Hmm. . I think that title should grab attention. Now, to the topic at hand.

First, I must apologize for my current lack of preparation. I will lookup the data to backup what I'm stating here and need to get more info so that there can be greater discussion and contribution from the community to this topic.

So, here is the gist of my topic:

There are many threads in this forum where people are asking advice about one thing or another. Issues such as homosexuality, permarital sex, and others (which some feel are grevious sexual sins) tend to recieve mass replies of condemnation on the basis of scripture (from the Bible). Now, I'm not saying that Christians should not respond or give their views, but there is a lot of attack on those seen as commiting sexual sins - as if those sins are any more serious than lying or stealing a penny from a jar. In my view, more space should be given to showing (if possible) the repercussions of some actions and less to blasting someone for sinning or considering doing so.

So, the more I read some of these posts, the more my ire is raised against those who would use their religious beliefs as a hammer to beat some person into submission. For those who believe the Word of God embodied in the bible is as true today as when it was written, that there is only one strict interpretation of the Word, I pose this question:

The bible indicates (among other things which I will look up and post later) that slaves should not run away from their masters, women should be seen and not heard, and man should not labour (ie work for pay or personal advancement) on the Sabbath. For the most part, Christians do not agree with these laws (or at least they don't live like they do). So, I ask, why?

Why is it that some things in the bible should be taken literally and others, we can ignore? If I will condemn someone for sexual sin, should I also condemn my ancestors for striving to escape slavery? Why is it that it seems people pick and choose which parts of the bible are relevant to today's life. (Slavery and homosexuality are major examples for those in the USA).

You really do need to decide on a topic for this thread! I don't know where to start because your discussion is all over the place!

I don't think there is that much ambiguity in the topic. I lay out what has motivated me to create this one, then I pose the question. I think I stuck pretty well to my original question - Why are some things acceptable - though clearly wrong in the bible and others not. I also posed follow up questions - why do people feel they can pick and choose what applies to them. I tried to separate things and not post the actual topic question until after I finished summarizing what brought me to this point in the first place.

both

allonym:


The bible indicates (among other things which I will look up and post later) that slaves should not run away from their masters, women should be seen and not heard, and man should not labour (ie work for pay or personal advancement) on the Sabbath. For the most part, Christians do not agree with these laws (or at least they don't live like they do). So, I ask, why?

Why is it that some things in the bible should be taken literally and others, we can ignore? If I will condemn someone for sexual sin, should I also condemn my ancestors for striving to escape slavery? Why is it that it seems people pick and choose which parts of the bible are relevant to today's life. (Slavery and homosexuality are major examples for those in the USA).

Simple! Christians do not Live by laws but LAW (of love). The Bible is a movement from Judaism (old testament) into Christianity(New testament...which in fact actually starts from The book of Acts).

The bible isnt some keypoints or nuggets thats summarized. neither is it medication where u take 1 shot/verse in the morn, 1 oin the afternoon and expect it to start working right away. It don't work that way.
U've got to read the bible in its entirety to understand it fully. Never take words out of context. Sometimes Stuff in Genesis are explained in John.
I don't need to put down much here. Lets see where your argument is specifically. Clarify your post.

do you believe the story about the tower of babel? sounds more like a folk lore story where you end with "and that's why tortoise have their shell on their backs today". . . 
i read the books of the bible like a story book (for fun), i read the poems (psalms and proverbs) because i think they're good work of literature.

Yes I believe the story of the tower of babel. Archelologists say the tower stands in babylonia/southern mesopotamia in Shinar (a land extending into the persian gulf). The event occured shortly after the great Deluge. Believe the deluge/noah's flood too because archelogists have seen fossils of acquatic life on mountain tops -this means the world has once been submerged in water and the mountains became sea beds.
Back to my point. The story has to sound like a folk tale because its GENESIS -beginning . All folk tales try to explain the beginning of things albeit wit lies just for entertainment purpose. Reason why the tower of babel story sounds like one too.
Same wit the story in Eden which could end in "thats why men and women marry today".
Thats not enough reason to discredit the bible.
Take the book seriously because there's power in it.

layi:


Back to my point. The story has to sound like a folk tale because its GENESIS -beginning . All folk tales try to explain the beginning of things albeit wit lies just for entertainment purpose. Reason why the tower of babel story sounds like one too.

i'm not talking about if there's a tower or not. i'm talking about the "content" of the story that all languages came from there.
i don't believe that. language in my opinion evolves.
do you think someone was speaking yoruba or english there? NO! these languages didn't even exist then. there weren't even blacks there in that asia minor then.
people in other part of the world were speaking their own language already.


as i said. that story was made up to explain why people spoke different languages. they didn't have an explanation for it so they made one up.

Do you have a better explanation for it. Mere evolution? Who did "whoever started one" speak with?

modern languages evolved from old ones (some are completely erased)
let's use the english language for example. the old version of it sounds/ looks nothing like the modern one because it evolved over time. when the germanic tribes invaded the island of britain their anglo saxon dialects developed into old english:

Old English
Beowulf lines 1 to 11, approximately AD 900

Hwæt! We Gar-Dena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas. Syððan ærest wearð
feasceaft funden, he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum, weorðmyndum þah,
oðþæt him æghwylc þara ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde,
gomban gyldan. þæt wæs god cyning!

Which can be translated as:

Lo, praise of the prowess of people-kings
of spear-armed Danes, in days long sped,
we have heard, and what honor the athelings won!
Oft Scyld the Scefing from squadroned foes,
from many a tribe, the mead-bench tore,
awing the earls. Since erst he lay
friendless, a foundling, fate repaid him:
for he waxed under welkin, in wealth he throve,
till before him the folk, both far and near,
who house by the whale-path, heard his mandate,
gave him gifts: a good king he!

over time, this evolved into this:

Middle English
From The Canterbury Tales by Geoffry Chaucer, 14th century

Here bygynneth the Book of the Tales of Caunterbury

Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
And smale foweles maken melodye,
That slepen al the nyght with open eye-
(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);
Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages

then this

Early Modern English
From Othello by William Shakespeare, 1603

Iago: Though in the trade of Warre I have slaine men,
Yet do I hold it very stuffe o'th' conscience
To do no contriu'd Murder: I lacke Iniquitie
Sometime to do me seruice. Nine, or ten times
I had thought t'haue yerk'd him here vnder the Ribbes.

Othello: 'Tis better as it is.


and currently this:

Modern English
From the United States Declaration of Independence, 1776, by Thomas Jefferson

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which
the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.


those gernamic tribes that came to britain, probably the rest of them remained in their land and still speaks their owm language which obviously would have evolved into something different from the modern or old english.





source : wikepedia.com

WesleyanA:

modern languages evolved from old ones (some are completely erased)
let's use the english language for example. the old version of it sounds/ looks nothing like the modern one because it evolved over time.

U still havent answered the question. If they evolved from old ones. where do the old ones come from? Evolve from thin air?

U May Need To Read This

As far as the great proliferation of different languages among men is concerned, the Biblical account is the only satisfactory explanation. If all men came from one ancestral population, as most evolutionary anthropologists believe today, they originally all spoke the same language. As long as they lived together, or continued to communicate with one another, it would have been impossible for the wide differences in human languages to have evolved.

Therefore, if anthropologists insist on an evolutionary explanation for the different languages, then they must likewise postulate extremely long periods of isolation and inbreeding for the different tribes, practically as long as the history of man himself. This in turn means that each of the major language groups must be identical with a major racial group. Therefore, each "race" must have had a long evolutionary history, and it is natural to assume that some races have evolved more than others. This natural association of racism with evolutionary philosophy is quite significant and has been the pseudoscientific basis of a wide range of racist political and religious philosophies that have wrought untold harm and misery over the years.

On the other hand, it does seem obvious that all the different nations, tribes, and languages among men do have a common origin in the not-too-distant past. People of all nations are all freely interfertile and of essentially equal intelligence and potential educability. Even the "aborigines" of Australia are quite capable of acquiring Ph.D. degrees, and some have done so. Even though their languages are widely different from each other, all can be analyzed in terms of the science of linguistics, and all can be learned by men of other languages, thus demonstrating an original common nature and origin. There is really only one kind of man-namely mankind! In actuality there is only one race among men--the human race.

The source of the different languages cannot be explained in terms of evolution, though the various dialects and similar languages within the basic groups are no doubt attributable to gradual diversification from a common source tongue. But the major groups are so fundamentally different from each other as to defy explanation in any naturalistic framework.

Only the Bible provides an adequate explanation. Originally, after the great Flood, "the whole earth was of one language and one speech" (Gen. 11:1). Because of man's united rebellion against God, however, refusing to scatter throughout the world as He had commanded, and concentrating instead in the vicinity of the original Babylon, "the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth" (Gen. 11:9).

Presumably about seventy families were involved in this dispersion, as suggested by the enumeration of seventy original national groups and tongues in the so-called Table of Nations in Genesis 10. These were represented originally by perhaps a thousand or so individuals, divided into three main ancestral family bodies, the Japhetic, Hamitic, and Semitic. "These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood" (Gen. 10:32).

The rebellion at Babel was not some impossible undertaking, such as attempting to reach heaven with a man-made tower, as one might infer from the King James translation of Genesis 11:4. The words "may reach" are not in the original; the correct sense of the passage apparently connotes the erection of a great temple-tower dedicated to the worship of the "host of heaven," uniting all mankind in worshiping and serving the creature rather than the Creator (Rom. 1:25). The most effective way of halting this blasphemy and of enforcing God's command to fill the earth was that of confounding their languages.

If people could not communicate with each other, they could hardly cooperate with each other. This primeval confusion of tongues emphasizes what modern man often fails to realize: the real divisions among men are not racial or physical or geographic, but linguistic. When men could no longer understand each other, there was finally no alternative for them but to separate from each other.

If anyone is inclined to question this explanation of the origin of the major differences among languages, then let him offer a naturalistic explanation that better accounts for all the facts. No one has done so yet. Obviously a miracle was involved, but the gravity of the rebellion warranted God's special intervention.

Although the major language groups are so different from each other as to make it inconceivable that they could have evolved from a common ancestral language group (except, as noted above, by such a long period of racial segregation as to cause the corresponding races to evolve to different levels themselves), the very fact that all the languages can be evaluated by common principles of linguistics, and that people can manage to learn other languages than their own, implies an original common cause for all of them. Noam Chomsky, who is one of the world's foremost linguists, is convinced that languages, though completely different on the surface, reflect an underlying commonality related to the fundamental uniqueness of man himself.

No doubt the Tower of Babel is merely a figure of speech to Stent as well as to Chomsky, but the figure is appropriate precisely because the miraculous confusion of tongues at Babel does provide the only meaningful explanation for the phenomena of human languages. Thus the "phonological component" of speech (or its surface form) is the corpus of sounds associated with various meanings, through which people of a particular tribe actually communicate with each other. Each phonology is different from the phonology of another tribe so that one group cannot understand the other group. Nevertheless at the "semantic" level, the deep structure, the "universal grammar" (the inner man!), both groups have fundamentally the same thoughts that need to be expressed in words. It was the phonologies or surface forms of languages, that were supernaturally confused at Babel, so that even though all still had the same basic logic and understanding of experience, they could no longer work together and, thus, finally they could no longer stay together, simply because they could no longer talk together.

It is significant that traditions similar to the Babel story exist in various other ancient nations and even in primitive tribes. Although not as frequently encountered as traditions of the great Flood, many tribes do have a tradition of a former age when all people spoke the same language until the languages were confused as a judgment of the gods.

Thus there is good reason to accept the Biblical record of the confusion of tongues at Babel as the true account of the origin of the different major language groups of the world. Evolutionists certainly have no better answer, and the only reason why modern scientists tend to reject it is because it was miraculous. To say that it would have been impossible, however, is not only to deny God's omnipotence but also to assert that scientists know much more about the nature of language than they do.

No one yet adequately understands the brain and its control of human speech. Therefore, no one understands what manner of physiologic changes in the brain and central nervous system would be necessary to cause different groups of people to associate different sounds with any given concept. Perhaps future research will throw light on this phenomenon but, in the meantime, there is no better explanation than that it was God who did "there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech" (Gen. 11:7).


..culled from several sources

can you highlight the main points of your essay? summary?  what ever you're trying to proove? because that post's way too long for me to read.

WesleyanA:

can you highlight the main points of your essay? summary? what ever you're trying to proove? because that post's way too long for me to read.

Urs was long too and u highlighted nothing.

Anyway dont always look for summaries. U'll make mistakes cos half-baked info is no info. I've not made that post to argue wit u but to educate you. Learn to read. No knowledge is lost. Read it when you're more disposed.

Layi, that was a masterpiece of an essay. You almost convinced me about the reality of of the tower of Babel.

Almost? 

Christianity is truth, baby. Just that people don't delve deeply enough. I just do my best because u can't always explain God anyway. His supernatural acts sometimes beat logic and when i cant proof that, I'll leave it. But on lil issues i'm convinced about...i'll spill it.

layi:

U still havent answered the question. If they evolved from old ones. where do the old ones come from? Evolve from thin air?

since i couldn't read the essay, i'll just answer your question: in my own words (so i might have some minor errors or mistakes because i did this on my own)

lets just say the first form of spoken language was gibberish.
humans didn't just appear on the surface of the earth with technology and modern stuff (all these evolved).
there was a time human couldn't make fires and they had to eat raw meat and eat food from trees! human then were primitive.  they really didn't have a "language". just made stupid sounds to communicate with each other when they needed to. (if you don't believe me, i have proove. a kid that was found in the forest (probably lost there since childhood . .he can't create normal sounds. he eats raw uncooked food and vegetables and acts primitive/ like an animal).
they lived in a "hunting and gathering" society where the men went out to hunt for food and the women gather i think.


let's say now, they spoke the same language which is starting to get more complicated from simple gibberish sounds to semi constructed sentences.
then, these people began to migrate from Africa (because that's where they started out). they moved westward (i'm not sure east?) towards asia where some stayed and others continued using the "bering stait"  to the americas.

now let's now say there are people in africa, asia and the americas and they can speak. they are not going to speak the same language because they are miles apart. their language will evolve differently.

there was no form of writing either. just oral language it was later when civillization began (in mesopotamia i think or was it egypt?) those old forms of writing heiroglyphics e.t.c were usually as pictures of things. this evolved to short hand form of heiroglyphics  and became even easier.

if you had a twin brother and you two decided to give each other some space, and moved far apart from each other, you'll see that after several generations the two different lines will have different cultures and language even though they came from the same root.

U need not compare humanity with the guy from d jungle. The guy in d jungle can't learn any language because he didnt live among humans. He can sign or make gibberish sounds...thats unlike humans who lived with themselves. Huntin or farming, it doesnt matter. They communicate at home.
They lived with themselves. They aint animals. They were humans so they talk not just stupid signs like u claim. Whatever they said then was a language.

U also can't compare language wit writing because whilst language was expedient and important to human existence , writing was just discovered in the ADs.
Man had been living together since creation and have been multiplyin as a result of effective communication. Language has been wit us since.

The source of the different languages cannot be explained in terms of evolution, though the various dialects and similar languages within the basic groups are no doubt attributable to gradual diversification from a common source tongue. But the major groups are so fundamentally different from each other as to defy explanation in any naturalistic framework.

layi:

U need not compare humanity with the guy from d jungle. The guy in d jungle can't learn any language because he didnt live among humans. He can sign or make gibberish sounds. t[b]hat unlike humans who loved with themselves...huntin or farming. it doesnt. they communicate at home.
They lived with themselves[/b]. They aint animals. They were humans so they talk not just stupid signs like u claim.

you're wrong there. we're talking about primitive humans. they didn't farm. they gathered "berries" e.t.c. they didn't know how to plant stuff then. it's not like they really hunted too. no weapons no nothing.
they communicate at home? nope. they didn't have real "homes" they just moved up and down in search of food and slept whereever.
the guy in the jungle is just to illustrate that the first humans didn't live among humans because they were the first so they talked gibberish just like the kid in the jungle who didn't live among humans. the gibberish then evolved to language and with language they were able to communicate and create communites and from there things evolved.

layi:

U also can't compare language wit writing because whilst language was expedient and important to human existence , writing was just discovered in the ADs.[/b]Man had been living together since creation.

you're wrong again writing has been in existience since the BCs.

take a look at this link:
[b]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/334517.stm

when i mean writing, i don't mean stuff we see/ write now. i'm talking about primitive stuff. they were just drawings kind of (looks nothing like the modern for because it evolved (how well can i emphasize this!)
speech is also the same. the first forms weren't really called language just sounds kind of.

i have to go to bed now. we'll probably have to continue this later

WesleyanA:


you're wrong there. we're talking about primitive humans. they didn't farm. they gathered "berries" e.t.c. they didn't know how to plant stuff then. it's not like they really hunted too. no weapons no nothing.

I said "hunting or farming...it doesnt matter" . I didnt say they were farming. Do i need to explain english lexicology. I implied that whatever they were doing then didnt matter. U r making d debate difficult by argueing out of point.

WesleyanA:


.......they didn't have real "homes" they just moved up and down in search of food and slept whereever.

My dear any setlement or shelter is a "home". The family unit has  been existing since creation. We didnt just pick that up now. Whoever told u man was wondering like bees has misled u. Family existed since creation and they stayed together. Where they stayed was a "home". it doesnt have to be a mansion or a fixed building. I said home not house for jeeez sake.

WesleyanA:


the guy in the jungle is just to illustrate that the first humans didn't live among humans because they were the first so they talked gibberish just like the kid in the jungle who didn't live among humans. the gibberish then evolved to language and with language they were able to communicate and create communites and from there things evolved.

If the humans dint live amongst humans. How did the language evolve? who were they speaking with?

Heiroglyphics might have started in the BCs in egypt but it took real long for it to evolve into another form... sumtin similar to modern day writings. hieroglyphics was greatly limited in passin out a message..but still considered as a writing anyway

Go to bed dear..nice debating arguing, chatting wit u. A 15 yr old this sound. U tried. love ya.

Do we have such believes as mary mother of God, Christmass Miracle for tithe paying etc let go on . Jesus invisible visit to earth in 1914 Amagedom ...

the bible is yeah and amen. It is we humans that contradict and misinterprete the word of GOD

@ layi. u're too much. if more of us read/researched as much as u do, things would be alot better in our world (esp in our continent & country).

@ hndholderand everyone else. the bible is plain and simple. it is us human beings that twist and turn it all around to suit our selfish desires. like thinking homosexuality or premarital sex are okay in God's eyes. THEY"RE NOT!! those are just examples. there are plenty of other issues involved.

God has given all of us free will and He doesnt mess with that. if u choose to disobey His Word or twist it around to suit your selfishness, He's not going to send a thunder bolt down from Heaven to hit you and tell you what you're doing is wrong. if He did that, all of us would go to Heaven; i'm not even sure there would even be a hell to begin with, thus no eviction from the garden of eden and the rest is history. He'll let you decide on your own what is wrong and what is right. He just doesnt mess with free will.

The bible is proof that writing existed before Anno Domini (the year of our Lord - after all, parts of it were written before jesus was born and heiroglyphics exist showing Israelites leaving Egypt). Now:

I feel I should respond now to redirect the focus of this topic.

Here is a condensed (super) version of my original post:

There are people who will say things like "the bible is against premarital sex" or "homosexuality is wrong" or "masturbation is wrong" or other things and will generally attack other people on this board for making posts which may suggest that participating in those actions is ok. For those people, it seems that you are picking and choosing which parts of the bible you agree with. For example, I don't think those people would agree that slavery is right or that we should marry and impregnate our dead brother's widow if she has not had any kids with him. So, to these people and everyone else, I ask, are christians divided on how to intepret the bible or is the bible divisive by its very nature.

I know it existed but we're talking about when it started evolving. I still maintain my stance on the writing issue. Writing may have existed before Christ but it evolved in the ADs.

Reason?
Before Christ we didn't really have formal schools. A lot of people were not learned. In fact in Israel, the scribes were the ones called upon to read scrolls written by priest and prophets. Most people who are learned were either philosophers,kings,prophets and priests by the nature of the 'leadership' position they carry. They hav to form a way of writing. Hieroglyphics were initially used in Egypt (where civilization started) and then Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic forms were put down because they were the major kingdoms then. They had to follow after Egypt. It didn't go much beyond these until after Christ. He was a revolutionary. His exit spurned the world to delved into research and knowledge. This had secondary effect on writing as every tribe had to put down sumthing as history. Jesus changed the world Reason why the TIME is recorded wit him as the focal point; AD and BC. Let me not divert too much

back to the topic

allonym:


Here is a condensed (super) version of my original post:

There are people who will say things like "the bible is against premarital sex" or "homosexuality is wrong" or "masturbation is wrong" or other things and will generally attack other people on this board for making posts which may suggest that participating in those actions is ok. For those people, it seems that you are picking and choosing which parts of the bible you agree with. For example, I don't think those people would agree that slavery is right or that we should marry and impregnate our dead brother's widow if she has not had any kids with him. So, to these people and everyone else, I ask, are christians divided on how to intepret the bible or is the bible divisive by its very nature.

My answer would be. Any Christian would follow biblical tenets. If s/he doesn't, then such a person isn't a Christian. But its not within my jurisdiction to talk for anyone here in the forum. I think its better u pick on those members u notice are guilty of such and ask them directly.

OR better still - Go read the bible yourself. U probably think these Christians are wrong when you're the one standing on d wrong foot.

@hipcaramel
Thanx sweetheart. My head is swelling. <editor says: anti-inflammatory tablets needed, heh?>

Layi, layi, layi... I just don't know where to start in replying to this post. I am not going to start a point by point refutation, because there are mountains of evidence contradicting everything you put here. I'll just take a few as example and lead you to the sources. This way you can expand your knowledge as well.

layi:

Yes I believe the story of the tower of babel. Archelologists say the tower stands in babylonia/southern mesopotamia in Shinar (a land extending into the persian gulf).

Who did? Sources please

layi:

The event occured shortly after the great Deluge. Believe the deluge/noah's flood too because archelogists have seen fossils of acquatic life on mountain tops -this means the world has once been submerged in water and the mountains became sea beds.

Have you ever heard about plate tectonics? It explains how land masses are formed, and how rock formations that were once oceanic end up on mountain tops. A perfect example are the Himalayas, where the Indian subcontinent collided with Eurasia to form the Himalaya mountain range.
And just look at a world map, look at the shape of Africa and the shape of South-America. They fit nicely together, don't they.

Look up how continents were formed, how that supports evidence of speciation differences in different continents (both on a morphological and a molecular clock level - e.g. molecular clock evidence in the DNA of old world and new world monkeys show that they have a common ancestor at the time Africa and South-America were still attached.
Evidence from genetics, evolutionary biology and geology nicely supporting each other. Not one instance has been found that contradicts the findings of these scientific disciplines.

And fossils can be dated by radio-carbon dating, again, bad luck, modern physics is in full support of evolutionary Biology. Doesn't quite fit the great flood timeline though.

And just think about the logistical nightmare Noach must have had fitting all these millions of species in his ark, even symbionts like Koala Bears and Eucalyptus trees. Noach must have had a nice orchard of Eucalyptus trees on his ark to support his Koala's. Poor Noach. And what an accomplishment of wonders indeed. Building an Ark using bronze age tools in wood, he would have needed more wood than available in from all trees on this planet to make his ark sort of structurally sound and even than it would have collapsed under its own weight, let alone letting it take up the high seas. He must have had some impressive pumps preventing the ark from making too much water and that without combustion engines? What a giant Noach must have been.

Go here for a more thorough refutation of your idiotic flood fairy tale:
http://members.aol.com/darrwin/flood.htm
http://www.atheists.org/evolution/morrisdebate.html (this is actually a debate, you can even find some arguments to use to convince the gullible)

layi:

Back to my point. The story has to sound like a folk tale because its GENESIS -beginning . All folk tales try to explain the beginning of things albeit wit lies just for entertainment purpose. Reason why the tower of babel story sounds like one too.
Same wit the story in Eden which could end in "thats why men and women marry today".
Thats not enough reason to discredit the bible.
Take the book seriously because there's power in it.

Take a look at this, you may not like it, but it could bring some perspective to your beliefs.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

And, what doesn't kill you[i](r belief)[/i] only makes you[i](r belief)[/i] stronger, so take a chance, dive in and tell the world about your experience.

Isn't the point of this topic to address people who either contradict themselves or who can give insight into why this occurs? I shouldn't have to go seek out these people individually, that is the point of this topic, to attract them and get their response.

Also, I have not exactly said anyone is wrong, just that it seems people are partially correct. After all, most people here are basing their definitions of right and wrong on biblical teachings. So, they will proclaim one thing, why not all. That is the main question I'm trying to get answered.

There were some initial posts that started to discuss this, but now it has shifted to an argument of how language evolved. . which is fine, but suitable for its own topic.

layi:

[SNIP]
Go to bed dear..nice debating arguing, chatting wit u. A 15 yr old this sound. U tried. love ya.

Layi, I will excuse myself beforehand if I misread you here, but your tone is very inappropriate when debating someone.

On the one hand you're applauding WesleyanA, but on the other hand you're using her age as an argument to lessen the value of her reasoning and to declare victory by forfait (U tried). Who's the 15 yr old here?

Especially since your argumentation is partially based on changing the meaning of certain concepts and then expanding or limiting the scope where appropriate for your argument. A common debating technique among Christian Apologetics.
(Feel free to start a thread on this, we'll have fun debating arguing, quarreling )

Do not consider yourself a superior debater to WesleyanA if you write things like this:

layi:

[SNIP]The source of the different languages cannot be explained in terms of evolution, though the various dialects and similar languages within the basic groups are no doubt attributable to gradual diversification from a common source tongue. But the major groups are so fundamentally different from each other as to defy explanation in any naturalistic framework.

Care to explain?

Please read some Pinker
(e.g. The Language Instinct - http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140175296/qid=1130190732/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-6153652-6379612 )
or Chomsky (all of his linguistic works, not his political ones) before you make statements on subjects you know nothing about.

nferyn:

............... I am not going to start a point by point refutation, because there are mountains of evidence contradicting everything you put here.

Go here for a more thorough refutation of your idiotic flood fairy tale:

nferyn:

Layi, I will excuse myself beforehand if I misread you here, but your tone is very inappropriate when debating someone... ....
but on the other hand you're using her age as an argument to lessen the value of her reasoning and to declare victory by forfait (U tried). Who's the 15 yr old here?
............... A common debating technique among Christian Apologetics.
........................
............Do not consider yourself a superior debater to WesleyanA if you write things like this:
Care to explain?
.................. before you make statements on subjects you know nothing about.

I'ld have loved to respond to ur brilliant post but u've turned the environment into a tensd one and i dont debate in such. U got it all mixedup.
Even If you're comin on the board as Mr know-it-all..u could have placed on your points more politely. I've enjoyed debatin wit u until now because you're takin it personal wit them harsh remarks.
I'm going to refuse your invitation. I don't debate when it gets personal(just like Donnie and Vexxy) with remarks made out of ignorance.
I don't think there is any prize at stake here and if u've got sum'n against christians ..u need not call me one of them blindly.

First what i said to wesley was none of your concern. Thats how we tease each other and she isnt complaining. I made that statement cos i was surprised she could bring such stop points and saying "u tried" wasnt a way of declaring muself a winner as u think. I was just commending and she knows this.
Seun even intervened tellin me to come face him instead and we all laughed it off. Its all for fun.
I didnt come here to win (unlike u). we r only batllin wit points and learnin at d same time. Even if i call myself "winner" 1 millions times. Should that bite u? Its all for fun.

No one is claiming to know it all. If u had contrastin views why not place it up politely.

You tellin me how to debate when your post above is full of insults. What a way to correct sumone. I'll have loved to debate wit Seun who is far intelligent and would never insult in his posts. I learn @ d same time. No one is here to win so lets not get too personal. I know u speak/write better language than those.

...u've got nothin on me. Do your thing.

layi:

Even If you're comin on the board as Mr know-it-all..u could have placed on your points more politely. I've enjoyed debatin wit u until now because you're takin it personal wit them harsh remarks.
I'm going to refuse your invitation. I don't debate when it gets personal(just like Donnie and Vexxy) and remarks born out of ignorance.
I don't think there is any prize at stake here and if u've got sum'n against christians ..u need not call me one of them blindly.

No, I have nothing against Christians per se, I actually like quite a lot of them. I do have something against ignorance and - point taken - I was using a too confrontational style. My appologies. I was fired up because I thought you unjustly brushed aside the arguments from WesleynA, using her age as an argument to dismiss what she wrote. If indeed it was just joking and teasing, I leave you to it and again my appologies for the tone.

I do humbly ask you to reconsider your position and enter the debate nonetheless, I will soften my tone and rest assured, there's nothing personal about it.
Could you point out the remarks born out of ignorance, because I don't find them

layi:

First what i said to wesley was none of your concern. Thats how we tease each other and she isnt complaining. Seun even intervened tellin me to come face him instead and we all laughed it off. Its all for fun.

OK, My bad, I was just trying to defend the poor girl from a frontal verbal assault.

layi:

I didnt come here to win (unlike u). we r only batllin wit points and learnin at d same time. Even if i call myself "winner" 1 millions times. Should that bite u?
No one is claiming to know it all. If u had contrastin views why not place it up politely.

You tellin me how to debate when your post above is full of insults. What a way to correct sum'n.

...u've got nothin on me. Do your thing.

Now here I think you misunderstood my position. I never questioned your intelligence, nor your sincerity. It was a harsh tackle, but not a faul. Anyway, I got a bit carried away by the perceived attack on WesleynA and writing always seems harsher than real life. Sorry

My point is that I like debating strong Christians. It sharpens my ideas and teaches me a lot about the Christian point of view - even if I disagree

Thats d nferyn i know. I understand it easy to get things mixed up since all we all we can see his the writng (and not the motives). Its all good. Apologies accepted. I hope i wasnt insultive callin i Mr know-it-all. I'm sorry.

First let me go through ur links. The seat is gettin hotter but i dont quit. Luv ya nferyn U r sure a brillant fella.
I'll be back after readin thru ur freferences...we've got scores to setlle.

@ layi

I just re-read your reply to mine again in which you capitalised the way I put my arguments one after the other. You are indeed right, these can come out as insulting. It was certainly not my intention to do so. I hereby humbly appologise for the way i verbally mistreated you. Won't happen again.