So cheating on your living wife isn't adultery? Keep in mind the man who banged his brother's wife was married.
Also, that particular part of the Bible explaining the brother's-wife-banging also said that because the guy didn't want to get his bro's wife pregnant, he pulled out at the last second, which is why God apparently hates birthcontrol.

Edit: *One of the reasons

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 13 2008, 3:06 am by Anonymous. Reason: fix a techincality

Whoever said God hated birth control. The people who believe in god hates birth control. (That and only partially) They really have no idea what god likes or dislikes- other than worshipping god.

Clearly you're missing the point of the my argument. There ARE people who truly believe in God, hence people my argument might truly apply for. But since you aren't trying to undermine the logic of the argument itself, and instead are trying to fathom "God wanting short legged cats," I'm going to withdraw from yet another SEN forum... such a pity, some of these topics are cool.

On birth control, the main reason the Catholic Church opposes it is the interpretation of the line in Genesis: "be fruitful and multiply."

As for adultry, there are contradictions in the Bible:

Forbidden

Permitted


Dear ClansAreForGays:
It is a contradiction, but Anonymous was not wrong with his usage of the word paradox. A contradiction is what it is, and why it is can be viewed as a paradox. I believe you owe Anonymous an apology for calling him a dumbass. Dumbass. =oP

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 13 2008, 4:10 am by Hercanic.

Now I need someone to analyze this comic and point out the flaws on one or possibly both sides.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp

I find it funny that a professor can not find any rebuttals to any of those arguments of the Creationist, while I can name quite a few.

Name them. I asked for the flaws on both sides to be pointed out.

Evolution is based on science - as in, while it cannot be proved, it is supported by science and makes logical sense. A sky wizard sending folk to hell and being benevolent and caring about your life while there are children starving elsewhere doesn't make sense.

This is why you can't say 'evolution is based entirely on faith, just like the sky wizard!'.

Dear Jordan:
Well, there are quite a few flaws, but I only have the energy to go over a couple obvious ones right now:

"Even if those were 'vestigial' organs, isn't losing something the opposite of evolution?"

No, it isn't. Evolution derrives from survival. If an aspect of form or biology does not help an entity survive, it is wasted energy, which can become an advantage for any mutation with diminished resources devoted to that area. I would wager the writer of this comic was laboring under the misconception about evolution as a route toward "perfection", thus why "losing" something would seem negative and therefore against evolution. Evolution has no direction, it is purely dictated by its environment.

Bah, I was up all night. I don't have the focus to go any further. Someone else want to take up the reigns in the meantime? =oP

It's a creationism propaganda website.


Well most of the non-creationists arguments are inherently flawed, because it's an ad homonim comic (ie, they're just trying to make us logical people look crrraaaaaaazzzzzy) and an example of argumentum ad logicam, but...



Pro Evolution: Appeal to fear
Anti-Evolution: Circular Logic



Pro Evolution: Appeal to fear



Pro evolution: Appeal to popularity



Pro evolution: Micro and macro evolution are the same thing.
Anti-Evolution: 2,3, and "6" have been observed. 6 and 5 are the same thing, so the only unobserved phenomenon is the Big Bang and abiogenesis. Which also is not a valid scientific theory. We came from chemicals, not rocks. And chemicals naturally evolving into organic compounds has been observed.





Pro-evolution: Presents obviously fallacious evidence.
Anti-evolution: Counters with straight out fallacious arguments.

The Charts: Neandertal man was not a common ancestor of modern humans, no experts think Lucy was "just a chimp", Heidelbergensis has more than one specimen, and was quite human. As it is a rather recent ancestor. Piltdown man was a deliberate hoax.

I'll do the rest in the morning. Except the last bit... Ya. Gluons have been observed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Experimental_observations

It means most people who actually argue in these kind of subjects are idiots that are out of expertise in this particular subject.

Science v Creationism is a debate between science and an extreme version of blind faith.
I don't see anyone here mentioning the late pope John Paul II saying evolution IS compatible with Jesus's teachings.

Evolution has no contradiction with God(s) or religion - just fundamentalism.

The only contradiction evolution makes is with creationism. According to evolution, the earth was not created in six 24 hour days. Nor is our world only 6k years old. Seems to me people get the impression that evolution is anti-God/religion because the people who founded it weren't religious or believers in some form of god.

Whats with the closed image tags?

That has nothing to do with it. When you want to understand something, you have to follow the evidence, even if you don't like where it goes.

Ideally, yes. But people are never like that. Believe me, I've tried reasoning with others in a thousand different ways. Idiots who choose not to listen are living proof that strategy just doesn't work in the long run. It might end up having to be something ironic like natural selection with people themselves that'll give a resolution to these kinds of problems.

That's why this'll probably just remain another of those Never Ending questions. Unless someone actually gets to see macroevolution in action, or something...

Well, no one has a million year lifespan, so we'll just to have to accept the fossil evidence.

Just let those people live in the past. While they're at it they can also debate how the world is flat and at the center of the universe.

How is the Numbers quote permitting adultery? It looks to me like it's saying something entirely different when taken in context.
This is the New International Version by the way, don't know what you used (the NIV is probably better than using a King James version, as it prevents a lot of confusion). It is clearly seen here that adultery is not permitted.
As for the Hosea quotes, Hosea was told to take a wife who was a whore, an adulteress. Your quotes do not say that her adultery was permitted. Hosea was not told to BE an adulterer. He was told to marry one, as a picture of Israel's immorality (as far as I understand it). That is to say that her sin (adultery, being a sin) was symbolic of Israel's sin.