Evolution of peppered moths and walking sticks

Sort:
Elroch
trump2020maga1 wrote:

Yes, flawless. Sometimes gruesome but flawless. Also we all know homosexuali is wrong and just because western society is changing there minds recently does not make it right or natural. The Bible stands

So you would say this passage is "flawless"?

"19 “Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening. 20 Anything on which the woman lies or sits during the time of her period will be unclean. 21 If any of you touch her bed, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening. 22 If you touch any object she has sat on, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening. 23 This includes her bed or any other object she has sat on; you will be unclean until evening if you touch it. "

Presumably if you happen to come into contact with women you need to ask if they are menstruating, so as to determine if you have been made unclean and need to be cleansed.

Do you agree that people who work on Sunday need to be put to death?

How about the death penalty for unruly children?

These are things that are in the bible.

PetecantbeatmeSLFL
Elroch wrote:
trump2020maga1 wrote:

Yes, flawless. Sometimes gruesome but flawless. Also we all know homosexuali is wrong and just because western society is changing there minds recently does not make it right or natural. The Bible stands

So you would say this passage is "flawless"?

"19 “Whenever a woman has her menstrual period, she will be ceremonially unclean for seven days. Anyone who touches her during that time will be unclean until evening. 20 Anything on which the woman lies or sits during the time of her period will be unclean. 21 If any of you touch her bed, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening. 22 If you touch any object she has sat on, you must wash your clothes and bathe yourself in water, and you will remain unclean until evening. 23 This includes her bed or any other object she has sat on; you will be unclean until evening if you touch it. "

Presumably if you happen to come into contact with women you need to ask if they are menstruating, so as to determine if you have been made unclean and need to be cleansed.

Do you agree that people who work on Sunday need to be put to death?

How about the death penalty for unruly children?

These are things that are in the bible.

that stuff is old testament and we do not need to follow those. Gods rules are still perfect. just because you do not like them does not mean they are not perfect. God made us and has the right to make rules

Elroch

So it's all flawless, except the Old Testament which we can ignore, Except when we don't?

PyriteDragon

@trump2020maga1 You have pretty much said that the Bible is both flawless and problematic at the same time. You first use a part from the Old Testament (creationism in Genesis), and say that it is the word of God and flawless. Then when someone quotes a very sexist part in the Bible, you say, no, we don’t have to follow the Old Testament.

PyriteDragon

Oh, I didn’t see your post @Elroch sorry. We said pretty much the same exact thing.

PyriteDragon

@trump2020maga1 you probably will disagree with me, but I think it’s problematic when you accept the Bible unconditionally. I think it’s perfectly alright to be largely influenced by the Bible, but you have to think independently from the text and be willing to challenge it. I’m not necessarily saying that you should abandon your creationist view, but I suggest you broaden your vision. I in no way mean this as an insult, but I’m concerned that you are living in a tunnel and I think it is limiting you.

PetecantbeatmeSLFL
PyriteDragon wrote:

@trump2020maga1 You have pretty much said that the Bible is both flawless and problematic at the same time. You first use a part from the Old Testament (creationism in Genesis), and say that it is the word of God and flawless. Then when someone quotes a very sexist part in the Bible, you say, no, we don’t have to follow the Old Testament.

There are reasons for this. I can't really explain why but people in my faith could tell you exactly why. But Christians have thought of this and have answers 

PyriteDragon
trump2020maga1 wrote:
PyriteDragon wrote:

@trump2020maga1 You have pretty much said that the Bible is both flawless and problematic at the same time. You first use a part from the Old Testament (creationism in Genesis), and say that it is the word of God and flawless. Then when someone quotes a very sexist part in the Bible, you say, no, we don’t have to follow the Old Testament.

There are reasons for this. I can't really explain why but people in my faith could tell you exactly why. But Christians have thought of this and have answers 

Something can't be flawless and problematic at the same time. The Old Testament can't both be considered the defining word and something that must be disregarded at the same time. No one, not even geniuses, can successfully explain the stance against what I just said. It's impossible.

PetecantbeatmeSLFL
PyriteDragon wrote:
trump2020maga1 wrote:
PyriteDragon wrote:

@trump2020maga1 You have pretty much said that the Bible is both flawless and problematic at the same time. You first use a part from the Old Testament (creationism in Genesis), and say that it is the word of God and flawless. Then when someone quotes a very sexist part in the Bible, you say, no, we don’t have to follow the Old Testament.

There are reasons for this. I can't really explain why but people in my faith could tell you exactly why. But Christians have thought of this and have answers 

Something can't be flawless and problematic at the same time. The Old Testament can't both be considered the defining word and something that must be disregarded at the same time. No one, not even geniuses, can successfully explain the stance against what I just said. It's impossible.

Hmm, something to think about 

PetecantbeatmeSLFL
trump2020maga1 wrote:
PyriteDragon wrote:
trump2020maga1 wrote:
PyriteDragon wrote:

@trump2020maga1 You have pretty much said that the Bible is both flawless and problematic at the same time. You first use a part from the Old Testament (creationism in Genesis), and say that it is the word of God and flawless. Then when someone quotes a very sexist part in the Bible, you say, no, we don’t have to follow the Old Testament.

There are reasons for this. I can't really explain why but people in my faith could tell you exactly why. But Christians have thought of this and have answers 

Something can't be flawless and problematic at the same time. The Old Testament can't both be considered the defining word and something that must be disregarded at the same time. No one, not even geniuses, can successfully explain the stance against what I just said. It's impossible.

Hmm, something to think about 

I'll ask my youth pastor about it. He's very knowledgeable about this stuff 

varelse1
trump2020maga1 wrote:

How is it worse then keeping bad guys in prison?

Because the prisoners have been given a trial? And have been proven to be hazardous to society?

Who tried the slaves?

Or the indentured servants?

Or whoever else?

varelse1
trump2020maga1 wrote:
 

that stuff is old testament and we do not need to follow those.

Oh! So Trump2020 follows the Redacted Bible! That way, he only needs to follows the passages he likes!

I like that idea. Send me a copy!!

varelse1

Kinda reminds me of the way the real Trump decides, which laws he needs to follow.

PetecantbeatmeSLFL
varelse1 wrote:

Kinda reminds me of the way the real Trump decides, which laws he needs to follow.

you say that like you do not think im "real Trump''. I AM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PetecantbeatmeSLFL
varelse1 wrote:
trump2020maga1 wrote:

How is it worse then keeping bad guys in prison?

Because the prisoners have been given a trial? And have been proven to be hazardous to society?

Who tried the slaves?

Or the indentured servants?

Or whoever else?

you know im not talking about kidnapping people and making them work? if you are in dept then it is immoral not to pay, it would be stealing. you got to pay some how. and isn't making enemy solders slaves better then killing them.  also the bible teaches people to treat theses slaves very humanly.

varelse1
trump2020maga1 wrote:
 

you say that like you do not think im "real Trump''. I AM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't you dare drag our Glorious Leader into your treacherous affairs, you liberal dog.

Our President loves the USA.

PetecantbeatmeSLFL
varelse1 wrote:
trump2020maga1 wrote:
 

you say that like you do not think im "real Trump''. I AM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't you dare drag our Glorious Leader into your treacherous affairs, you liberal dog.

Our President loves the USA.

GO TRUMP!!!!!!!!!!

TheJamesOfAllJameses
PyriteDragon wrote:

There are many types of mutations. The following article shows what they are. I think the easiest way to read and understand the article is to click on the blue underlined link. They will each open a diagram.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/possiblemutations

What about the guy who has grown over 40,000 generations of E. coli and is still growing E. coli after all that time? Sure they've mutated, but they're still E. coli.

TheJamesOfAllJameses

I would like to know what is "Natural Selection"

PetecantbeatmeSLFL

It is survival of the fittest