe to one in full, but this is a rough guesstimate:



  • @Erfisflat

    Of your three links, 2 of them seem to fit m_abusteit's definition.

    The third link, the only one you are now defending, accepts that evolution occurs. If you believe Zuckerman's logic, evidence and arguments are correct and that the Lucy and Tuang Child fossils aren't direct human ancestors then you still believe in evolution and still believe that humans descended from apes. The entire premise on which Zuckerman criticises the theory of Australopithecus fossils being human descendents is from an evolutionary perspective which still accepts humans descending from lesser forms of ape.

    All you've done is traded one form of evolution for another practically identical form of evolution except with one minor detail changed.

    If you don't believe evolution is real then you cannot accept Zuckerman's criticisms because his arguments rely on evolution being correct. This is a case of you either not reading your own sources, in which case it shows you don't look at the evidence and are arguing an ideological position regardless of the proof, or it shows a lack of critical reasoning which is essential for considering when viewpoints are valid.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    edited June 24
    @AlwaysCorrect

    Wrong, all three articles point to the same article based on a 15 year study from a biased (evolutionist) source that states clearly that Australopithecus is just a monkey that went extinct. Your appeal to the stone fallacy is duly noted.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @Erfisflat

    "Transitional fossils"

    Research these and compare them to ape skulls and human skulls


    AL 288-1
    AL 444-2
    TM 266 (Toumai)
    ardi
    DIK-1 (Selam)
    KNM-WT 40000 (Flat Faced Man)
    AL 444-2
    Taung 1
    BOU-VP-12/130
    STS 5 (Mrs. Ples)
    MH1 (Karabo)
    KNM ER 1813
    KNM ER 1470
    OH 5
    D2700 (Dmanisi Skull 3)
    DNH 7 (Eurydice)
    Sangiran 17
    Peking Man
    Bodo

    Just a few, I dont want to overwhelm you.

    You must have a lot of empirical evidence for christianity since the tons of fossils we have do not satisfy you. Mind sharing the evidence?
    This is a moving the goalposts fallacy. When your claim was refuted, instead of recognizing that, you inserted even more hoaxes to defend your position. 

  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 51 Points
    edited June 24
    @Erfisflat

    Did you bother to read your sources?

    Zuckerman - the author behind the source quoted - used evolutionary logic to construct an argument that evolution occurs pretty much exactly as per the norm in the evolutionary model - with the exception he thinks that humans evolved from a line of apes which didn't include Australopithecus, Australopithecus being a separate off-shoot which would have had a common ancestor with humans.

    If you believe his argument - which you must do because you have cited it as credible - then you believe in evolution, just a slightly different version from the norm. If you don't believe in evolution, how can you cite his work seeing as it relies on evolution being true for his points to make sense and his logic and evidence to work?
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @AlwaysCorrect

    I did, and I've learned to read between the lines enough to dismiss evolutionary assumptions. The very clear statement is conclusive enough to dismiss any claims about Lucy being my ape-brained grandmother : "The fact Australopithecus can no longer be regarded as the ancestor of human beings "
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 51 Points
    edited June 24
    @Erfisflat

    That's fine. If you feel strongly enough about the Lucy fossils that you are willing to concede the entire debate on whether evolution is real and accept evolution as fact, that's your prerogative to do so and it is exactly what you have done by accepting Zuckerman's arguments and research as correct.
    Erfisflat
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    edited June 24
    @Erfisflat    Can you please stop making things up without evidence. You said that every single transitioanl fossil you looked into was a hoax or was completly ape or man. You have not provided any evidence to show that they are hoaxes and you have merely made a weak claim with no evidence. You have not even provided the names for those transitional fossils that you have apparently studied. and now when I give you a list with authentic fossils, all you can do because you obviously can not prove them wrong nor prove that they are not transitional is to just make a weak general claim that they are all hoaxes without providing any evidence as to why they are hoaxes. If claims without evidence are proof then I claim that god does not exist and i dont need to provide evidence and I can claim that fairies exist without needing to provide evidence. You need to provide solid evidence that those fossils are hoaxes.

    "Flat earth" 

    Flaws with this ridicolous model

    - The sun is much bigger than the earth much much bigger. Evidence in sources

    https://www.universetoday.com/65583/is-the-earth-bigger-than-the-sun/

    https://www.space.com/17001-how-big-is-the-sun-size-of-the-sun.html


    - Heat of the sun

    If the sun was this close we would all die from the extreme heat. 

    http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-07/how-close-could-person-get-sun-and-survive

    https://www.inverse.com/article/25572-distance-sun-death-space-travel-passengers

    - Day and night

    The moon being there does not really mean night. With this flawed model where the sun is always in a circle over the flat earth, then the sunlight should be hitting all areas of earth meaning it would be day always everywhere. The sun does not just emit sunlight to the are right beneath it. If the sun is right above the earth in a circle, Every part of the earth should be in day all the time and can never have night. another problem is it means that all the areas should have the same day all the time which would contradict time zones.

    - Seasons

    How does this explain seasons? This would contradict the seasons we observe because the sun is moving in the same circuit which would mean every region should be having the same insolation meaning we should be experienceing the exact same weather everywhere. Even if the sun moves from time to time which is illogical that would only explain two seasons (summer and winter) what happened to the other two seasons ? how would we even get to experience fall and spring in this model buddy if only two seaosns exist?

    - Lunar and solar eclipses 

    How would the moon get between the earth and the sun if they are both in the same circuit on the same level  during the solar eclipse? 

    The harder one to explain is this how would the gigantic flat earth get between the sun and the moon during the lunar eclipse which could last up to several hours so that the earth can cast a shadow on the moon? During those several hours either the moon would be on the bottom, earth in the middle and the sun on top of the earth which is illogical because humanity has never had several hours of straight sunlight / day everywhere on earht or the moon would be on top, earth in the middle and sun on the bottom but then this is also illogical because humanity has never had several of no sunlight / night everywhere on earth. Keep in mind that lunar eclipse is a very common phenomenon that happens multiple times every year. Sometimes, thrice a month.

    http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/how-many-solar-or-lunar-eclipses-in-one-calendar-year

    http://www.mreclipse.com/Special/LEprimer.html

    http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/dates-of-next-lunar-and-solar-eclipses

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/128-our-solar-system/the-sun/solar-eclipses/778-how-long-does-a-solar-eclipse-last-beginner

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/143-why-is-the-shadow-on-the-moon-the-shape-it-is-beginner

    https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/lunar.html

    If they were all on the same level with the sun to the left, earth in the middle and the moon on the right. This would be illogical because it does not follow the orbits presented and since the shadow casted on the moon by the earth during lunar eclipse is always round. If they were all on the same level then the shadow would be a horizontal line across the moon which has never happened.


    - Sun and moon right by each other

    Why is it that no human has ever observed the sun and moon right by each other like in this diagram? Why cant we ourselves observe the sun and the moon right beside each other like in this diagram?

    - Whats on the bottom and the edge of the earth ?

    - pan am flight 50 

    How would this flight happen where it goes north pole, pacific pole, south pole then south africa in a relatively short time.

    - Flights over antartica.  

    Qantas flight QF0027 (Sydney SYD - Santiago SCL)


    The most widely accepted outer circumference of the earth among flat earthers is roughly 78,000 miles. Using the standard flat earth projection , and following the south polar route taken by Qantas flight QF0027 (Sydney SYD - Santiago SCL), the approximate arc would be roughly 48,000 km (as opposed to the roughly 11,265 miles it would take following a spherical projection crossing around 62 degrees S). The 747-400 (the plane which Qantas uses to operate this route) has a range of 13,450 km with the ER variant extending this to about 14,400 km, less than one third the range required to fly the route based on the flat earth projection. No passenger plane currently in service could make such a flight non-stop. Note that on a flat earth projection, the shortest route from Sydney to Santiago would be to travel north over Brisbane, crossing the US west coast, South through Mexico and then on to Chile. Obviously that's not the route that Qantas follow.

    -In 1955 - 58, the Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition completed an overland crossing of Antarctica via the south pole.

    How can you map the antartica and go over it without falling off the edge of the flat earth?


    -General relatively 

    This model makes no regard for general relativity, For the sun to be orbiting the earth right above it rather than to following an robit around it would have to mean that there is a huge fixed object with more mass than earth in the north pole for the sun to orbit that object rather than the earth but that object does not exist nor can be observed. The bigger problem is that this invisible object would have to change places and mass and density from time to time to allow the sun's orbit to change and fluctuate in size.

    evidence in source 

    https://www.quora.com/Flat-Earth-Do-short-direct-flights-from-Chile-to-Australia-debunk-the-theory

    - other planets 

    why are other planets not flat but why are they round like mars when wes ent the curiosity rover? What are other planets orbiting? are other planets orbiting a different star? Where are the other planets?
    Erfisflat
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @Erfisflat I dont think you know what gish gallop means. Gish gallops means a series of weak plethora of arguments with no evidence. I provided evidence and sources for almost every single one. I only provided ten pieces of evidence against your model from the sea of evidence against your model which were all strong and threatening to your model. Why is your debating style like this? You never provide evidence nor references, you use lots of memes and you never address the evidence and arguments made against your claims.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @m_abusteit

    "and now when I give you a list with authentic fossils"

    Are you positive? Because the first two on your list are "Lucy" and her Australopithecus buddy, both refuted just a few posts ago. This gives me some insight to your fast-paced research. You are a follower. You were taught what to think, not how to think. 

    I'm working on a rebuttal to your copy/paste list, most of the information is in my previous post. 

    You'll also find each of your spherical earth proofs adequately refuted in my "the earth is flat" debate. If you're suggesting that I revisit these claims, I'll have to respectfully decline and defer you to that debate on the grounds that, while flat earth takes a steamy dump on evolution and big bangism, it is ultimately off topic in an evolution debate. 
    AlwaysCorrectm_abusteit
  • @m_abusteit

    Eh, when someone concedes their point and is forced to resort to image macros I'd just walk away and chalk it up as a win.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @AlwaysCorrect
    Whatever helps you sleep at night.  B)
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @m_abusteit

    If you insist on derailing your own debate, I can copy and paste the rebuttals to your already proven gish gallop here, but it would take much time. Anyone who's actually read the debate can attest to this, with over 2.6 thousand views nobody has proved the ball earth yet, and from the looks of your gish gallop, I don't think you'll have a chance either. 
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @Erfisflat

    "Because the first two on your list are "Lucy" and her Australopithecus buddy, both refuted just a few posts ago"

    Not really you just said they are a hoax and you provided no evidence. Making claims is easy.

    "copy/paste list"

    not really, where is the source I copied from? again claims are easy.

    "adeuately refuted"

     :D  :D   That alone was funnier than all the lame memes you post.

  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    edited 6:25AM
    @AlwaysCorrect  

    I will probably just do that because I dont think his rebuttal is going to be of any essence. I will probs only respond if it is worth it.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    "Not really you just said they are a hoax and you provided no evidence. Making claims is easy."

    If that's the case, that's all you're doing here. The claim was sufficiently sourced three times including a reputable,  peer reviewed scientific magazine. If all you have is "nuh-uhs" "but, but, muh science book!'s" and intellectual dishonesty, I see no rational reason to continue this discussion. My ten year old has a better argument than this. I'll copy and paste my rebuttals to your spherical earth gish gallop soon.
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 51 Points
    @m_abusteit

    If you do end up continuing to bang your head against this wall, his latest post is a great example of what I was talking about. The claim he's referencing in his three sources is the work of Solly Zuckerman.

    Erfisflat has stated he agrees with Zuckerman's reasoning and presented it multiple times as proof. The problem for Erfisflat is that Zuckerman's argument is based on evolution being real, it just doesn't think Lucy is a human ancestor.

    So by citing this source and relying on it, he's already shot himself in this foot and lost the entire debate. Feel free to keep on hammering him with it as there's no real defence he can put up against it, he'll just keep on trying to change the subject or refuse to engage like he did with me.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @AlwaysCorrect

    "refuse to engage like he did with me."

    Similar to when I asked you twice what the shape of the earth was, and received no response yet? I addressed your assertion and explained that you were grasping at straws.

     Zuckerman, like yourself and your buddy here are under the assumption that evolution, big bangism and the pseudoscience that backs it is infallible. You aren't foolish enough to think Zuckerman would've wrote anything that would've cost their careers, do you?

     The point was that the poor research that went into the claim "Lucy is my ape brained granny" is refuted, and this is only the first claim of evolution that I've addressed, yet. 

    I'm not sure your buddy here will understand this, but flat earth is irrefutable, if you have any common sense and haven't lost your critical thinking, that's probably why you are avoiding it like the plague. Evolution is a byproduct of heliocentrism. Debating evolution is just appeals to authority and popularity fallacies. Flat earth is empirically verifiable. 
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @m_abusteit  Why is it the scientific community puts so much faith in a 40% complete skeleton with a knee that was found in an opposite location.  And it also hinges on the fact that the hip is twisted and it used to walk straight while the other hip is in fact missing and thus unable to be based off of.  
  • m_abusteitm_abusteit 68 Points
    @SuperSith89

    You do not know what faith means. Faith is what christians do because they have no evidence for their god. Scientists look at partial skeletons with full features like femurs and pelvis and they compare it towith apes an dhumans and they find a mixture of similarities like a tall tailbone of primates and an intermediate size between apes and humans and other charactersitics of humans like a peripindicular insertion of the spine for a semi - upright posture expected to be found in an intermediate link. also the femur and pelvis and the entire partial skeleton indicates a bipedal locomotion.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 185 Points
    @m_abusteit

    Sun’s size


    State's that evidence is in the source, couldn't be further from the truth. Sources only give mainstream measurements of heliocentrism’s claims for sun’s size, no verifiable evidence to be found. Appeal to authority/popularity fallacy. Nothing verifiable here that proves axial rotation or curvature, moving on.


    Heat of the sun


    Same as above. If opponent had gotten close enough to the sun to the sun to measure it's tempurature, it would be verifiable. Another appeal to authority/popularity fallacy. Basically his argument is, but, but, muh science book! The same science book that claims the earth is a spinning ball hurtling around an infinite vacuum, imagine that. Nothing verifiable here either, moving on.


    Day and night


    “the sunlight should be hitting all areas of earth meaning it would be day always”


    A small close sun produces the results we see as far as day and night. Light does not travel infinitely far, as demonstrated here, 


    not even taking into account the effects of refraction.


    Seasons


    The sun does not travel on the same circuit in the flat earth model as my opponent claims with this strawman. The sun is on a tighter circuit around the pole in our summer, and moves to a larger circuit during our winter.


     This is evidenced by the sun analemma.


    Sun and moon right by each other


    Another red herring, proving neither curvature or axial rotation, the sun and moon get close to each other in both models. Many accounts are on record of a full moon being visible during the day.

    Whats on the bottom and the edge of the earth ?


    We've only dug about 8 miles deep. So I can't speculate how "thick" the earth is, or what is on the underside of it.


    pan am flight 50


    I've not taken this flight nor has my opponent. The likelihood of this flight ever taking place as it was claimed is about as low as finding some curved water. Another appeal to authority fallacy.


    Flights over Antarctica


    If this flight was verified and widely available, it doesn't refute flat earth, only the map used by some flat earthers. Does not even claim to go over Antarctica as he falsely stated.


    Commonwealth Trans-Antarctic Expedition


    Another unverifiable event claimed to have happened over a half century ago.


    “How can you map the antartica and go over it without falling off the edge of the flat earth?”


    Obviously we aren't seeing the map’s actual representation of Antarctica. Please elaborate. Who said anything about an edge? Another appeal to authority strawman.



    General relatively

    An unproven theory entirely dependent on a spherical earth.



    Eclipses


    Scientism claim: A lunar eclipse occurs when the Moon passes directly behind the Earth into its umbra. This can occur only when the sun, Earth, and moon are aligned exactly, or very closely so, with the Earth in the middle.


    While this would indeed suggest a spherical earth,it turns out to be another red herring. First, this quote for Samuel Rowbotham:
    " that an eclipse of the moon arises from a shadow of the earth, is a statement in every respect, because unproved, unsatisfactory. The earth has been proved to be without orbital or axial motion; and, therefore, it could never come between the sun and the moon. The earth is also proved to be a plane, always underneath the sun and moon; and, therefore, to speak of its intercepting the light of the sun, and thus casting its own shadow on the moon, is to say that which is physically impossible.

    Besides the above difficulties or incompatibilities, many cases are on record of the sun and moon being eclipsed when both were above the horizon. The sun, the earth, and the moon, not in a straight line, but the earth below the sun and moon--out of the reach or direction of both--and yet a lunar eclipse has occurred! Is it possible that a "shadow" of the earth could be thrown upon the moon, when sun, earth, and moon, were not in the same line? "

    One such occurrence of this phenomenon, since labelled a selenelion was recorded, and can be reviewed here:



    This completely refutes this "evidence" for a spherical earth, if you have some common sense and knowledge of basic geometry.

    Planets

    yet another logical fallacy. Looking at lights in the sky proves nothing about the ground you walk on. That's like looking at the billiard balls and stating that the table is spherical too. In all actuality, you can not see them as spheres anyway.
    ImbsterAlwaysCorrect
  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 51 Points
    @Erfisflat

    If you gave it a little thought, you'd see it's logically impossible for you to have refuted the argument for evolution.

    You have based your 'refuting' on a single study which you have said you supported multiple times and have praised for being a peer reviewed scientific article.

    The study explains draws on evolutionary evidence, sources and logic to explain how man evolved from a different line of apes than Austalopithecus, although they would have shared a common ancestor. Therefore if his study and research - which you yourself have touted is right - is correct, then it shows that evolution is real.

    On the other hand, If you believe that the study and it's details and evidence are incorrect and evolution is not real then it in no way supports your argument. You seem to have a very childlike grasp of why scientific studies matter and think "Wow big science man say X is wrong" is the only takeaway. That's not how it works. Scientific studies are believable because they show evidence for their claims and slowly use this evidence to build up a comprehensive argument for how any why something works. If you're saying all the evidence Zuckerman presented was wrong, then his conclusion does nothing to support you because it was the evidence you've just denied which gave the conclusion any weight.

    If you think the conclusion is right for totally different non-evolutionary reasons than the one Zuckerman laid out, the onus is on you to present the how and why of it because it's sure not anything in Zuckerman's study. You need to apply at least a little bit of critical thinking rather than sheepishly agreeing with something that is completely unevidenced just because it fits into your preconceived beliefs.
  • SuperSith89SuperSith89 94 Points
    @m_abusteit  Apes walk semi upright today too.  Doesn't prove it still.  And even with the pelvis and felmur, apes are the closest thing to humans so of course they may have similar bones.  God may have done that on purpose.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch