Black Dog Posted August 30, 2012 Report Share Posted August 30, 2012 I can't believe people are arguing the details of a story in which a woman gets turned into salt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted August 30, 2012 Report Share Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) But if a woman took advantage of a man's dream states sexually, wouldn't that constitute rape? Depends on what she looks like. Or what he was dreaming about. Yes it does. I found this example of a woman having sex with a man while he was passed out and the woman got pregnant and sought child support: -S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., 695 So. 2d 1186 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). Point taken and apparently it can happen. Statistically speaking its almost a zero but, as you show, it isnt absolute zero. That said, it certaintly does not help Betsy's position against Melanie that it is the same thing just a different gender. She is still wrong. Edited August 30, 2012 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 30, 2012 Report Share Posted August 30, 2012 Rare? That's putting it pretty generously...though your concession to pedants' arguments is appreciated and fair, your point is generally true, obviously. A handful of exceptions doesn't change that. And daughters taking sexual advantage of their fathers? That's about as rare a sexual crime as anyone is likely to find, anywhere. Any guy that's drank an entire bottle of whisky and tried having sex later that night, even while still conscious, knows that you're probably going to be pushing rope. Rare is incredibly generous given the whole situation in that story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 30, 2012 Report Share Posted August 30, 2012 I can't believe people are arguing the details of a story in which a woman gets turned into salt. Bam! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 30, 2012 Report Share Posted August 30, 2012 Point taken and apparently it can happen.Statistically speaking its almost a zero but, as you show, it isnt absolute zero. That said, it certaintly does not help Betsy's position against Melanie that it is the same thing just a different gender. She is still wrong. There are actually no statistics on it that I can find, but I have found a few instances of people claiming that it's happened on the internet; but I'm not arguing betsy's position - just pointing out that it can and does happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted August 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) Can we please get back on topic now? I've made a separate topic to continue your discussion in Moral/Ethics section....and an interesting continuation of discussion is going on in that topic. Thanks. Edited August 31, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted September 1, 2012 Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 Speaking of Sodom....I think I'd posted a fact somewhere here that archeology had found what they believe was Sodom and Gomorrha. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/04/the-discovery-of-the-sin-cities-of-sodom-and-gomorrah.aspx Wouldn't that be under water, under the Dead Sea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted September 1, 2012 Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 Any guy that's drank an entire bottle of whisky and tried having sex later that night, even while still conscious, knows that you're probably going to be pushing rope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted September 1, 2012 Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 See. MG knows what I'm talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted September 1, 2012 Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 See. MG knows what I'm talking about. I think everyone knows what you are talking about, "probably" being the key word; because reality is, sometimes unconscious, passed out drunk men are brought to erection by a woman who then 'helps herself' to sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 Can we please get back on topic now? I've made a separate topic to continue your discussion in Moral/Ethics section....and an interesting continuation of discussion is going on in that topic. Thanks. Keeping people on topic is never easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 Keeping people on topic is never easy. We were on topic. We were discussing a story from the Bible, and whether or not it provides a reasonable argument to discriminate against homosexuals. Betsy didn’t like the way the conversation was progressing, so she tried to spin it to be about feminism, and then started a new thread. Classic deflection tactics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted September 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 We were on topic. We were discussing a story from the Bible, and whether or not it provides a reasonable argument to discriminate against homosexuals. Betsy didn’t like the way the conversation was progressing, so she tried to spin it to be about feminism, and then started a new thread. Classic deflection tactics. So start your own thread that suits the argument you want. I'll meet you there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 It doesn't matter: there's no "region" that could contain enough water to create a flood deep enough to float a boat to the top of the mountains of Ararat. -k Kimmy, I thought of your post here when a came across this image of all the water on earth (including water in the atmosphere, people, animals, and plants) illustrated as a marble sitting on the continental US. http://imgur.com/Vv7pQ.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 Kimmy, I thought of your post here when a came across this image of all the water on earth (including water in the atmosphere, people, animals, and plants) illustrated as a marble sitting on the continental US. http://imgur.com/Vv7pQ.jpg That's a great illustration... but why does the USA get all the water??? Dammit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 2, 2012 Report Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) Kimmy, I thought of your post here when a came across this image of all the water on earth (including water in the atmosphere, people, animals, and plants) illustrated as a marble sitting on the continental US. http://imgur.com/Vv7pQ.jpg Another analogy that captures a sense of scale and how little atmosphere there is comes to mind; the condensation from your breath on the surface of a billiard ball. Edited October 2, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) This thread is created with the purpose of showing skeptics that the Bible is indeed The Word of God, to promote an open-minded interest in reading and study of the Bible, and to help strengthen the Christian faith in the face of relentless hostility and attacks. Doesn't it seem rather strange that the creation of the bible originated from number people voting on which series of books should or should not make up the word of god? The bible itself is a lot younger than people realize, it was essentially compiled into one book 200 years after Jesus's birth. Edited October 20, 2012 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 Funny that an omnipotent being couldn't be more clear about his/her/it's wishes. Also funny that the same being required a human committee to select and compile the bible. I think it's time for another committee. Currently, religions cherry pick the passages they abide by while pretending that others don't exist. Why not just do "God's" work again and trim the immoral, evil bullshit society has outgrown over the years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted October 20, 2012 Report Share Posted October 20, 2012 (edited) Funny that an omnipotent being couldn't be more clear about his/her/it's wishes. Also funny that the same being required a human committee to select and compile the bible. I think it's time for another committee. Currently, religions cherry pick the passages they abide by while pretending that others don't exist. Why not just do "God's" work again and trim the immoral, evil bullshit society has outgrown over the years? 3 Baruch (was rejected from the voting committee to be part of the bible) claims that there is no need to build temples on Earth because the temple is preserved in heaven and is attended by angels. Another mentioning of 3 Baruch was "-Hades who drinks from the sea". HADES! The Greek god of the underworld. Now what would a mythical Greek god be doing among the candidate books contesting to be the word of god? That implies there would be more than 1 god which would contradict all the other books claiming there is only one god. Interesting no? If the ancient mythological gods are finding their way into the contest to be part of the bible, one would think the bible is becoming the 21st century version of the Greek religion. It is curious to observe how the idea of what is called the christian church, sprung out of the tail of ancient mythology. A direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousands. The statue of Mary succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus. The deification of heroes changes into the canonization of saints. The old religions had gods for everything, the christian have saints for everything. The church became crowded with the one, as the pantheon has been with the other; and Rome was the place of both. The christian belief is little else than the idolatry of the ancient religions, accommodated to the purpose of power and revenue. Edited October 21, 2012 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) FACT: THE CHICKEN CAME FIRST! Chickens, Eggs, and Ultimate Origins by Eric Lyons, M.Min. More than 100 news organizations recently reported how scientists have answered once-and-for-all the age-old question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? According to Dr. Colin Freeman of the University of Sheffield, United Kingdom, “t had long been suspected that the egg came first—but now we have the scientific proof that shows that in fact the chicken came first” (as quoted in “Chicken...,” 2010). How did Freeman and the other scientists working with him come to this conclusion? They discovered that “the formation of eggs is possible only thanks to a protein found in chicken ovaries.... The protein is vital in kick-starting the crystallization process [of the egg—EL] (“Chicken...,” emp. added). Thus, “eggs have to be formed in chickens” (“Chicken...,” emp. added)—fully grown chickens with functional reproductive organs and the special protein called ovocledidin-17. Unlike evolutionists, who, as Dr. Freeman observed, “suspected that the egg came first,” those who believe in the trustworthiness of the Bible (and its consistency with every unadulterated lesson we learn from nature) have long understood the reasonable answer to this question: God made all of His creation, including birds, fully grown (Genesis 1:20-23). From the beginning, birds were able to lay eggs and keep them warm, and then feed the chicks when they hatched. Having “momma” and “papa” bird around before baby bird, not only is biblical and scientific, it just makes sense. (As interesting as it is to read about chicken ovaries, ovocledidin-17, and the crystallization process, one cannot help but wonder how countries like the U.K. or the U.S, which are currently facing very difficult economic times, can justify spending thousands or millions of dollars on such unnecessary research!) Sadly, all (or nearly all) of the news organizations that reported this latest research by Freeman have failed to ask the one question that the chicken/egg conundrum begs: If the chicken did come first, where did it come from? If there were no egg-laying chickens before the first chicken, from whence came the first chicken? Regardless of what alleged ancestor evolutionists propose for birds (and they strongly disagree with each other about bird origins; see Lyons, 2010), a person is still left to wonder: “Okay, so where did that supposed ‘evolutionary ancestor’ come from?” A person has two choices: (1) everything (including life itself) ultimately came from nothing; or (2) everything (including the various kinds of life on Earth) came from a supernatural, eternal Creator, Who exists outside of nature. Scripture, science, and reason all point to an eternal, omnipotent Creator (Romans 1:20; cf. Psalm 19:1-4), not to the mindless chances of evolution from nothing. Sadly, many have “refused to have God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28, ASV). REFERENCES “Chicken-and-Egg Mystery Finally Cracked” (2010), July 14, http://www.foxnews.c...test=latestnews. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? British scientists claim to have solved the mystery http://www.msnbc.msn...chicken-or-egg/ Edited October 28, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) FACT: THE CHICKEN CAME FIRST! Uhhh no the egg came first. Red Jungle Fowl + Grey Jungle Fowl = chicken egg = adult chicken + adult chicken = chicken egg = ETC An object cannot come before the object previous to it. Edited October 28, 2012 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 The process of evolution is so gradual that one would not be able to tell the previous species from the next species at a particular moment in time. For example, you cannot tell where Homo sapien began and where our most recent ancestor ended. The same would be true for the chicken. So, in light of this, the egg came first. Maybe..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) Sorry Sleipnir and Squid. You gotta do better than that if you want your views to be taken seriously. I provided sources from scientists - therefore refute it by providing the same. Mere personal opinion from the peanut gallery is not considered a rebutt at all. Edited October 29, 2012 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) Sorry Sleipnir and Squid. You gotta do better than that if you want your views to be taken seriously. I provided sources from scientists - therefore refute it by providing the same. Mere personal opinion from the peanut gallery is not considered a rebutt at all. Sleipnir is not providing personal opinion. That's what happened and it's a hell of a lot more accurate than "some invisible dude in the sky made a chicken 6000 years ago the day before he made man." It also doesn't contradict your "scientist." Edited October 29, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted October 29, 2012 Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) I provided sources from scientists - therefore refute it by providing the same. I could say the same thing about my source of information. This ain't a card game in which Queen beats Jack. Mere personal opinion from the peanut gallery is not considered a rebutt at all. Lol 'mere opinion' she says...I guess 1+1=2 is mere opinion? The process of evolution is so gradual that one would not be able to tell the previous species from the next species at a particular moment in time. Evolution can also be as spontaneous of matter of weeks. For example, you cannot tell where Homo sapien began and where our most recent ancestor ended. The same would be true for the chicken. So, in light of this, the egg came first. Maybe..... Modern humans arrived 50,000 years ago in Africa. The immediate ancestor to the modern homo sapiens (which began 500,000 years ago) are the archaic Homo sapiens which includes Homo heidelbergenesis, Homo antecessor and Homo rhodesiensis - they eventually gave rise to the modern human we know today. I'm a biology nerd for those who are wondering xP Edited October 29, 2012 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.