Why was Adam exempt from the transgression when the transgression was disobedience?

by Greatest I am Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:26 pm

First topic message reminder :

Why was Adam exempt from the transgression when the transgression was disobedience?

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

I think that Adam, not being deceived, was more culpable than Eve.

Why then did God favor the guiltiest, Adam, with, --- he shall rule over you?

Men rule over women? Why when men were not deceived but disobeyed?

What was the transgression, --- if not a wise decision to choose knowledge and wisdom and shun immortality of the flesh, --- even if that were possible, --- and why was Adan not punished as hard as Eve when he was clearly more guilty?

Regards
DL

by polyglide Tue Jan 27, 2015 12:08 pm

any spellin mistakes unavoidable.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:23 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
In fact you are nearly always off the mark, FACT.

You ask the same questions in the full knowlege that there is no factual evidence to support either evolution or creation as I have explained on numerous occasions.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Not sure what value you're attaching to your 'explanations' but they're unevidenced claims so are worthless.

So, in Fact, the only way in which to address the matter in question, is to consider what is known and the possibility and probability of what they infer.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:The problem is your continuing refusal to acknowledge scientific evidence, or differentiate between that and the pseudoscience of creationism.

The only way in which to do so is to calculate the odds, a scientific method, all the odds relating to evolution as being a part of creation are so vast, as to be beyond any reasonable person giving any thought as to their relevance.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Good god man how many tI'm es must you make this erroneous claim and have it explained to you.

EVOLUTION IS BASED ON MASSES OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

EVOLUTION MAKES NO COMMENT ON THE ORIGINS OF LIFE

Why do you keep touting your spurious polemic about the odds being against evolution when it's a proven scientific fact?

If the odds, which is maths by the way not science, is evidence for creationism then cite the peer reviewed science that shows this, otherwise your claim is simply not true,and again your not knowing this shows a fundamental ignorance of the scientific process.

I am not interested in evolution as a means of changes taking place, we see it constantly but never actually resulting in a new species, as such.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Again your ignorance of evolutionary basics is laid bare as such changes are fully evidenced in the fossil record. Though they ocurr over vast timescale.

You repeat the same futile questions in the full knowlegde that they are totally irrelevant to creation and creation is the only thing of revelence.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Well you may think asking for proper evidence is irrelevant, but then you base your acceptance of claims on religious superstition. Creationism has no basis in science at all. Not one single piece of evidence has ever been shown by YEC's that stands up to proper scientific scrutiny.

So having claimed evolution is correct you now claim that there is no evidence. You need to make up your mind.

Your claim that there is no evidence for evolution is so absurd it warrants no comment from me.

Your refusal to even acknowedge that creationism has no scientifically validated evidence is simply willful dishonesty, as can be evidenced by your continuing refusal to even acknowledge my request for one singke peer reviewed piece of evidence.

by polyglide Tue Jan 27, 2015 3:44 pm

DR Sheldon,
You confuse the issues.
I have never said there is no evidence that evolution occurs, there is, however, it only occurs to that which already exists and does not in any way answer where that which evolves originated.

There are numerous papers written regarding evolution and the manner in which things have evolved and many contradict each other but none can explain where that which evoles comes from and that is the whole basis of Christianity and other religions, the latter all being false.

by stuart torr Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:08 pm

PG, the other religions are false to yourself, because of your christian belief, but they are not false to there believers are they?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Jan 27, 2015 5:42 pm

polyglide wrote:I have never said there is no evidence that evolution occurs.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You said precisely this at 1:06 pm on the previous page, here's a quote since you've confused yourself:

polyglide wrote:
You ask the same questions in the full knowlege that there is no factual evidence to support either evolution or creation as I have explained on numerous occasions.

There are numerous papers written regarding evolution and the manner in which things have evolved and many contradict each other but none can explain where that which evoles comes from and that is the whole basis of Christianity and other religions, the latter all being false.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I have repeatedly said that evolution makes no claims or assertions about the origins of life. So just why you keep claiming it can't explain something it does not make any comment on is beyond me, it's a bizarre red herring to keep saying something can't do something that no one has ever claimed it did, ever.

There may be some differing opinions on the mechanisms that drive evolution, but science based on all the evidence we have amassed accepts natural selection, not one piece of scientific evidence has ever been published to validate anything supernatural as the cause, so you're very wrong here, and it's bizarre you wouldn't know this, so are we to assume you're being deliberately disingenuous?

by polyglide Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:01 am

DR. Sheldon,
If you folow the actual trend you find that my reference to no evidence for evolutuion is in that respect aimed at creation and not that which has already been created, of course things evolve, it is just unfortunate that some brains do not.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:27 pm

polyglide wrote:DR. Sheldon,
If you folow the actual trend you find that my reference to no evidence for evolutuion is in that respect aimed at creation and not that which has already been created, of course things evolve, it is just unfortunate that some brains do not.

What a desperate and dishonest wriggle.

polyglide wrote: polyglide wrote:
You ask the same questions in the full knowlege that there is no factual evidence to support either evolution or creation as I have explained on numerous occasions.

So desperate in fact you've again embarrassed yourself with the ridiculous assertion that evolution doesn't evidence something which is totally unrelated to it. This is beyond silly now.

EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE ORIGINATED.

Is it sinking in yet?

by stuart torr Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:14 pm

EVOLUTION IS HOW LIFE CONTINUES AND DIVERSIFIES THROUGH EACH GENERATION, sorry PG,but you have been told so many times and you have a computer that all you have to do is ask the question and the brains of the computer will tell you.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Jan 28, 2015 7:42 pm

polyglide wrote: things evolve, it is just unfortunate that some brains do not.

Well it's ironic that you resort to yet another petty insult, given the asinine assertions you have made throughout this discourse and your apparent inability to grasp even the most basic facts, indeed to even differentiate between facts and bare anecdotal claims that are entirely unevidenced, many of which are demonstrably refuted by scientific evidence.

by stuart torr Wed Jan 28, 2015 7:47 pm

From a so called christian person Sheldon? yet they can resort to insults like you say too and petty ones!!! a bad state of affairs is it not.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:18 am

Stu wrote: From a so called christian person Sheldon? yet they can resort to insults like you say too and petty ones!!! a bad state of affairs is it not.

It's quite funny really given the absurdity of his spurious apologetics. Just why theists who know nothing about a scientific field think they can arbitrarily pick and choose what to accept based on their religious beliefs is beyond me. It always amazes me that they don't see the absurdity of accepting innumerable scientific truths only to discard the one or two that refute the dogma of their chosen superstition.

by Greatest I am Thu Jan 29, 2015 2:39 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Stu wrote: From a so called christian person Sheldon? yet they can resort to insults like you say too and petty ones!!! a bad state of affairs is it not.

It's quite funny really given the absurdity of his spurious apologetics. Just why theists who know nothing about a scientific field think they can arbitrarily pick and choose what to accept based on their religious beliefs is beyond me..

I do not see why it is beyond you.

That same cherry picking of their scriptures is the only way they can end up believing in a good God. If they read and used the whole bible, they would see how immoral and satanic their God really is.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Jan 29, 2015 5:35 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Stu wrote: From a so called christian person Sheldon? yet they can resort to insults like you say too and petty ones!!! a bad state of affairs is it not.

It's quite funny really given the absurdity of his spurious apologetics. Just why theists who know nothing about a scientific field think they can arbitrarily pick and choose what to accept based on their religious beliefs is beyond me..

I do not see why it is beyond you.

That same cherry picking of their scriptures is the only way they can end up believing in a good God. If they read and used the whole bible, they would see how immoral and satanic their God really is.

Regards
DL

Scientific methodology is consistent and objective, it's nonsensical to arbitrarily cherry pick what you want from it, least of all based on ancient myths and superstitions which don't have any tangible evidence to support them.

Their God is a myth, a fiction imagined by men who knew no better, so I'm not sure attributing characteristics to it is logical, though parts of religious scriptures are demonstrably immoral by contemporary standards. Nor do I care for the word Satanic, even as a metaphor, as Satan is also a complete myth, and the concept often strikes me as a too convenient way for people to justify their own immoral behaviour rather than accepting responsibility for their actions, and for the actions of humans and human societies in general.

I just find it bizarre that people don't see how spurious it is to cherry pick science or religion and think this is reasonable method for seeking truth or knowledge. Something either stands up to proper scrutiny or it doesn't.

by stuart torr Thu Jan 29, 2015 6:51 pm

Just trying to say his belief is better that's all Sheldon, blimey that's a bit rough when thinking of that.

by Greatest I am Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:07 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:[q
Their God is a myth, a fiction imagined by men who knew no better, so I'm not sure attributing characteristics to it is logical,

I don't know if I can agree that the men knew better or that we even have a choice in trying to find some God or ideal father figure.

If I read and hear these two links correctly, we might be forced to seek the highest ideal by evolutionary forces trying to make each of us the fittest for our species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_complex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1PDxeUynA

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Thu Jan 29, 2015 7:09 pm

stuart torr wrote:Just trying to say his belief is better that's all Sheldon, blimey that's a bit rough when thinking of that.

Not being misogynistic and homophobic and being accepting of other beliefs without cursing the rest of the world to hell puts us a large cut above the mainstream religions.

If you do not see it the you are not a moral man.

Regards
DL

by polyglide Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:37 am

Dr Shelldon,

Evolution:- Gradual development from a simple top a more complex form.

Form:- Shape or arrangement of parts etc;-

Evolution is not specific to life forms.

You would be well advised to learn that words are applicable to the point in question, which way, way out, not that way etc;

by polyglide Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:09 am

Dr. Sheldon.
You continially request evidence regarding God.

The most written evidence is the Bible, in which there are numerous events and prophersies many of which have been confirmed and in more numerous and factual manner than any scientific proof that there is not a creator.

All the evidence put forward by scientists regarding evolution does not in any way mean there is no God.

Anyone, in my opinion who thinks that intelligence has not been involved in all aspects of both life and material, are sad and need attention.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:20 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon.
You continially request evidence regarding God.

The most written evidence is the Bible, in which there are numerous events and prophersies many of which have been confirmed and in more numerous and factual manner than any scientific proof that there is not a creator.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:The bible doesn't constitute compelling evidence as there is no way to validate the spernatural claims. Though obviously since no supernatural claim has ever stood up to proper scrutiny and biblical claims were made by people from an extremely superstitious era this speaks for itself.

It's risible nonsense to suggest that unevidenced and anecdotal claims that defy natural laws are as well evidenced as science and truly astonishing that any one in the 21st century would make such obviously erroneous claim.

As for biblical prophersies (sic) being fullfilled this is a claim not evidence. You seem to be unable to differentiate between the two. You also seem to be suggesting that I research your claims for you, this is not how the burden of proof works as it rests with the person making the claim.

Hitchen'a razor applies here.

All the evidence put forward by scientists regarding evolution does not in any way mean there is no God.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Another straw man argument as no has suggested it does. What it does do is present irrefutable evidence that directly and comprehensively refutes biblical creationism. Nor is it the only scientifically validated evidence to do this.

Anyone, in my opinion who thinks that intelligence has not been involved in all aspects of both life and material, are sad and need attention.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Again we see your woeful religious apologetics resort to petty insult when it's made clear you have only superstition to support your claims.

I'll do you the courtesy of not voicing an opinion on your continued use of petty insults in place of rational evidenced polemic.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:29 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr Shelldon,

Evolution:- Gradual development from a simple top a more complex form.

Form:- Shape or arrangement of parts etc;-

Evolution is not specific to life forms.

You would be well advised to learn that words are applicable to the point in question, which way, way out, not that way etc;

Again you illustrate a propensity for disingenuous misrepresentation of the facts.

We were discussing the biological evolution of living things. It's rank stupidity to make an analogous comparison with non organic man made machines. Your semantics won't help you out of the pit you're digging here.

Your straw man polemic is risible and pointless since no one, except you of course, has suggested there is any synonymous connection between Darwinian evolution and changes in machines made by humans.

Dear oh dear.....

by polyglide Mon Feb 02, 2015 1:47 pm

DR Sheldon,
You were talking about one thing, I was proving by other means that you were wrong.

This I believe is an acceptable means of disputing a point and is a sound basis on which to debate a subject.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 2:18 pm

polyglide wrote:DR Sheldon,
You were talking about one thing, I was proving by other means that you were wrong.

This I believe is an acceptable means of disputing a point and is a sound basis on which to debate a subject.

Then yet again what you believe is demonstrably incorrect. We were discussing Darwinian evolution. You tried to make the spurious claim that machines needing intelligence to design them was evidence that organic things also need intelligence.

It's hard to believe anyone needs this explained, let alone more than once, but since organic life has been scientifically proven to evolve

'IN THE DARWINIAN SENSE'

and non organic machines don't and have never ever been claimed to evolve

'IN THE DARWINIAN SENSE'

your analogy is a non-sequitur.

So to put it plainly you've proved nothing, except your lack of even a basic understanding of Darwinian evolution, again.

by polyglide Mon Feb 02, 2015 3:20 pm

Dr. Sheldon.
Have you actually got a dictionary?.

Have you got someone who could explain words and their meaning to you?

It would help considerably is you couls answer yes to both.

I think Darwin was a misguided person and if you look around his book, I think Chapter 6, he says he himself has many doubts.

Let me put this in simple terms that even a child could grasp.

You apparently believe that things evolve and I agree that some things do evolve.

You see a slight change in, say an animal and put this down to evolution, it could of course be by many other causes.

You would not assume that the animal came about by chance, however, if you did then you would be on the evolution creation theory.

If you saw, say a car, you would never in a million years think that it came about by chance.

Yet you are willing to think that all forms of life evolved from nothing, if you claim something, then what.

A reply that you are not familiar with creation is an opt out.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Feb 02, 2015 8:27 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon.
Have you actually got a dictionary?.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Google will access any dictionary including the OED for free you clown, I posted a definition for you, and you clearly had no idea what OED meant, I doubt you've grasped it yet.

Have you got someone who could explain words and their meaning to you?
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Don't be such an arrogant pompous clown, you've proved again and again that your literacy is well below par, you can't spell for goodness sake let alone grasp even basic word definitions. You spent page after page proving you didn't know that the definition of a word can change when it's coupled with a second word with your hilariously stupid BS about evolution being a 'just' a theory. You didn't and still don't know just how dumb that was so drop the posturing there's a good chap. Unless you want to tell us that a car seat is in fact just a car? Are you really that clueless?

It would help considerably is you couls answer yes to both.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote: Well now that says it all really, and I'll bet hard cash you haven't a clue what I mean.

I think Darwin was a misguided person and if you look around his book, I think Chapter 6, he says he himself has many doubts.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I seriously doubt you'er capable of cogent thought, but if you were you'd at least have a chance of realising that your subjective opinion means squat, Darwin's work was and is validated by mountains of evidence that has stood up to the most stringent scrutiny humans can apply, empirical science. So again we see you show clearly that you are utterly clueless on this topic and should really be embarrassed by your endless displays of ignorance.

Let me put this in simple terms that even a child could grasp.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I seriously doubt you could manage anything more advanced than that.

You apparently believe that things evolve and I agree that some things do evolve.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote: Hilarious stuff, you have to have the basic errors you're making explained again and again.

"SCIENCE DOESN'T REQUIRE BELIEF", SIGH. My acceptance of evolution is based on it being validated by the same process that proved your religions dogma about a geocentric universe was nonsense, it seems you can't even keep abreast of your religions slow cumbersome advance in the wake of scientific discoveries.

You see a slight change in, say an animal and put this down to evolution, it could of course be by many other causes.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:As usual you are simply making up lies because you simply don't grasp the topic at all, educate yourelf, seriously, and not with bronze age superstition.

You would not assume that the animal came about by chance, however, if you did then you would be on the evolution creation theory.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Non sequitur (logic)

"Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All invalid arguments are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies."

Do try and learn something that doesn't involve magic, demons and superstition.

If you saw, say a car, you would never in a million years think that it came about by chance.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I never have, and this is another non-sequiter, see above.

Yet you are willing to think that all forms of life evolved from nothing, if you claim something, then what.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Another blatant lie, care to quote a single post of mine where I have said this? As I have repeatedly said your rank dishonesty is quite breathtaking. I'll spell this out for you in capitals, again....

YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING A CLAIM ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE, NOT ME, GEDDIT?

A reply that you are not familiar with creation is an opt out.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:There's nothing to be familiar with you fool, how many times must it be explained to you that ancient superstitions are not evidence, not even close. Especially when science has in a few hundred years shown biblical creationism up for the puerile nonsense it is.

Do drop the arrogant posturing as it's becoming tiresome and I am more than capable of dishing it out, given your semi literate ravings are bordering on lunacy it won't tax me I assure you.

by stuart torr Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:18 pm

I am afraid it does get a little tiresome Sheldon does it not fighting the bible with science.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:55 pm

stuart torr wrote:I am afraid it does get a little tiresome Sheldon does it not fighting the bible with science.

Not sure it's much of a fight to be honest mate. Polyglide has stated that biblical scripture is better evidenced than evolution. Not equal to it you understand but better than it. There's little chance of reasoned debate with anyone that deluded, but you can only voice the facts.

Empirical science is by far and away our best method for finding, researching and testing the validity of evidence.

I'm afraid the blatant dishonesty of cherry picking which parts of science to accept,especially in favour of dogmatic superstition, appears to be wasted on polyglide, but then he claimed to not be prejudiced against gay people and cited a gay 'friend' as proof,only to then post the vilest and most prejudiced bigotry calling gay people perverted and unnatural. Even comparing them to paedophileso. That's self delusion on a grand scale.

by polyglide Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:46 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
I use the Oxford dictionary, I have not the equipment on this computer to correct spelling mistakes which are realy errors of using the wrong key and not realising until posted that there are errors.

Of course this is beyond your understanding.

I have proved you are not familiar with words, you did not know the meaning of several which I clearly indicated and have no intention of doing so again.

I did not in any way post anything that even comes close to being vile, I posted the truth.

If anyone thinks differently, then please explain.

As for words which Dr. Sheldon claims to be an expert at,

Normal means amonst other things, conforming to a standard.

Perversion, Preference for an ABNORMAL form of sexual activity.

Natural, Existing or caused by nature.

Dr. Sheldon uses impuissant replies in all cases and is obviously lacking in debating skills.

He acts in a contumelious manner which gives little credence to anything he says.

I am used to debating with intelligent people who can appreciate the actual meaning of a word in the context used.

When he has learned to do so perhaps his replies will be more befitting the question.

by stuart torr Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:39 pm

Why are gay people perverted and unnatural then PG? BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID WAS IT NOT?

by polyglide Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:53 pm

Hi Stu.
Just as a man who cannot walk is lame, someone has given the terms you refer to as relative to that in question.

I am a Christian and could not care less what others think.

Nor should a homosexual worry about a name, it is just that.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:41 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
I use the Oxford dictionary,

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Very unlikely since it's the OED I quoted on three separate occasions, and you disputed their definition each time with your supercilious guff.

I have not the equipment on this computer to correct spelling mistakes

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:
Equipment? Your Internet browser will have a spellchecker.

which are realy errors of using the wrong key and not realising until posted that there are errors.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Again this simply isn't true but if you'd rather pretend they're all typos you go ahead. Just bear in mind that we can see the same qwerty keyboard you can and easily see how likely your claim is.

Of course this is beyond your understanding.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:If you say so.

I have proved you are not familiar with words, you did not know the meaning of several which I clearly indicated and have no intention of doing so again.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Nonsense, you made yourself look a fool, and when the opportunity presents later I will quote the relevant posts since you've chosen to lie.

I did not in any way post anything that even comes close to being vile, I posted the truth.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I was offering my opinion of your bigoted homophobic remarks, which was and is that calling gay people perverted and comparing them to paedophileso is vile bigotry. No surprise you think your remarks are true, that was entirely my point.

If anyone thinks differently, then please explain.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I already have try reading my posts properly.

As for words which Dr. Sheldon claims to be an expert at,
Another lie. I have made no such claim. Why do you feel the need to make up lies?

Normal means amonst other things, conforming to a standard.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Thanks for the tip. Care to show a post of mine saying otherwise?

Perversion, Preference for an ABNORMAL form of sexual activity.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I've no interest in your personal life.

Natural, Existing or caused by nature.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So homosexuality clearly falls inside this definition. Unless you'd care to explain it being widespread throughout the animal Kingdom.?

I am used to debating with intelligent people who can appreciate the actual meaning of a word in the context used.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Dr's at the facility you're in?

When he has learned to do so perhaps his replies will be more befitting the question.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I wasn't aware you'd asked a question just showed off your debating skills with an endless succession of ad hominem. Still if it suits your bloated ego to think you've bested someone here then go for it.

by polyglide Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:56 pm

DR Sheldon,
Your posts continually include the most basic insults which I put down to ignorance and lack of understanding of the written word.

If you want to indulge in put downs

You would be out of your depth in a car park puddle.

You have not only lost the plot but the whole library.

Not mine but pertinant.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:59 pm

polyglide wrote:DR Sheldon,
Your posts continually include the most basic insults which I put down to ignorance and lack of understanding of the written word.

If you want to indulge in put downs

You would be out of your depth in a car park puddle.

You have not only lost the plot but the whole library.

Not mine but pertinant.

I'll happily go back to my first post and show when and where the first ad hominem occurred. I'm sure we're all stunned that after posting a succession of petty childish insults from the very first you now want to dishonestly claim the moral high ground.

I warned you to desist or get it back.

by polyglide Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:04 pm

DR Sheldon,
You have not the ability to trade insults with me, if you try you only have yourself to blame, I am not interested in doing so my aim is to disprove your belief in evolution in the manner evolutionists claim it to be creative.

by polyglide Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:19 pm

DR Sheldon,
The accepted meaning of normal, is using that which a thing is designed for in the manner intended.

You u se a hammer to knock a nail in and a paint brush to paint, that is normal.

To use a hammer to paint is not normal.

This should explain to even a fool why homosexuality is not normal wherever it occurs.

Wether it is acceptable is another matter., in that respect more than 80% of the world population consider it abnormal and illegal, I do not subscibe to that but it is a fact.

The papers today show a poor fellow being thrown from a high building for being a homosexual, this just proves just how the world has been taken over by the Devil.

What manner of people could do such a thing?

by polyglide Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:31 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
If you mant to compare animals with humans and put them on the same level, then I do not want to know.

Every ceature is an individual, the DNA is different to every individual confirming it's individuality.

This rather proves a creator than random evolution.

Man has interfered with nature to such an extent that it is a wonder anything conforms to the original intention.

I keep in touch with the latest regarding DNA etc;
and minds continually change regarding the significance of the part it plays.

We now have the prospect of DNA being seperated to illiminate certain aspects of health etc;

Every time man interferes with nature there is a down side and that is why animals behave in certain unfamiliar ways regarding their, or what is thought to be, their natural behaviour.

by stuart torr Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:42 pm

PG I do not call a man lame who cannot walk, as that is a christian term surely my friend, you are a christian and that is your belief also, alas not mine as I am an atheist.
When describing an homosexual, it is their belief also is it not? and there are many in the world, so surely there is nothing wrong with this practice? two men or women finding each other attractive.

by stuart torr Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:47 pm

Surely PG, YOU have heard of two breeds of animal inter-breeding or cross breeding and therefore producing yet a different species? well this is what happens to produce so many species..

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:52 pm

polyglide wrote:DR Sheldon,
You have not the ability to trade insults with me, if you try you only have yourself to blame, I am not interested in doing so my aim is to disprove your belief in evolution in the manner evolutionists claim it to be creative.

Another blatant lie, my acceptance of evolution requires no belief as it is validated scientifically by mountains of evidence. So unless you have something that can satisfy the same criteria for evidence you're claim is utterly baseless. If however you do then cite the peer reviewed evidence, explain why the worlds press, even the RCC is unaware of it, and explain why the scientist who's made this paradigm shifting discovery has not received their Nobel prize?

This kind of dishonest polemic is not as impressive as you think. Besides you've proved admirably that you don't have even a basic grasp of science with your repetition of the risible and erroneous claim that evolution is 'just a theory'. A 12 year old science student could disprove that, and a much younger child would probably have the sense to Google scientific theory for the proper definition, when you clearly did not.

by stuart torr Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:03 pm

PG you are so wrong i'm afraid with regards to homosexuality, it is certainly not considered wrong and illegal with 80% of the worlds population, I will get the right figures and let you know.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:06 pm

polyglide wrote:DR Sheldon,
The accepted meaning of normal, is using that which a thing is designed for in the manner intended.

You u se a hammer to knock a nail in and a paint brush to paint, that is normal.

To use a hammer to paint is not normal.

This should explain to even a fool why homosexuality is not normal wherever it occurs.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:

I'll bullet point this as it's not sinking in:

1. I have never claimed homosexuality is the norm, you made this up. Being left handed is not the norm or having ginger hair, so what?
2. I did point out that your claim it was unnatural is entirely refuted by scientific research showing it is prevalent in the animal kingdom, I even provided links to the research, you ignored it.
3. Your supercilious rant about the definition of natural. as if I didn't know it even refutes your claim since homosexuality occurs in nature, so your own quoted definition of natural dismantles your claim.

Wether it is acceptable is another matter., in that respect more than 80% of the world population consider it abnormal and illegal, I do not subscibe to that but it is a fact.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Ah another made up stat, how very compelling. That's another logical fallacy called Argumentum ad populum: " an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

The papers today show a poor fellow being thrown from a high building for being a homosexual, this just proves just how the world has been taken over by the Devil.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No it doesn't, it shows the tragic consequences of ignorance and superstition, the kind you yourself showed when you repeatedly claimed gay people were perverts, and suggested their sexual desires were synonymous with that of rapists and paedophiles. Would like me to quote the post?

What manner of people could do such a thing?
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Religious bigots, the world is fool of them.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Feb 03, 2015 5:20 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
If you mant to compare animals with humans and put them on the same level, then I do not want to know.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Yet again your inability to understand even basic English is exasperating,

ARE ANIMALS NATURAL? Yes of course they are.

ARE ANIMALS INCLUDING HUMAN ANIMALS HOMOSEXUAL? Yes of course they are.

I can't dumb this down any more I'm afraid.

Every ceature is an individual, the DNA is different to every individual confirming it's individuality.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Humans share an almost identical genome with very little genetic variation, this belies our disparate appearance, and we even share 96% of our genes with chimpanzees, your claim is risible. If you tested the genome of any two humans and compared to the genome of two gorillas living in the same forest you'd find more genetic diversity between the two gorillas than you would between the two humans as we are a younger species. Please read some relevant books before hoovering creationist pseudo-scientific BS, you're embarrassing yourself.

This rather proves a creator than random evolution.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:This rather proves you know nothing about genetics or evolution, and are prone to stuffing your deity into the enormous gulf of knowledge you don't posses.

I keep in touch with the latest regarding DNA etc; and minds continually change regarding the significance of the part it plays.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Hahahhahahahhahahhahahah There simply aren't enough smiley faces for the belly laugh that provided, dear oh dear.

Every time man interferes with nature there is a down side and that is why animals behave in certain unfamiliar ways regarding their, or what is thought to be, their natural behaviour.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Let me guess, homosexual behaviour in animals is not natural but a by-product of human gene tampering, another belly laugh. You're a nut job, seek help

by Sponsored content