As if I did say, and I quote: It's that selective attention thing again, isn't it? I did actually say that prevention is best. Though the "Bible is right" crap is all your invention. However, the "gigantically lengthy" post wasn't even concerned with prevention. In case you failed to comprehend it, Ben and I were discussing the origins of HIV.
Re: As if *Originally posted by Bambi I did say, and I quote:* Well, yes you did, but you also said... "If you examine the case for spontaneous generation of HIV carefully, you will realise that it is not viable." Evolution is entirely based on spontaneous generation, so if it isn't viable, it isn't viable. Therefore, neither is evolution which is a long drawn-out way of saying spontaneous generation. *It's that selective attention thing again, isn't it?* It must be, seeing as you argue evolution out of one side of your mouth, and its nonviability out of the other. *I did actually say that prevention is best. Though the "Bible is right" crap is all your invention.* It is tough to argue so close to the Bible, and still maintain the illusion that it is all in error. Your adeptness in the ancient art of denial comes in handy, I'll bet. *However, the "gigantically lengthy" post wasn't even concerned with prevention. In case you failed to comprehend it, Ben and I were discussing the origins of HIV. * My bad, it wasn't that your post was lengthy. It was that you have quite a tightrope to walk knowing that the Bible is true but not wanting to admit it. That leaves you with no option but to go to incredible lengths to state the obvious in such a way as to suggest that the Bible doesn't say the same thing. I say the Bible is right, and you say a whole pile of stuff that amounts to: the Bible is right, but not that you'd admit it. And while the discussion of the origin of HIV did consume some space, prevention was mentioned.
Re: Re: As if Originally posted by tony1 Evolution is not entirely or in part based on spontaneous generation of HIV. I have no problem if my beliefs sometimes coincide with some social dictates of the Bible. After all, the Bible is a human social artifact, and as such is representative of many of the values shared and lessons learned by various human societies.
Re: Re: Re: As if *Originally posted by Bambi Evolution is not entirely or in part based on spontaneous generation of HIV.* Oh come on! Do you really expect me to believe that you believe that evolution applies to everything in the entire universe, including the universe itself, but not to the HIV retrovirus? *I have no problem if my beliefs sometimes coincide with some social dictates of the Bible. After all, the Bible is a human social artifact, and as such is representative of many of the values shared and lessons learned by various human societies. * I can't tell if you're stretching it a bit thin or laying it on a bit thick. What "various" human societies? The Old Testament is strictly Hebrew. The New Testament was written by Hebrews. Both are almost universally rejected by those "various" societies you mention, yet practically every society claims that they thought of all that stuff first. How can it be a social artifact if "society" can't tolerate its presence? Any society that contains you wouldn't create such an artifact. So, what society exists that doesn't have people like you in it?
Thinking is hard, but someone has to do it Originally posted by tony1 I don't remember claiming that HIV did not evolve, nor that it doesn't continue to do so. I do remember claiming that HIV is much too complex to be formed as is. I also remember saying that its present sophistication must have evolved along with the sophistication of its hosts. In other words, retroviruses started out as something much more primitive than they are today. Of course, the issue is not religious claims but social dictates. Just because other societies do not accept the Hebrew religion doesn't mean they (and their religions) do not share some of the same behavioral directives. A body of law written by a purely atheist society would still contain prohibitions against murder, theft, abuse, etc.
Why don't you try it sometime? *Originally posted by Bambi In other words, retroviruses started out as something much more primitive than they are today.* Spontaneous generation with one or more intermediate steps is still spontaneous generation. And you did say that it wasn't viable. *Just because other societies do not accept the Hebrew religion doesn't mean they (and their religions) do not share some of the same behavioral directives.* This word "share" must be a purely artificial concept to you. How would the Eskimos, for example, "share" something without any contact with the Hebrews? *A body of law written by a purely atheist society would still contain prohibitions against murder, theft, abuse, etc. * Aside from the impossibility of finding purely atheist societies, even the ones that are only moderately atheist find it it difficult to avoid slaughtering millions, so I can only assume that "prohibited" means "officially frowned upon" to you.
Re: Why don't you try it sometime? Originally posted by tony1 I said spontaneous generation of HIV was not viable. And a spontaneous generation can be more or less likely depending on the complexity of the object in question, the environment that generates it, and its precursors. The subsequent steps are inconsequential to said spontaneous generation. "Share", as in "have in common". Indeed, how would the Eskimos, for example, share something without any contact with the Hebrews? Prohibited as in U.S. for example. If you want to call it "officially frowned upon", feel free. U.S. is not a dictatorship, so I don't expect it to kill millions of its own citizens.
Leviticus is a plonker! Some contradictions in the bible, there are thousands more: My thanks to a friend in the USA who found these: 1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness - Lev. 15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence. 4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? 7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27.How should they die? 9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) Amen!!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Stay of drugs and pornogrophy! No jokes are intended! Talk Talk good day!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sir Loony And you call yourself a Christian! Not according to your reply to Cris! If that is an example of "turning the other cheek" then I am delighted to be an athiest! If we all agreed on everything then there would be no need for this forum and suchlike. Tut Tut! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Red Devil 1. I think they'll smell you comming. 2. Put her on the street and multiply the number of takers in one day by $0.50. Multiply by 365 and that's your price. 3. Admit to her face that she has big ass and if she grabs a knife, it's that time again. 4. Because Canadians have clean drinking water. 5. Only if he's working on your wife. At least the mailman has the religious decency to do it during the week while you're away. 6. At least one knows how to properly eat a shellfish 7. You'll get burned 8. Death by Booka 9. Sure 10. Whatever. What other contradictions did you have? Ben
Contradictions! The bible is full of them, but I am not going to wade through it! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"I know they're there, but I'm not going to look for them." Wow. I'm impressed. I suppose the skeptics have done all the thinking for you so you don't have to. Ben
Re: Re: Why don't you try it sometime? *Originally posted by Bambi I said spontaneous generation of HIV was not viable. And a spontaneous generation can be more or less likely depending on the complexity of the object in question, the environment that generates it, and its precursors. The subsequent steps are inconsequential to said spontaneous generation.* Can you please make up your mind? Here you go again exempting HIV from evolution. Since the basis of evolution is spontaneous generation and you yourself say the subsequent steps are inconsequential, therefore HIV has to have spontaneously generated itself with an unknown number of intermediate steps. *"Share", as in "have in common".* Do you know what "have in common" means? A common place which illustrates the common meaning of commonality is the Boston Common. The people it is common to actually have to be close enough to "share" it. *Prohibited as in U.S. for example. If you want to call it "officially frowned upon", feel free. U.S. is not a dictatorship, so I don't expect it to kill millions of its own citizens. * I wouldn't expect it to, either, but it does, via abortion. *Originally posted by Red Devil Some contradictions in the bible,* Those aren't contradictions. Things have changed. For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. (Hebrews 7:12, KJV). 1) They'd be right to smite you for stinking up the place. 2) Your neighbours would be right in smiting you again, this time for stupidity. 3) The crankiness would be a clue, but you probably would have missed it because of #2. 4) By this time, your head would be a pulp from #2, so you wouldn't be able to handle either Mexicans or Canadians. 5) He'd be morally obligated to do the #2 thing again. 6) Yup, #2 again. 7) If you're still wiggling after all that smiting, there would be wiggle room. 8) Old age, or sore knuckles. 9) The real question is, "can you play football while only wiggling?" 10) #2 The following would be your neighbours' justification... A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back. (Proverbs 26:3, KJV). In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding. (Proverbs 10:13, KJV).
Re: Re: Re: Why don't you try it sometime? Originally posted by tony1 Nobody is exempting HIV from evolution. The point is that complex modern organisms do not form ex nihilo spontaneously. They evolved from much simpler predecessor organisms. Which trace their ancestry to ever simpler versions that get ever closer to the architecture and constitution of something that indeed could arise spontaneously given the environment and the non-living precursors. For example, you and I have something in common. We both feel hunger when we haven't eaten for a long time. Even though we never met, paradoxical though it may seem. (puh-lease!) So yes indeed, you and I, and indeed every other human on earth, share the propensity for hunger when not fed. Are you trying to tell me you've never seen these idioms used in such context. But if you really haven't, then now you have. You have not established that abortion is murder. Saying so doesn't make it so.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why don't you try it sometime? *Originally posted by Bambi Nobody is exempting HIV from evolution. The point is that complex modern organisms do not form ex nihilo spontaneously. They evolved from much simpler predecessor organisms. Which trace their ancestry to ever simpler versions that get ever closer to the architecture and constitution of something that indeed could arise spontaneously given the environment and the non-living precursors.* All of that means that the HIV retrovirus spontaneously generated ex nihilo with an indeterminate number of intermediate steps. *For example, you and I have something in common. We both feel hunger when we haven't eaten for a long time. Even though we never met, paradoxical though it may seem. (puh-lease!)* Well, we share the word "hunger" because we have the English language in common. I doubt very much that you feel my hunger, and I know I don't feel yours. *you and I, and indeed every other human on earth, share the propensity for hunger when not fed.* But that's because we share a common pair of ancestors, Adam and Eve. *Are you trying to tell me you've never seen these idioms used in such context. But if you really haven't, then now you have.* Being hungry when not fed is something shared because we have ancestry in common. But that still doesn't explain what the Eskimos have "in common" with the ancient Hebrews. *You have not established that abortion is murder. Saying so doesn't make it so. * It doesn't matter if it is murder or not. You said that the US does not kill millions of its citizens. I said it does. No one mentioned murder.
Citizens? So the fetuses are citizens, now? How is that established? --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What? What? How does one establish citizenship, still? That's like saying something is blue if it's not any other color. Blue, however, refers to a specific set of wavelengths, so there's an easier answer than that. Why do you always define things by what they aren't? A simpler question, Tony1: when a woman has a miscarriage, do we investigate and possibly then indict her for murder? --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
