₦airaland Forum

HenryDion:
It would be nice if you argue objectively and not bring in my personality or what i lack as a person. These are just baseless assertion which doesn't make you smart, except if you can empirically prove them.

You talked about factual argument which i have thrown right at your face, but hatred as blinded your eyes to them.

My points and position are against the movement to legitimise this sinful, unnatural and abhorrent behaviour. However I can see why you would take it personally

And the arguments presented are all about feelings, hence the trumpeting about "love" - which is a warped form, to validate the lust that drives the movement.

HenryDion:
The argument isn't about morality which is very subjective, we are talking about a thing being "natural.'

It' is absolutely about morality, with considerations about nature being secondary. Nature is not an arbiter of morality. A thing being natural, if that can be shown or proven, does not make a thing right, or right for human beings.

HenryDion:
If lower animals, who know no right or wrong can unconsciously indulge in such an act, doesn't that make it natural? You talked about animals feasting on their young. That also is natural and the order of things on earth. Survival!

I believe I've answered this with my response above.

HenryDion:
Even humans aren't exempted from that primitive trait. Everyday, we are killing ourselves, much more than these so called lower animals you think know less.

If I were to question your capability to hold an informed and coherent discussion about this, you'd be upset and moan . Is primitive the same as animalistic? Human beings have always possessed higher cognitive abilities and a level of consciousness that sets them apart form animals - being in the image of God.

HenryDion:
You keep making unprovable claims which is quite sardonic. Gayism is as natural as the word. Just rare! Just as few are left handed, or few twins. Rarity doesn't always mean a disorder.

Gayism demonstrates dysfunctional, as do cleft palates, co-joined twins and type-2 diabetes. Does that make them good. And there is no moral consideration with the conditions I mentioned, there is with gayism.

HenryDion:
You talked about love, can you please define it? The least of our problem in this argument should be the 'problem of definition.

1 Corinthians 13 is the standard Christian response. Your use of the word always contains an element of physical intimacy, and is always predicated on "feelings" - that is lust by any other name.

HenryDion:
This is hilarious. Shows how limited you are. Perhaps you need to do more learning and traveling, not arguing from ignorance. Two adults of same sex can be in love, stay together for years without sex involve. Your perception of gays is twisted. You need reorientation! Using ALWAYS makes your claim so fallacious. Please be smart.

The core functional disorder of gayism is feeling sexual attraction/desire for a person of the same sex. As gayism is an act what you have described above is a form of friendship (unless the love noted alludes to eroticism)

Further, your point above is deceptive, the promiscuity and impermanence of homosexual relationship (particularly men) is backed by data from numerous studies. I'm sure there are some SSA people as you've described, but they will be a tiny minority. it's the same bogus stereotype Muttleylaff always tries to present as an exemplar of SSR. Frankly, the sexual habits of the vast majority of gay men are downright disgusting.

HenryDion:
A relationship of two males, who holds hands on the street, lean on each others shoulder, kiss each other on the lips, always professing love to each other and promising to be together forever. Is that your idea of friendship? So it automatically becomes a relationship ones they start having sex?

Once physical attraction or emotional involvement is a factor, then it becomes disordered. Acting upon those feelings is dysfunctional.

HenryDion:
You need help lol.. I hope you're seeing how lame your stance is right now

Your version of relationship or love is built all around sex. What a perverted mindset! Love is much more!

Presumably you can see your version of love - which always involves physical intimacy/emotional involvement is warped. Re-labelling your lust as love will not fool anyone with even a modicum of discernment

HenryDion:
Morality is subjective, so is sin. If slavery can become illegal today, that says a lot. They are made by men like you and I.

Morality may be subjective for you, but not for everyone. Likewise for sin. The scripture gives an objective measure and speaks in absolutes. Gayism is always a sin according to the scriptures.

HenryDion:
Anyway, judging by your response, it is glaring that your mind is made up, to continue hating that which you don't understand.

What is funny is how you intertwine logic with belief. It's well lol

Looks like a personal attack. Good thing the truth just presents itself with no recourse to whining

HenryDion:
I would have broken your write up piece by piece and make known how ridiculous your stance is. But that won't change your mind but rather, waste my time.

So, as a takeaway piece, carry on with your hate.

That is; I don't have any valid answers, so I'll breeze away like Muttleylaff did. Then more ad-hominem

HenryDion:
The fact remains that with or without your consent, the LGBTQ+ community will soon become a widely accepted norm. Just as we have twins today.

A norm does not make the immoral moral, or the sinful right. There is no such consideration with multiple births, no matter how much you try to deceive yourself with a false equivalence.

Best stick to your "animals do it defence". To indulge in gayism is to defile oneself and would rightly be considered beastly.

HenryDion:
Time is the only barrier, not what you believe to be true or not.

Enjoy life.

Not just life, but eternal and abundant life - yours for the taking if you repent of your ways. The time best considered is the time of judgement.


TV

HenryDion:
What made same sex relationship an abomination or unnatural? If we go by nature, then it is more natural than nature itself. Homosexualism has been found to exist in over 1500 species of animal. Sadly, homophobia exist only in one, humans.

People like you will always struggle to make this argument - mainly because it's a lie and has no basis in truth. And, because you simply don't have the wherewithal to create a factual and sophisticated enough argument

HenryDion:
Now you will say, "Why compare humans to lower animals?"

We are talking about 'natural', remember?

Yes now - animals also feast on their own young and their own excrement....see where this leads? Is nature an arbiter of what is moral? What of the Creator of nature who calls same-sex activity "against nature" and "contrary to proper function"

Further who tells you that "instinct driven" animals are not acting in a dysfunctional manner when/if they act in ways that may be seen as homosexual? Or that "ideologically driven" humans are simply reading homosexuality into their behaviour - which is dysfunctional if true!

HenryDion:
Love cares not about gender, race or religion. Gayism is much more than just sex. Many of you religious folks thinks someone being gay means he is out for sex and sex alone. You think he wants to sleep with every male he comes across.

What gayism is in the first instance, is dysfunction/disorder. What it produces is not love, it is a perverted lust - your insistence on warping the word love does not change that. The whole of the gayism movement is just one big re-labelling exercise - but it doesn't change the content.

HenryDion:
Two males can be in a relationship, kiss, get intimate and love, without involving penetration. Love is beyond sex. When you folks hear about gays, the first image that pops up is someone digging an ass. Why?

How confused, 2 males can be in a relationship without any form of physical intimacy and still love/deeply care about each other. Gayism always introduces a physical sexual element, hence it is always about the perverted lust. The rest is dressing, to make you feel good and legitimise it. No, we call sin by it's name!

HenryDion:
Doesn't this tell you something? That your definition of love is wrong and insane? That sex has nothing to do with love? Two young men can be in love, kiss, be there for each other, without involving penetration.

As before, it is your definition of love that is warped. I said nothing about penetration or digging. The sexual attraction and any ensuing acts are in and of themselves dysfunctional. If it's love without sexual attraction, then it is simply friend ship or companionship.

HenryDion:
Even if they do engage in penetration, should that cause an uproar? Even the female folks sometimes takes it up the ass... What's actually your basis of hate?

The basic dysfunction of gayism is the disordered sexual attraction of two people of the same sex. Anal penetration is a totally separate discussion - arses are attached to people - but also dysfunctional use of the body and hence sin.

I have no hate except of sin and ungodliness

HenryDion:
Two consented adults being in love, harming no one in particular, how does that affect you?

It harms them, it harms the decency and morals of wider society and it pollutes the land.

HenryDion:
The fact is, humans would always find a reason to hate what he doesn't understand. You are just hateful! Your Bible has nothing to do with you being hateful.

I understand it okay, and recognise it for what it is - sin!


TV

MuttleyLaff:
Look at TV01 up there, trying to do a comeback and feeling that elated177 and Agrogbeide needed him, to come join, defend their opinions and arguments. I just hope TV01 has come back to answer my original questions and answer them outright and directly without trying to change how I asked them

God is love and he who abides in love, abides in God, that is Bible, and so it is, with two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, who love each other with a love that is lasting, that's a lifetime, life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, causing no damage or harm to another person, not betraying of another person, or even, not cheating on another person, and not being harmful to an object or neighbour. The two consenting adults, are at peace with each other and God, because their intentions are good and their hearts are pure, they love each other and also love every one else, they enjoy each other’s company, they are mutually respectful to each other, mutually supportive to each other, and in some cases as we know, without having sex , necessarily being the leading in their relationship or the most important thing for them.

Comeback ...I was never part of this discussion thread and I left the other one as you were devoid of answers...and still are it seems . And, I didn't think they needed me to join forces with them - I only joined to point out your blatant hypocrisy. As previous, I will answer your bogusly couched questions with the tone they deserve, as follows;

Answer
However you dress it up, the fact remains, same-sex physical intimacy is an abomination, depraved and against nature. To be clear, whether you defecate on a palm leaf or in a cistern of gold, it remains excrement.

Bonus
per your point about "without having sex" - that is called friendship, or companionship. Did you review what you cribbed from the homosexualist websites or do you simply cut & paste wholesale?


...Even if you mention that they are also “faithfully colour-coordinated, have an extremely low carbon footprint, lasting "his & his" tattoos, carefully separate their recycling, only make life-long ethical investments, are committed vegans, consensually choose plants for their garden, enjoy shopping at wholefoods, have a lifetime subscription to the Gay Times, loyally volunteer at an animal welfare centre and faithfully complete their joint tax returns" it still remains sinful…


TV

^{...please feel free to respond to my questions as requested!}

MuttleyLaff:
I have plenty more surprising facts for you, your squirming and agonizing days have just begun. If not that you elated177, jesusjnr etctera are afraid of answering questions...

MuttleyLaff:
This is the reason, the elated177, the jesusjnr, the Agrogbeide, the etcetera of their bunch find it difficult to respond to battery of questions posed at them. All they do is putting out long winded posts to eat up the time whilst avoiding questions...

Rather funny and downright hypocritical that you should lay this charge at the door of others when you are demonstrably guilty of it yourself. I also note how you continuously allude to incorrect exegesis of scripture by others without actually proffering an interpretation of your own. Also noted is your haste to align with non-believers on their positions regards "homosexuality".

I previously asked you a few questions on this topic and you vanished like a puff of smoke . And now you are making repeated assertions of the cowardice, hypocrisy and artful dodging of others? You talk about long posts when your bloviate could by dint of the hot-air generated power a small city.

I'll repeat both sets of the - quite similar - questions I asked previously. Kindly respond to either or both sets. Let's see if what is required to deal with the likes of you is anything more than a stand-up fan on it's lowest setting .

Set 1 - https://www.nairaland.com/4935020/matter-homosexuality/5#76584975
1. The Lord Jesus referenced the creational purpose of male and female, was such a purpose creationally envisaged for SS unions? Yes or no.
2. If no, without clear biblical writ, and with clear biblical proscription, in a Christian sense, can such relationships be considered moral or sanctified (by the qualifiers you endlessly repeat or any other way)?
3. If yes, why was it nowhere modelled in scripture? What would be Gods blessing/outcome for them. Especially given how offspring & generational continuity are viewed biblically?

Set 2 https://www.nairaland.com/4935020/matter-homosexuality/6#76620145
1. Are SS attraction and SS relationships, part of Gods original creational intent?
2. If you respond yes to #1, could you advise what Gods intent for their unions would be
3. If you respond no to #1, kindly explain when such attraction and relationship appeared and, how we can confirm that God affirms them

Please respond succinctly and briefly, with no over-tossed, under-dressed word salad.


TV

^{Elated177, Agrogbeide - be encouraged and stand firm in His Might and in His Truth...}

It was this same dilemma that, as part of my search, brought me to NL over 13 years ago. In hindsight the outcome was as powerful an epiphany as my repenting of my sins and trusting in the completed work of Christ my Saviour.

This truth is demanding a decision of you. This is not ultimately a question about tithing, it’s not even a question about your rising in the church hierarchy or, your choice of church. This is about who you choose to serve, will it be man or God?

How can one remain in an organisation, especially aspiring to higher office and not sing from the same hymn sheet as the leadership? It will be a source of conflict – organisationally as you decry something that underpins its workings and its inherent defence mechanisms rise against you, and personally as you wrestle with the disquiet within.

I chose what I believed to be the right path and truth has been unceasing since then. The response may come with loss and conflict. Count the cost, but what price truth? It’s can be a hard and lonely road. But I wouldn’t change a thing and I shudder to think what would have happened if I’d chosen the acclaim of men over my desire to worship God in spirit and in truth.

Philippians 3:8 - Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ...

From the time I came upon the truth of the tithe to the time I sat down with the GO of the church I attended to discuss the issue – in the reverse of your situation, I held a position which the truth caused me to resign from and they wanted to know why – it was about 6 months.

In that time, I prayed and studied unceasingly, and can honestly say that if the meeting had been at the point of my apprehending that truth, I may not have been mature or strong enough to instinctively choose the right path. You say it’s been 5 years? God’s timing is impeccable, He guides perfectly.


Godspeed
TV

^{I know it’s been a while, but it would be interesting know how things have worked out so far.}

johnydon22:
And be fully aware that spontaneous generation is an entirely different idea from abiogenesis.

Different maybe, but equally nonsensical and similarly discredited.


TV

^{...come to think of it, by definition evolutionists still believe a ton of crazy things now}

LordReed:
What nonsense are you talking? Is your steering wheel what drives your car or the engine?

Poor analogy, but once you figure out which is steering wheel and which is engine you'll be fine .


Driver not driven
TV

LordReed:
The question was is man driven by instinct and the answer is yes. Does he moderate his actions due to HCC? Yes he does. None of which negates what I have said. Any morality any man expresses it is because he learnt it, there is no god giving anything from anywhere.

Which is why I thought your response garbled. One cannot "be driven" by something, whilst that something is subsumed to another thing. Plainly contradictory.

The baser the instinct and the less about basic biological functioning (such as blinking), the more mans HCC come into play otherwise civilisation would not have happened.

Look around you, what is holding the less developed nations back? It can be simply summed as allowing their baser instincts to overcome their HCC.

Men have a conscience. Be that part learnt or part innate - to whatever degree - it is something our HCC allows us to scrutinise and make sense of. Conscience can also be dulled or totally seared. After all, we have a name for those who are able to act in an unconscionable manner?

And whilst I believe that there is a God, and that He created man with HCC and a conscience. I did not introduce that into this conversation. Why are you always touched when considering the divine? .


Upwards
TV

LordReed:
LMFAO while SMDH. Nothing worth responding to here really except the bolded. Examples: a child knowing how to suck, never missing your mouth when you eat, yours eyes noticing movement in your peripheral vision, etc. All of them built from survival mechanics aka instincts.

And which of these has any moral implications or, benefits from applying higher cognitive capability or, poses a threat to developing civilisations? Where acting on "instinct" has potentially deleterious outcomes, mans HCC kicks in to moderate or, otherwise channel for the greater good.

The examples you provided are more innate biological functions, as opposed to considered responses to desires or urges, such as fear or flight in dangerous situations, or the urge to mate.

And where in such instances man gives leave to his baser self, or simply allows instinct to drive, the outcomes are never edifying, least of all in a "civilizational" sense.

So attempting to link mans urges - and at once subsume mans HCC to these urges - to justify behaviour that is deleterious (or perverted) will always be a fail - except of course for those who wish to be dictated to by their urges .


Higher
TV

LordReed:
When did I don't agree turn to garbled?

Ok - I don't agree and I found it garbled .

LordReed:
Humans are driven by instinct, we have only become more sophisticated because of higher capacity for cogitation. You cannot deny the nature of what you are, if you like call me heathen for telling the bare-faced facts.

As if this higher cogitative capacity cannot and does not marshal any purely instinctive behaviour – especially given some of the possible outcomes. Speaking of which, please provide examples of this instinctive drive in humans.

LordReed:
Civilisation has nothing to do with your bible, it develops inspite of.

I did not make any such claim. It is man’s God given higher cogitative ability and, the primacy of it, that allows civilisations to form. Don't let your anxiety around the scripture and your discomfort with God befuddle you.

LordReed:
Let me assume you mean it espouses an absolute morality because objective morality has a different usage where I am coming from. Even the so called absolute morality is broken over and over again in the very same bible, either by the god itself or the agents it "accredits".

Either, or - semantics unnecessary. You are free to your view on God and the scriptures.

LordReed:
Again, your view. And you are welcome to it
For which you have to interpret and declare to us the word of the god, yes we know.
More religious gibberish. Who cares what the bible says? Its dictates are worthless to those who do not follow it no matter how hard you calll us heathens.

As you are welcome to yours and to comments about mine - a right I am happy to apply in return.

LordReed:
Again who gives a flying Bleep what your bible says?

You do - clearly

LordReed:
You should. They don't have delusions of self righteousness.

At all - I just don't hide behind instinct and point to dumb beasts, whilst in possession of a higher cogitative capacity and being created in the image of God.


SuperSaintly
TV

This is garbled - and in so many ways

LordReed:
Wrong. Human instinct is driven to procreate,

The heathen continuously insists on degrading humans to the level of brute beasts. Humans are not driven by instinct...

LordReed:
society however teaches us not partake in sexual activity outside of marriage.

...which is what enables us to develop and maintain sophisticated and complex societies. Of which one requirement is to moderate the sexual urge. And, if possible channel it into something that benefits said society - hence marriage!

LordReed:
Your holy book only attempts to reinforce social mores, it does not validate of any sort of conscience or instinct.

No, the bible instructs and, is a source of objective morality regardless of and without recourse to what society deems acceptable. There are numerous social mores that contravene, contradict or at best, only mimic biblical direction.

LordReed:
As for whether the bible mentions porn specifically one can approach the matter in a variety of ways. Is the god not capable of knowing what is to come in future? Why is it incapable of mentioning specific actions it knows in the future will be detrimental if that it is the way it views it?

So why choose a way that is at best bloody-minded and at worst nonsensical. The bible outlines a clear sexual ethic, the lens of through which pornography is clearly haram.

LordReed:
Yes, indeed it is immaterial if the bible condemns it or not because it is the encapsulation of the social mores of a certain group of people so it has no authority to dictate to any person who doesn't want to follow its dictates.

More heathenish raging. It's immaterial if you choose to disbelieve and disobey the bible. To those that do not it is essential.

Further, contravention of biblical morality always has an outworking - which is clearly evident. Attempting to sanitise perversity by creating an imagined scenario - faulty in itself - which presents it as "harmless", is not evidence of anything but the depths to which human degeneracy can sink.

I may well owe those brute beasts an apology. As dumb as they are, I cannot imagine them indulging in or arguing for an instinctive desire for porn consumption .


Saint
TV

LordReed:
I can defend it to the limits of my capabilities and I am sincere enough to admit when that limit has been reached.

Cheers

Holá, This is the opener on the introduction to evolutionary biology page;

What is Evolution?

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.

The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution.

The opening definition is vague to the point of meaningless, as it does not actually lead to a conclusion as to what this "change in gene pool" actually leads to or results in.

Secondly, the example cited is not so much a "change in the gene pool", more a pre-dominance of a certain colouring due to preference. This is akin to saying for example, that the preference of Naija men for light-skinned women leading to a increase in the number of light skinned women over time is a change in the gene pool and thus by definition evolution.

Did you by any chance read the link you posted? And would it be fair to say you are pretty much , if not totally, in agreement with the contents?


Cheers
TV



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5XSBQHz7B8 - please watch from 11.07 - just 30 seconds .

MuttleyLaff:
cc TV01

Hello MuttleyLaff, not sure why you mentioned me. You've not taken time to respond to any of the questions I posed and, this piece does not do that. What it does do, is help coalesce my thoughts about you, in regards to your submissions on this matter, and more generally.

1. The Lord Jesus referenced the creational purpose of male and female, was such a purpose creationally envisaged for SS unions? Yes or no.
2. If no, in a Christina sense, can such relationships be considered moral or sanctified (by the qualifiers you endlessly repeat or any other way)?
3. If yes, what would be Gods blessing/outcome for them. Especially given how offspring & generational continuity are viewed biblically?

You see, I am happy to discuss this with a fellow believer. I am even happy to discuss with an unbeliever, who has a different perspective. My sense here is that I am discussing with an die-hard LGBTQ activist.

But hallelujah, there is always redemption - for those so stricken and for those who applaud. Some more from Romans Chapter 1.
Romans 1:32 - Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them


Best
TV

LordReed:
I decided no response I can give to your questions will do justice to the evolutionary theory so I think it best to point you to the resources that can better explain it, if you are interested. Some you might find interesting:

http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/compare-skeletons.html

. It's good to see you have a commitment to evolution - even if unable to defend it.

Thank you for the references. I'm making my way through this page on the first site - I'll be back to advise.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html.


Cheers
TV

The terms:
Nobody is a “homosexual” as in a type of person. Human beings are - created - functionally male and female, and not in any ontological sense different types of male and female. Secondly, nobody is “gay” as in, has an identity of being “gay”.

The terms gay, heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, trans etc. while potentially useful for discussion, will be avoided where possible and, are nothing more than social constructs, with no backing in law or biology.

People may be SSA or in SSR, but this is behaviour and actions. There is nothing “innate” or congenital about this. And, even if a link could be proven in part or in whole, biology does not determine morality.

The Bible:
Is clear, from OT to NT. Physical intimacy between SS humans is an abomination. There is no getting around that. No matter how one tries to minimise, deflect or cry hypocrisy.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (note v23 brackets this with bestiality. Further note that v24 that clearly states it is to defile oneself)

Leviticus 22:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

I’m happy to hear explanations as to what occurred inter-testamentally, or as a result of the saving work of our Lord that transmutes an abomination and being defiled into something holy and sanctified? Is bestiality now sanctified and holy?

In the New testament it is clear. In the run up to verse 26 of Romans 1, the narrative is unquestionably describing how the thoughts of those who turn away form God ultimately become darkened, with one of the inevitable outcomes being uncleanness and lust driven behaviour, evidenced by SS intimacy.

Indeed, God himself give such over to these “vile affections”. In both verses 26 and 27, this vile affection is clearly shown to be a change in the natural (creational) use, due to an uncontrollable burning lust (it’s not innate, but can be deeply driven). The very mind becomes reprobate, as they force out any notion of God and honouring Him from their minds. It's Judgement!!!

I could go on, with references to strange flesh and the like. But will cut to another point before I close this post. The bible is clear on SS intimacy. It is also clear that In Christ, God has made a way out of this mindset, out of this burning, out of this uncleanness and unnatural behaviour, and back to Him.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind...

...11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

I would question how one who describes himself as honest, let alone a Christian, can read anything else into or, out of scripture. No matter how sympathetic, no matter how closely affected.

Further, it has to be questioned, in the light of scripture and the saving work of our Lord, how any Christian can champion SS intimacy as moral and sanctified, and acceptable in Gods sight. More so, when it is described as abominable, defiled and indicated as a form of judgement.

It is clear from the Romans 1 passage, which I have added below for completeness, that not only is this about a rejection of God – and not imagined differences between “loving unions” and temple rituals, or meaningless differences between the penetrated and the penetrator. That’s it’s about turning away from a natural (or creational) use to something deviant.


Romans 1
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


Cheers
TV

MuttleyLaff:
For once, someone baring his chutzpah made of steel. I hope you don't wince in pains by the time we are done on this interesting subject

Pain from revealed truth is ultimately that of growth and edification. But please calm yourself, this is not a 12 round professional championship fight. More like amateur novice level.

MuttleyLaff:
Now please tell what the evil is, because you haven't at all answered my question before going on with your hump.

SS physical intimacy is an abomination and against nature, as clearly stated. It’s against Gods will ergo, sinful and evil.

MuttleyLaff:
Simply Bible and Spirit wisdom and logic bereft of ignorance and ill-informed jargons
Well, it is to defensively block any space and all rooms for people like you to want to manoeuvre in

No, what it is, is obfuscation, designed to draw attention from the nature of the thing and deflect attention to peoples desires and feelings around it. And, you are looking for avenues in which to take the discussion, when it is simply “are SS intimate relationships moral and biblically sanctified”.

MuttleyLaff:
By their fruit and entire context of how the question is asked

Again, you are trying to wrap this in a pretty package and present the packaging itself as the determinant in whether the contents are good or bad, holy or evil.

MuttleyLaff:
The entire criteria is relevant and applicable to heterosexual relationships too but those are part of the discussion, SS is.

Fine. However, no one demands those when discussing OS relationships or unions. Why, if you consider SS relationships equivalent, are you introducing additional burdens?

MuttleyLaff:
" to another" encompasses and includes the bigger societal picture or wider community or society at large. It defines an determines what a neighbour is

Fine, although a minor point

MuttleyLaff:
Are you 110% sure of this?
Do you have biblical backing of this ill-informed opinion you are trying to advance?
Are you ready and prepared to see to the end the fallacy of how you're erroneously interpreting, reading and understanding the two famous and well known verses I know you are about to wave around

Yes, yes, and, if you are able, please do so.

MuttleyLaff:
1/ Why is it an abominable act then?
2/ To whom, specifically, is it an abomination?

Because sexual intercourse was designed as an act of congress between male and female. It is abominable to all. God, people and right ordered society

MuttleyLaff:
There are quite a lot of things that aren't part of God's original plan. Case in point, human being body with two heads, human beings with more than one type of genetilia etcetera. We live in an imperfect world, you seem to forget

Firstly, such imperfections, be that of the body or behaviour are called what they are. Secondly, I can’t tell, is this a yes or a no to SSA and SSR? Are they part of Gods original plan? Shying away already .

MuttleyLaff:
Live life, accept what you are and exactly be all what is mentioned in the question

This pre-supposes a “yes” to my first question. Are you saying God ascribes sanctity to SS relationships – with or without your heavy qualification?

MuttleyLaff:
After the ground got cursed, abnormalities and whatnot soon reared their heads because the Pandora box was opened

This indicates a “no” to the first question Was SSA and SSR as a result of this Pandoras box of abnormalities and curses being opened?

MuttleyLaff:
You know me, ]I am in love already and loving this

It’s not about the feeling, which appears to be an early point of departure for you. It’s about the facts and the truth.

MuttleyLaff:
Bottoms up. Let's do this often and so put the devil and liars to shame

+ ignorant join!


Cheers
TV

MuttleyLaff:
If I should ask you to tell clearly and distinctly, and without prevaricating, say what evil is there, in two easy going, ordinary consenting adults, minding their own businesses enjoying a life long caring, faithful, committed, truthful, honest, loving each other lasting that's life-long and loyal same-sex relationship, that has no detriment to another person, no betrayal of another person, or no cheating on another person, and not harmful to an object or neighbour, I bet you will shy and avoid reply to the question, huh?

Why would anyone shy away from this question? Shrouded in "worldly" wisdom, logic – and jargon - as it is, it presents no real challenge and is easily rebutted on its own terms, let alone biblically.

Why is there a need to qualify such a relationship so heavily? Almost as if to deflect from the intrinsic nature of a "same-sex" relationship, and focus on feelings, intent and motivation. That alone raises a number of questions;

1. How do you independently confirm, in addition to and, apart from testimony from, both parties, that, that is the exact nature of the "relationship"
2. Are SS or any relationships that fall short of your criteria above not moral or sanctified?
3. How do you define and determine harm to another? And why just “to another”? what about the bigger societal picture on what leads to a flourishing society?

And, to answer your question SS relationships are an abomination in the sight of God - evil - and being perverse by their very nature cannot by any means be made “moral” or otherwise sanctified from a Christian perspective.

MuttleyLaff:
You'll go underground and AWOL, if I am to ask you to tell me where in the bible homosexual is abomination, where and when homosexual is a word that is barely 200 years old. I am tired of all you guys who dont properly read the bible, dont rightly divide the word and accurately handle the word of truth.

There are a number of places in the bible - and both testaments - where it is clear that sexual relations between 2 people of the same (and not just for ritual purposes) is considered an abominable act. But let me ask you this.

1. Are SS attraction and SS relationships, part of Gods original creational intent?
2. If you respond yes to #1, could you advise what Gods intent for their unions would be
3. If you respond no to #1, kindly explain when such attraction and relationship appeared and, how we can confirm that God affirms them


I know you won’t shy away

Cheers
TV

Dhumancanvas:
You sha want to mention absolutism by all means dont you lol.

At all, but if it draws mirth, please be my guest .

Dhumancanvas:
Okay let me clear something up for you mate. DNA is biological matter, acid I believe. IT IS NOT LITERALLY WRITTEN CODE, OR SCRIPT. That's just how we as human beings conceptualize and understand it. So this your insistence on written code that requires writer is completely unfounded. This is something i see often. You take DNA to mean literal code or writing and you argue from that standpoint, that is invalid.

I don't believe I used the word "written". The fact remains however, it is programming/code, regardless of the medium of communication and transmission.

Dhumancanvas:
You realise we have vegetative organs and so do some animals, relics of the past that are no longer useful as we've evolved to not need them so they enter a vegetative state.

Do you mean "vestigial?" Organs whose functions are not fully understood are parsed by evolutionary thinking as such. It would be better to simply state the facts. Please follow that particular rabbit hole to "junk DNA" and "pseudogenetics".

Dhumancanvas:
Mind you the DNA that matches is what i refer to as shared DNA. When DNA sequencing is done and the gene responsible for certain attribute is AGGCCTGAAC for example. They find an exact match of this sequence in other organisms that share that attribute.

If the DNA sequences "match", if it is "shared" why are the attributes not replicas? Why do humans not sometimes develop chimpanzee legs. The coding is similar, but "written" , to achieve different varieties of the same thing, by a common Creator.

Dhumancanvas:
I don't know how you translate this but having common DNA across very different speices points to the evolutionary theory that all life descended from a common ansenstor. That we share 98% of our DNA with our closest relative apes and even even 92% with mice further supports evolution.

As above, it's not common DNA in the sense that it gives the exact same version of the attribute. Just "common", similar programming that leads to variations of the same attribute. And they are not fungible like the same part on different cars. Every part is unique to every creature.

Dhumancanvas:
That we have similar bone structure too supports this(im pretty much gonna repeat myself but try to be clearer). We had a similar ancestor, through the course of evolution, as the different spieces evolved and adapted to their unique niches the functions of these limbs changed, some became fins to cope with water, some wings for flight others legs/hands but the overall structure remains pointing to the fact that they came from a similar ancestor but branched off over the course of evolution to adapt to their various environmental circumstances.

Repetition is perfectly ok if it aids clarity. But not to strain at the truth...and then the switch and bait happens. To blithely state that a type of limb evolves over time into different types of limb without being able to demonstrate the mechanism by which the code is modified, is mere assumption. There is no known natural mechanism for the code to be edited.

Simply ascribing it to random errors and lots of time is conjecture at best. Adaptation is not evolution. A creature in an unsuitable environment can only adapt so much. It then fails if that adaptation is nut sufficient for survival.

Dhumancanvas:
But okay. How do you hope to explain this your creator theory beyond 'God did it'. How do you even explain God. Scientists have gone through pains to put forward their thories and models. You wanna introduce this inexplicable being and say all your theories are nonesense. The explanation is this guy did it. How does that aid in explaining or understanding anything?
You wanna claim absolute knowledge. How do you verify your claim? Wheres your proof?

Sir, we totally know what "it" is. What we are taking sides on is how "it" came about. Some look at the beauty and complexity of design and say God did "it". Theories and models - even if labelled scientific - which claim it all happened randomly and undirected are "designed" , simply to say He didn't.

And, believers in God can be scientists. Science observes, repeats, tests, records and falsifies. It is empirical. True science is not at stake here, or even in view. This is an interpretation of what went before based on what evidence we have. It's by design and in code. There is only one deduction for that.


Cheers
TV

budaatum:
Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism, evolutionary creationism or God-guided evolution are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of general evolution relates to religious beliefs in contrast to special creation views.

Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God, rejecting the conflict thesis regarding the relationship between religion and science – they hold that religious teachings about creation and scientific theories of evolution need not contradict each other.

Yes, I'm aware such views exist. However, I don't agree they can be inferred from the scriptural narrative and contradict it in several ways - which I noted.


Cheers
TV

Akin1212:
And to think you just called someone a fool, while the glass of irony shatters on your empty skull

No I did not. I merely quoted what the Bible - which you continually disparage - says about you.

Akin1212:
Again let me remind you that holding an idea is different from writing down an idea. I won't have to keep repeating it to a supposed wise one like you, would I? Lol.

This is both tired and lame. Your OP was clear - if somewhat clumsily written

Akin1212:
Whether my people or family have written anything is out of the argument, it's not even what we are talking about. Stay on point and stop threading the path of mentioning my family or my people. I know you might be tempted judging by your level of IQ to hug ad hominem and straw man, but stay focused. We are interested in those who started the concept of God , they were cavemen.

It is absolutely the point. The scriptures where written thousands of years ago by a sophisticated and highly intelligent people, who were also deeply spiritual and walked with God. You erected a strawman claiming such adherents were illiterate cavemen. I hope you are suitably humbled - which is the whole point - by the fact that you are yourself at the end of a long line of still semi-literate cavemen.

Akin1212:
What is the evidence that God has presented? List them please

This I did in my OP. Which was clear to any whose eyes are not blinded by pride, prejudice and a vaulting opinion of his own knowledge & prowess

Akin1212:
You have not pointed any evidence. Enumerate or list them and also show how they are evidence for God?

As above.

Akin1212:
What little do we know that is just enough?

As above

Akin1212:
It means it's all human concepts.

As I noted, this is besides the point. Humans are able to conceptualise or interprete concepts and, are able to discover concepts independent of them having previously existed or not.

Akin1212:
Lol, your ignorance is fun to behold.
You're just as old to still hung up to childhood stories. That's a real shame.
The choice his yours. I pray mercy speeds it on and leads you aright.

Yours is a crying shame.


Have a reflective weekend
TV

^{Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:}

UyiIredia:
but evolution can also be used to support theism or Christianity and in all honesty

No sir, it cannot. Not the Christianity of the Holy Bible. The scriptural narrative and TOE present diametrically opposed propositions.

Biblical notions of a young earth, creature kindss created whole, and, no death until sin, are starkly opposed to TOE, which assumes millions upon millions of years, gradual changes from the one life form and, death as a mechanism, not a bug, as the default, not a problem.

Attempts to "christianise evolution may hold sway with evolution, but attempts to "evolutionise" Christianity, is to reject Christianity, if not to outright accuse God of lying. Blasphemy by any other name. But that, is the whole aim of the TOE.


Cheers
TV

Dhumancanvas:
Creation for which unlike evolution there exists no evidence whatsoever. I think I'll place my bets on the theory that at least has some backing.

As if the clearly scripted nature of the code that replicates life is not undeniable evidence of a creator behind said code? How can one not grasp this, or, see this and claim there is no evidence for creation? I can only see this as a kind of blind absolutism. I simply cannot fathom what else drives statements of this nature .

Dhumancanvas:
Anatomical similarities is proof actually. That fishes and even birds have similar bone structure to mammals and indeed humans points to a common ancestory.

No sir, it is not. If two people both write an excel macro, any number of the coding elements or outcomes may be similar. That is not evidence for a common designer, just evidence that the scripting methodology is the same/similar. Further, it speaks more credibly to a sole designer, who is more likely to repeat script where desired outcomes are the same/similar.

Dhumancanvas:
Similarities in DNA does too. I mean its been shown that we even share a small portion of DNA with some plants. To put in another way, you can tell family ties by similarities in DNA -you know, like paternity test-. If all things were created independent from each other there is no reason why pretty much all spieces in some way share DNA. The closer the speices to man e.g. apes the more of our DNA we share. All this supports TOE.

Similarity in the scripts leading to similar parts, does not mean the parts are exact replicas. The structure and make up of limbs in all creatures that have them is different. It is not, as it is made to sound, like different cars using the exact same parts. The whole notion of "sharing DNA" in that sense is therefore flawed. That 2 creatures have DNA to produce a leg, does not mean that the "DNA is shared", although parts of it may appear common. In a paternity test it is true sharing, as that is a testing inherited DNA.

Dhumancanvas:
My take is this. Noone really knows whats going on. We all just came and met the world as it is. Even our best minds don't have it all figured out. What we do have are models and thories that attempt to explain life, existence, the universe and all that. Now, as far as that goes, creationism and models proposed by most religions do not provide good explanations as to what's really going on.

This is mistaken; we absolutely know what is going on. The difference is in belief as to how it originated. A script never arises without a script writer, neither a code without someone to encode it. TOE is not, in the first instance, a model whose purpose is to explain what is going on, it's a model created solely to deny and, attempt to disprove the obvious truth of creation.

Dhumancanvas:
So far following the scientific method has been shown to offer better models and explanations.
Science is constantly under scrutiny. False or inaccurate models are disproved, abandoned and replaced with better ones which offer more accurate explanations. Mean while christianity for example relys on a book from 2 thousands years ago written by far less knowledgeable people and even considers it a virture that the book is pretty much the same now as it was then.

Another common trope. As if "religionists" are not scientists or, do not apply scientific methodology. In terms of origins and the wonderful and complex variety of lifeforms, the scientific method s, in some ways quite limited. What happens is an "interpretation if what happened", based on the available evidence. But with advances in understanding DNA, it's scripting and complexity, the case for a creator is clear.

Dhumancanvas:
To bring it back to the whole evolution vs creationism thing. C'mon there is no competition. Evolution is obviously the better explanation. It succeeds in explaining life as it is to a very high degree of accuracy. Creationism explains nothing and relys purely on faith. Even the Pope agrees with evolution and religious scholars. They don't argue agasint it. What they argue is that God had a hand in evolution.

Creationism is not in competition with evolution. Evolution was designed to deny The Creator. The agreement of the Pope is not evidence and neither here nor there. But no surprise, Catholicism was used to formulate the theory of evolution along with heliocentrism to that very end.

Dhumancanvas:
The writing is a little long but i hope you read it entirely and get what im trying to say.

No problem. It's nice of you to take time to share. Hopefully I've in turn articulated well enough to you.

Have a pleasant weekend.


Cheers

TV

Dhumancanvas:
I'm not gonna argue about absolutism and relativism as its opposite. Thinking in terms of those will only lead to pointless round about arguments.

Cool

Dhumancanvas:
Do you have a better theory than that proposed by evolution?

Creation

Dhumancanvas:
The evidence is clear, from DNA and anatomical similarities across different spieces, to fossil records. Even in other fields like psychology, certain behaviours can be adequately explained from an evolutionary stand point. But please if you have a better explanation i would love to hear it or read it as it were.

DNA is essentially a templated script, a code. Reproduction is only ever within the limits of that code and, there is no known mechanism for the script to acquire new code. Indeed, inherent within the code is a self-regulating function, designed to ameliorate any errors.

Anatomical similarities are not proof of "evolution". It is more a deduction (in the sense that it is opinion not evidence).

The mechanisms and dynamics ascribed to TOE do not bear real scrutiny. Theories in many fields are forced through the lens of evolution - for a number of reasons. They do not constitute proof, only an attempt to align them with the TOE which is in a sense inviolate, but not true.



Cheers
TV

Akin1212:
Lwkmd, ad hominem again. It's always this and not evidence. This has nothing to do with the evidence we ask. Prove that your favourite imaginary sky daddy is real. Simple enough!

How is it ad-hominem? You described people who believe in God as cavemen and illiterates. I asked if your own people - whoever they are - have a written script of their own, and when storey building commenced amongst them. To highlight that 1. Through time, people who believed God have been anything but illiterate and cavemen and 2. that you are in no way positioned to refer to them in a derogatory sense. Unless of course you can show me the script your people invented ? It's not laugh that should be killing you, it's shame .

Akin1212:
Honestly thinking, I have told you that there is no God. There can't be one. Your acceptance that he isn't bothered about my quest is enough proof, your inability to give objective evidence is enough proof that there is no God. If we truly know little then it's no ones fault that we don't believe. If we truly know little then it's the responsibility of the God to let us know more. But because he is imainary and not real, he can't do anything about it. Why are you so daft?

And God has presented clear evidence to His existence - as I clearly noted in my initial offer of assistance . That you reject it on the basis of your own "intellectual prowess" and desire to believe "alternatives" is your choice. No problem for God and no problem for me .

Akin1212:
Because we know little, therefore we must believe without evidence? Knowing little is a prompt to know more by investigting, not believing.

No one asked you to believe without evidence. I pointed some out to you and invited you to investigate.

Akin1212:
You have a condition called cognitive dissonance. You just said we know little, now you're saying you have shown me the evidence for the existence of God. Do you have a wrong understanding of what an evidence means?

That we know little does not mean that we don't know enough to arrive at the right conclusion from the evidence presented. And consequently take the next logical step.

Akin1212:
Only a fool believes in magical beings without proofs or evidence to substantiate their claims. Only a fool believes that there is a spiritual kingdom where a spiritual daddy is sitted on the throne

I agree. In lieu of proof or substantiation of any kind. However, the evidence is there - and glaring

Akin1212:
Throne, kingdom, and army, all these things are human inventions.

Even if so?

Akin1212:
Come, how old are you?

Old enough to have camped at your current position for years. To have demonstrated umpteen times more hubris, and mercifully, been shown the error of my ways.

It's good you are here. If you truly knew there was no God, you wouldn't waste your limited time arguing about him. CogDiss or what .


The choice his yours. I pray mercy speeds it on and leads you aright.


Best
TV

^{Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:}

Dhumancanvas:
However I feel its way too rigid, once one regards a concept to be an absolute truth theres no room for flexibility.

And the demand for, or higher virtue of, "flexibility" over absolutes is?

Dhumancanvas:
I'm more orientated towards relativism but not to the extent that absolutely everything is relative.

In the absence of absolutes, the concept of relativism itself becomes tenuous.

Dhumancanvas:
On a final note. There is no such thing as athiestic evolution. There is simply evolution. A widely accepted theory which is by far the best explanation we have for life as it exists in all its variety.

Agree on "evolution". Especially relative to the bible, as "evolution" in any form is simply counter to the biblical narrative.

"Widely accepted" does not accords to truth in either a relative or absolute sense. And when you describe the absurdity of evolution "as the best explanation", do you mean in an absolute or relative sense .


Cheers
TV

Akin1212:
And in all this you cannot really sense that you are the ignorant and blind one here?

Not in plainly seeing the evidence for God, acknowledging my own frailty - and on the basis of that seeking Him.

Akin1212:
I said the idea was held by illiterate cavemen, not written by illiterate cavemen. Sometimes, in fact, all the time, you don't disappoint in showing how much ignorance is in you, just like peak milk. It's in you

By it is held and written by those who are not illiterate or "cavemen" to this very day. Your people, your tribe if you will, do they have a script of their own? One for recording their own language? When was the first "storey" building in your village . Yet here you are at once condemning some as illiterate and "cavemen", when those words are in fact emblematic of your whole lineage

Akin1212:
Ideas can be held, passed or taught to others who will write them down. Of course, I had to tell you that. I have realized that most of you theists believe in this sky daddy because you don't think deeply.

Maybe it's not about thinking deeply, rather thinking honestly. Not prating in our knowledge, but realising how little we truly know. But at once thinking and knowing enough to appreciate the evidence as presented.

Akin1212:
You now want to lie for God and introduce a straw man? Give solid proof and evidence for the God you worship or suck it up.

God does not need me to defend Him, any more than your pathetic attempts to make demands of Him merit His attention.

Having said that. I have pointed you to the evidence. The choice as to whether to critically examine it, or, fall back on to fables that allow you to sneer at those whose intellectual - let alone spiritual - spit would have drowned you without trace, is yours.


Like I said, humility.


All the best
TV


^{Psalm 14 - The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.}

Akin1212:
First of all, the bible is not valid evidence. So all these baloneys don't count. Show tangible and objective evidence. The heavens and the firmaments are not the handywork of any spirit. That idea was held by illiterate cavemen who never investigated anything but reached a conclusion from ignorance. This is a new age. Wake up

...l did not direct you to the bible did l? Can illiterate "cavemen" write? Have you per chance considered your own ignorance?

I stand corrected, perhaps humility should be your starting point .


Best
TV

...if one can participate without being political. Perhaps. If one can remain Christian and non-partisan, maybe. But l don't personally think it is possible.


Cheers
TV


^{Matthew 4:8 - Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to Him, “All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me.”}

...it's there...in a huge and glaring cosmological sense

Psalm 19 - The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. 2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.

...it's there...in the beautiful design and intricate complexity of the tiniest living cell

Psalm 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

...it's there...if you truly seek Him, seek truth, and not in your pride seek be led by, or a leader of these;

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

...it's there if...you don't fall for this;

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:


Praying that the scales of everything out of nothing, men from monkey like creatures and, a spherical, moving earth, drop from your eyes, would be a good start. Then throw some humility into the mix and...

...the choice is yours.


All the best

TV

LordReed:
Very good. This exposed the very misunderstanding of what the evolutionary theory deduces I suspected you were relying on.

I don't so much misunderstand TOE, as believe it isn't actually possible - no matter how explained. Neither is it evidenced, no matter how insisted. As for describing it as a deduction, I don't believe it is an honest one, based on the available evidence, or the possibility based on how we understand the code to work.

LordReed:
Your conception of evolution is akin to viewing the changes as a ladder whereby each step is a discrete change like a reptile morphing or giving birth to a bird but this is not what evolutionary theory observes.

My conception of TOE is in a sense by the by, my desire here was to hear a credible defence of the position.

Having said that, my grasp of TOE was never as sketchy as to suggest one kind can give birth to another. After all, if the timescales postulated are collapsed, what is TOE actually saying?

TOE deduces that all life originated form a single point and, over time, different genus or kinds of creatures morph into others. My point being that no matter how much time, gene flow, genetic drift, natural selection or adaptation, no creature morphs into another kind.

LordReed:
Evolutionary theory envisions the changes like the branching of a tree whereby species branch off to give rise to new species in a consequential series of changes over a long period of time rather than in discrete leaps.

Species, or, variations of a kind is fine. Evidenced. But they remain the same kind - I cited dogs as an example here.

But changing into a new type, genus or kind cannot happen, as the code has limits to it's variability. And, over time variability is lost, not gained, such that morphing into something entirely different is possible - no matter how much time that elapses, or the number of changes that take place.

LordReed:
This answers the question of why there is no evidence of a leap from reptile to bird because the long chain of changes are each small but cumulative rather than discrete and sudden.

Earlier, you stated the below...

LordReed:
When records or evidence exists, much like the review of security camera footage or the reconstruction of a crime scene from bits of evidence.

...which directly contradicts your statement above. Hence the excitement generated by the OP. So what evidence is there, other than mere deduction?

LordReed:
We can also envision it the way language also evolves. The english language changed from and had input from many languages, we did not have a german or celtic speaking mother give birth to an english speaking baby.

I'm not clear how this speaks to the subject at hand. The "evolution" of language, in most instances, is clearly evidenced and documented, clear lines can be drawn.

As for the birth point, mothers, of any ethnicity or background, couple with fathers of any ethnicity and background and, give birth to children, bar any unfortunate circumstances, with the power of speech, who can apprehend any language. Speaking, I would suggest, more to my point about variation within a core commonality (kind, genus).


Best
TV

^{Psalm 139:14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvellous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.}

LordReed:
Before we go on kindly provide the definition of kind as you are using it.

At two basic levels - kinds at say the level of fish, reptiles or birds. At a secondary level, say kinds of dogs. Quite simple and, as I've hopefully used consistently in my responses. Happy for you to use any taxonomy you choose. Just that it be clearly defined.

And, my point was that life is transmitted code. That is why kinds produce after their own. There is variability and a measure of adaptive capability within this code, but no known mechanism whereby additional code can be incorporated that can lead to it "morphing" into a totally different kind. No matter the degree of variability or adaptation, or how long elapses.

Further, the fact that it is code, suggests the presence of a Code Writer. Not to mention information, and how that is created, transmitted, stored, retrieved, read and disseminated.



Cheers
TV