EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
WHAT consistent message??? you show me where it says it in a consistent fashion and I'll turn in my fluffy pink lesbian handcuffs today!
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
WHAT consistent message??? you show me where it says it in a consistent fashion and I'll turn in my fluffy pink lesbian handcuffs today!You reject the consistent message that homosexuality, and all sexual immorality, is sin. It is only through God's grace that we don't reap the consequences.
"science refines, gets closer to the correct answer. Isn't something that identifies errors and corrects them superior to something that is unchangeable yet error bound?"science refines, gets closer to the correct answer. Isn't something that identifies errors and corrects them superior to something that is unchangeable yet error bound?
Well you tell me how old the universe is
You have already rejected it, Leviticus, Romans, and 1 Cor. So, we'll move on.WHAT consistent message??? you show me where it says it in a consistent fashion and I'll turn in my fluffy pink lesbian handcuffs today!
I don't think scientists ever thought the Earth WAS flat did they? although the Early Christian church certainly did...Scientists can be wrong...see the flat earth idea for an example. Carbon dating has been shown to be inaccurate.
I don't doubt the existence of dino's.
Um... no decent scientist ever claimed to be infalible. The whole point of science, the greatest strength of science, is that it changes in response to new information. You start out working with the best information available to come up with your conclusions, and when newer, better, more precise information comes along, you refine your theories and conclusions, making them closer to correct... its not as you seem to be suggesting, that scientific consensus massively swings and shifts from polar opposite theories and positions to other completely contradictory ones... science is an iterative process."science refines, gets closer to the correct answer. Isn't something that identifies errors and corrects them superior to something that is unchangeable yet error bound?"
There is nothing more error bound than science. Science doesn't even use definitive language. It's mainly a lot of "perhaps" and "maybe" and "we speculate that it could have been or may have been". There's nothing definitive there. Certainly not to the extent that science is worshipped almost like a god that never errs, but clearly has and will again.
"Well you tell me how old the universe is"
I don't care how old it is. The age of the universe has no effect on me.
carbon dating error is only huge at great distances of time, and is still within the expected margin of error for the time involved... i.e. the date you get for some material may be as much as a thousand years off, but it will still be within tolerance for an object of extreme age. Carbon dating something a few hundred years old and its only a margin of error of a few tens of years. I'll say it again, they have never carbon dated something and gotten the date wrong outside the margin of error... never carbon dated a hundred year old cloth and found it thousands of years old.You brought up dino and dating. And yes, carbon dating has been proven to be way off track. I once watched them do a carbon dating test and the chance for error and contamination is huge.
Why give science a pass, or at leass more latitude, than we give God and His Word?
morality is built on the common good. Thats it. That it has been codified in religious terminology is neither here nor there... even if God literally handed morals to humans on stone tablets, it doesn't change the root cause of his commands, to assist us in our day to day lives.
ah the family research council... well, since we are talking about holding scientists to high standards, you ARE aware that the FRC is about the most biased, agenda driven group there is, aren't you? lets have a look at what some respectable objective researchers say?http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS00D2
Scientists have not even come close to proving a genetic or biological cause for homosexuality, yet homosexual activists continue to say that sexual activity between members of the same sex is "just the same" as race or gender. Using "biology" as a stamp of legitimacy, activists have pushed for special rights, from sex-partner subsidies to "gay marriage" to adoption. Without scientific evidence to support such claims, it is wrong and dangerously misleading to say that people are born homosexual and cannot change.
Yvette C. Schneider, a former lesbian who is now married, is a policy analyst in the cultural studies department at Family Research Council.
Survival of genetic homosexual traits explained
Italian geneticists may have explained how genes apparently linked to male homosexuality survive, despite gay men seldom having children. Their findings also undermine the theory of a single gay gene.
- 00:01 13 October 2004
- NewScientist.com news service
- Andy Coghlan
The researchers discovered that women tend to have more children when they inherit the same - as yet unidentified - genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men. This fertility boost more than compensates for the lack of offspring fathered by gay men, and keeps the gay genetic factors in circulation.
The findings represent the best explanation yet for the Darwinian paradox presented by homosexuality: it is a genetic dead-end, yet the trait persists generation after generation.
We have finally solved this paradox, says Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua. The same factor that influences sexual orientation in males promotes higher fecundity in females. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6519.html
Indeed? yet God created the stars only 3 days before he created humans (interestingly AFTER he created their light) some of those stars are 15 billion light years away... so, if humans only been around 5000 years, starlight has had max 5000 years and 3 days to get here, right?
No, God is everywhere and certainly could have created things simultaneously at great distances, no problem there.God did create the stars after man, yes.
He is a big, big, God! You don't think that He can fling stars into position anywhere? He is not bound by time and neither was the light. You are inferring that He was in one "location" as He was doing all His creating.
I was pretty sure you'd disregard that article. It did reference two studies that I read about, one from 1993 and the other from 1999 IIRC. There is no gay gene, but people want so bad to prove that there is one.ah the family research council... well, since we are talking about holding scientists to high standards, you ARE aware that the FRC is about the most biased, agenda driven group there is, aren't you? lets have a look at what some respectable objective researchers say?
FYI if you want REAL science, go for articles published in respectible, peer reviewed journals, rather than websites who'se bibliography is "I heard a guy say in the pub" and "a friend of someone who was like, totally a lesbian but changed" New Scientist, Nature, The Lancet will trump FRC everytime.
then how do non Judeo Christian cultures come up with morals so similar to our own?The knowledge of what is the common good or what is evil comes from God alone. It was given in the Garden, and reiterated on stone tablets.
is the gist "a watch needs a watchmaker"?Off topic... I 'd like to suggets you read The Case for a Creator.
The first question takes us back to the Law being on our hearts. No one has to teach kids to lie or steal and you can see it on their faces that they know they're wrong.then how do non Judeo Christian cultures come up with morals so similar to our own?
As for being laid down in the garden, I thought the only rule in the garden was "don't eat the fruit"?
Nope, it is written by a former atheist who set out to disprove God. His name is Lee Strobel and he's a journalist. He examines evidence, lays out the differing views, tests it out and shows how he reaches his conclusions. He has a series of books along the same lines.is the gist "a watch needs a watchmaker"?
Dude... seriously... I just lkinked you to an article in New Scientist, one of the most respectible peer rviewed journals out there that says there IS a genetic causal link with homosexuality... and, unlike FRC NS is objective and as proof against bias as human publications can get.I was pretty sure you'd disregard that article. It did reference two studies that I read about, one from 1993 and the other from 1999 IIRC. There is no gay gene, but people want so bad to prove that there is one.
um... actually, you do... there are cultures, Australian Aboriginals spring to mind, where the concept of communal property is the norm, and Abroiginals get in lots of trouble stealing in white society because they aren't brought up to think of taking what you want and no one is using as stealing... it just doesn't occur to them.The first question takes us back to the Law being on our hearts. No one has to teach kids to lie or steal and you can see it on their faces that they know they're wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?