fauxlaw

Yes, and that, genetically, makes sense, since there were fewer possibilities of genetic mutation [mitosis] due to environmental and biologically degrading effects. As the environmental and biological changes occur, more mutation potential exists, one effect being a shortening of lifespan. As medical science has improved, we have found increasing lifespan capability.

Consider, for example, that when James Madison proposed that Presidents be at least 35 years of age, the lifespan in 1788 [approx] America was 38. Presidents were expected to die in office, thus no provision was made, then, for presidential succession other than by the Vice Pres, or election.

At the root, there are but two gametes, male and female. Yes, there is possible mutation, more correctly referred to as meiosis of gametes, which, in the human, offer a wide variation of daughter cells [not to be confused with sexual differentiation] in both sperm and ova [m/f gametes]. Specifically, since human chromosome pairs exist [typicaly] as 23-paired chromosomes, each gamete, or divided chromosome pair, can have 2^23 possible resulting daughter cell variations. Within those variations, it is possible for meiosis to occur, but if not, no mutations will be genetically transferred to a resulting pairing of sperm and ovum: a zygote. This also accounts for the fact that the intent of genetic pairing of m/f gametes is strictly a male or female zygote. Intent is not the same as actual outcome. Meiosis can result in a gamete mutation affecting the resulting zygote from either meiotic sperm or ovum, but this is, after all, mutation, and not genetic intent. 

You mean the ark and the flood at all? No, I accept the story, both Genesis and others.

However, my position on the common argument that God's vengeance for the world's wickedness is tempered by the belief that God was more concerned with the probability that men would become so corrupt as to render themselves completely irredeemable, even by Christ's atonement. Yes, it may appear to be an act of denial of free agency, a concept I also support, but in the act of preventing their irredeemability by their choice of actions, the people who were destroyed at least retain their ability in an afterlife to repent of their actions and earn redemption. That is a God of everlasting love. Tough love, if you will.  After all, I also accept that mortal life ends by death for everyone, but that death is not an end, but merely a portal for what is to come. You will find, with further discourse, that I am not your typical Christian. I apply more power, and more compassion, and  literal fathership, to God than most, as well as more growth and potential for eternal growth to man than most.

I was actually very impressed by the lunar eclipse example. If I've encountered that one before, I don't remember. It does not account, however, for the possibility that a flat disk might be positioned perpendicular to the solar system plane. As I was reading the arguments, I thought your opponent might present that possibility by rebuttal, but he was too deep into his resistance of the set-up to bother to make any rebuttal whatsoever. This marks the second debate of his participation in a row on which I've voted that he has side-stepped the root Resolution, and he does not appreciate my criticism of it.

By the way, I commend you on you expertise with English. Your being a native Norwegian, your English prowess is indeed impressive. Well done. I claim French fluency, and that ancestry, but I do, at times err. I am an English native, after all [language, not nationality]. I'm about as American as one can be, with my first ancestor arriving to Boston in 1625. I understand Norwegian, and that by some affinity to German, about every tenth word, or so. And my German is hardly conversational.

Because maybe you don't bother to inquire?

This is an old report, but it discounts your assumptions of "How come..."

As I said, maybe because somebody doesn't show the initiative to find out for themselves. Your tutorial fee with be forthcoming.

You're doing fine.

I never mentioned a count of species. Others have proposed various numbers. However, I do acknowledge that the Bible is replete with examples of miracles. That a miracle of DNA collection may have been in Noah's wheelhouse, his lack of full understanding not withstanding, the miracle is a possibility. No less so than assuming he somehow fit however many of adult, offspring-bearing animals into a boat of x-cubits in size. I ask no less proof of either proposal.

So, species come and go. Who's to say how many were there when...? As I said, probability has its basis in fact, but not with 100% confidence. Look how confident we were with geocentrism.

Yes, that is effectively what I meant.

Isn't changing you account to improve leaderboard status a bit disingenuous? Some do that. It is an available method, but you'll think better of it in the long run if you don't. Was Ymir a name-changer? Get there by earning it the hard way: perseverance. Saying this as a supportive friend; not a critic.

Wow! Two big announcements today. Deserving of grand high fubah status, at least for today. But, back to the salt mine tomorrow, bud Congrats.

Bolding mine. ARE: present tense. What were there, then? Whenever then was? As you say regarding the DNA theory, "because of the implicit context of the story, we can be fairly confident that there was no DNA bank..."  We cannot be "fairly confident" there were as many species then as now. "Fairly confident" allows for the possibility, perhaps not the probability - but probability is not 100% confidence, is it? 

Qualified immunity protects fed, state, local public officials from legal action against them UNLESS their actions clearly violate the natural, legal, or constitutional rights of the offended individual[s]. This is because those officials have the sworn duty to uphold those individuals' rights as stipulated. My daughter is an EMT. She has that sworn duty to uphold those rights of individuals with whom she has been entrusted by society to protect and preserve their lives and their rights wherever and whenever possible within the law. Her actions dictate her compliance with her sworn duty.

All your arguments re: adoption ignore that the care of the child is legally transferred to the adopting parent[s]. Thus, the legal care normally expected of the birth parents is absolved. Morality is thus covered by the law.  None of that says the one of the adopting parents could become a deadbeat, and the deadbeat status, and it legal ramifications still apply.

Well done. No one said it would be easy. Christ said [in effect] it would be worth it.

Not necessarily.

Do we know for certain their were millions of species to be housed in the ark,  whenever the flood happened?

Are we certain that insects need not have been specifically brought on board, but we passengers, themselves, as usual on other animals?

Are we certain that the DNA bank theory I proposed [not mine, btw], was not in play?

None of the above can be discounted out-of-hand.

The hard bigotry of BLM and the 1619 project telling selective history [such as that all antebellum Blacks were slaves, and not counted in the 1790 Census] is also dogma and not fact.

Who said I don't accept evolution? Again, as said many times, I am not most Christians. I accept evolution. I even consider it on the same side of the coin as creation, and consider it as having begun the week following the creation week, which, no, I do not accept as having been conducted in six 24-hour days, after which God retired and went fishing. He's still on the job, directing the rest of creation, by evolving species and events, unlike  the thinking of most Christians.

If is a useless, utilitarian-lacking word because everything following to justify it is not currently true. Horrible way to begin a logical argument. I've said that before, numerous times, too.

You mean like the numerous, credible, various-sourced histories told of the antebellum South? And not all published on August 12, 1926? Which of those are you going to declare is the most credible? And are you going to automatically discount the story that happens to be published on February 21, 1947?

Yes, and even names like Sioux, Apache, Navaho are corruptions of tribal names by outsiders. However, those corruptions lead us to a clue of proper reference. The

indigenes referred to themselves by their own tribal names: Cherokee and Pawnee, for example, are legitimate self-appointed tribal names.

Excellent point

There are many other creation stories told than just the Genesis story, and none of them depict the creation of a single species from which all others evolved. That evolution exists I do not doubt, but I don't buy all from one species. Even Darwin allowed for the process to have involved more than a single species. Read a first edition of his On the Origin of Species, last paragraph, where he even acknowledges a "Creator."

BY DNA samples instead of the whole animal? With God involved, perhaps he taught Noah how to collect the samples, and how to generate new living beings from it. Far-fetched, yes, but impossible? Hardly. Another possibility, another God-like miracle occurred by having fewer animals than "every species," because, seems to me creation effected a thousand [approx] years before, or even thousands of years, if that was the case [who really knows?] and with evolution being the second act, which continues on to this day, maybe species evolved, again, after the ark and the flood. That option is far more likely, but the DNA sampling bit is a possibility.

Yes, if only they had declared sovereignty of the land, but they didn't know what that was to claim it.

And considering that "American" is not an indigenous name, but a European name, I wonder whose culture is usurping whose by claiming the name "Native American" as the indigenes did in the 1960s [not anytime before]. In fact, it was Irish immigrants who used the name, Native American, to describe themselves, to differentiate them from later Irish immigrants as the original Irish to call America home, even before the US was officially recognized as a nation by the ratification of the Constitution. To them belongs the term by first rightful usage.

Habeas corpus is a long, long-standing legal matter that existed in British courts long before the US came along, and hasn't changed much since. It does have limitations, however, even in the U.S.,

Congress' passage of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 removed jurisdiction from federal courts to hear habeas corpus issues brought by enemy combatant detainees. So, specifically speaking, habeas corpus does not exist for detainees at Guantanamo. Would you catch up, please?

Not to mention that non-citizens do not have access to all rights afforded to citizens of the United States.

What habeas corpus issue?

I'm not saying that a knee to the neck is justifiable, but is it unjustified first degree murder? Manslaughter [unplanned, unintentional], or, even 3rd degree [unplanned, unintentional], or second degree [unplanned, intentional] are added possibilities because the specific drugs were sufficient in quantity to potentially cause death by themselves. But you've pulled the trigger for Murder 1 before the end of the trial.

You're not stating anything about the excessive quantity of drugs in his system that the autopsy demonstrated; drugs that influence the ability to breathe. Is his apparent overdose, let alone taking any drugs at all, the fault of the police? Show the video of their introducing those drugs into his system.  "In addition to fentanyl and methamphetamine, the toxicology report from the autopsy showed that Floyd also had cannabinoids in his system when he died." The report also indicated he tested positive, posthumously, for Covid-19. This was not a healthy man. https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/04/869278494/medical-examiners-autopsy-reveals-george-floyd-had-positive-test-for-coronavirus

Shall we consider all the evidence in this trial, huh? Or do you accept a partial view?

Sorry, not a game player other than live chess

How have we "overstayed" anything since the treaty extends into perpetuity? The treaty does not have an end to stay over. get it? I know this all happened before you were born, but history did not begin with you, nor history's treaties. Sorry to burst your bubble, but we are not stinking fish. You may smell stinking fish, but that is probably closer to home. Cuba may not like us there, particularly the current regime, and the last before it, but a nation's treaty is bigger, having greater authority, than any one presidency.

Yeah, I've cited to you our promise, our treaty, and, contrary to your stink fish, the treaty promised perpetuity of our presence, not that we would leave, and Cuba signed it, signaling their agreement. That you don't like it and are smelling stinking fish is entirely on you. Argue for your limitations; they're yours.

Now you're getting it. Nothing is nothing, and nothing will be nothing.

The flaw in the belief that nothing results in something, as in, the beginning of the universe is that there is no beginning of that expanse. Otherwise, there would be no eternity, which is not merely time proceeding forever into the future without it having an infinite past, as well, i.e., no Big Bang. Maybe a bang to start this galaxy, but this galaxy, our Milky Way, is not synonymous with the universe at large. New stars, and even new galaxies, are being formed all the time, aways have, and always will.

>>>RM

Yes, the Ides of March came, and went, and now the Ides of April, but has it not yet passed. You're trying to live and conclude the future. Nope.

My quote of an accusation of Bible fraudulence 

Is little but a pounder's offensive flatulence,

But it certainly does not find precedence,

But by the pounder's singular irreverence.

Exactly.

Addledbrain, take note.

Not at all. I'm suggesting that when a door is closed, it's a wall. When a door is open, there is no visible substance; it's an empty space. Thus, we make use of what is not to pass through to what is, another space that is not empty.

Correct. The rest was superfluous.

Am I expecting a reply from... whom?

One of many, many reasons. The foundation of my faith is wide and deep, rooted in spiritual experiences going back of 65 years.

My position: it's ok, but making sourcing, legibility [ I like that change from S&G] and Conduct optional voting weakens the debate. I predict it will fail in the end, making lazy voters.

Nope. According to the article  https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/01/how-did-the-u-s-get-a-naval-base-in-cuba.html. published 19 years ago [and conditions have not changed, Guantanamo is a permanent U.S. Naval Base, according to the provisions of the Platt Amendment. The article is short, and I quote:

"What’s the deal with the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? How did the U.S. get a military base in a hostile, Communist country?
The United States seized Guantanamo Bay and established a naval base there in 1898 during the Spanish-American War. Five years later, the U.S. and Cuba signed a lease giving Guantanamo Bay to the U.S. as a “coaling and Naval station.” The lease was required to implement the congressional Platt Amendment, which stipulated, among other things, that a naval base “at certain specified points to be agreed upon by the President of the United States” was required “to enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba.”
In 1934, Cuba and the U.S. signed a treaty that gave the U.S. a perpetual lease to the area. The U.S. can’t open a casino resort there, however: Private enterprise is banned under the terms of the treaty. The lease can be broken only by mutual agreement, so as a practical matter, Guantanamo Bay is U.S. property. It was there before Castro and will be there after him."

In other words, Cuba can raise whatever stink they want, but, so long as the US keeps its part of the treaty, Cuba is bound to keep theirs. Note that Cuba has not cashed their annual payment from the US, up to at least the date of the article. That's on them.

let justice be served. Then make you epithets. You're as guilty as supporters of Chauvin. You see that, don't you? Yes, I think they should shutdown comment, as well. I see little purpose in discussion at all, considered the hotheads populating the discussion. The court, not public opinion, ought to render the final decision of how this plays out. 

I invite anyone of any stripe, religiously, to show me exactly where and when I said, as accused by a pounding fury, "The Bible is a fraud." [post 74, for example]

I have never written it because I do not believe it,  the pounding fury  notwithstanding.  I have said that the Bible contains contradictions and that its treatment of transliteration and translation over the centuries might have had a more scholastic treatment than it has, but I continue to maintain the the truth of it can be had by the mere act of desiring to know and asking God for a personal witness that it is true, contradictions notwithstanding. I have said it is not a perfect book; I have never said it is a worthless book. Let's all try to understand that words mean things, and their use of inappropriate demeanor is one sign of an ignoramus. That condition can be resolved with a little education, but as is said, one can lead a horse to water, but drinking it is entirely the horse's choice. Free will?? Yes.

Some of us put words in others' mouths, which merely says they have nothing of consequence to say themselves.

>>> RationalMadman

No, you were right the first time. They are not Jesus. Jesus is Jesus, alone.

The declaration, alone, accomplishes nothing. Depends on who's talking, and who is actually accomplishing the task of fulfillment; a charletan, or the real deal.

Thank you for telling me what I have and do. Who made you grand fubah? Your pocket mouse? Sorry; credibility gap.

The crusades, yes. But that was not Jesus. It was men carrying images of his cross, and not his cross, and not him. Please understand the distinction.

La di da. You may think, but you have no clue what coercion is and is not. It isn't what you think it is. Free agency remains the superior force by personal choice, person to person, and that, my friend, is the nature of things. 

Of course, if you think otherwise, that thinking exhibits a weakness. So be it.

I refer all interested parties to my reply #62. I need say no more, even in explanation of my #56. Further requests by some parties is an embarrassment to them. So be it.

By "responsible," you imply personal responsibility, not even a general responsibility as the leader of group of disciples who followed him. What, specifically, did Jesus Christ do by responsible statement or act, to directly cause the deaths of millions? That they believed him? It was their choice to believe and follow him; Jesus did not coerce them in any way, nor did he raise the scourge, the arrow, the sword, the cross, that condemned them to death by the actions of others whose aim was eradication of both the idea of Christ, and his followers.

Only by tradition, which generally does not have a scholastic source, such as the location of the Garden of Eden, is the garden located in Sumerian territory. There is no empiric evidence of it, certainly not by etymology.

In France and Idaho there are cities called Paris.

In Kansas and Missouri there are adjacent border cities, separated by a sizable stream, both called Kansas City.

There are certainly more examples of these duplications. There happens to be Moscow in both Russia and Idaho. Baghdad in Iraq and California. Shall I go on?

In 6,000 years [or more] which of these will be designated by tradition as the originals?

For all we know, Eden could have been on the American continent, before there were continents. 

The same argument defeats your other mytho-historical coincidences. Why bother?

Let's just accept that a body of writings that we, after-the-fact [for it certainly was not titled such in antiquity, and it did not exist as a single, canonized volume], have dubbed "The Holy Bible," is, as a result of its complicated combining of writings, by various authors, copied, transliterated and translated by others, not all [in fact, by few] by accredited professionals, a sure coincidental contradiction which has, never the less, for the most part, wise counsel not to be taken lightly, and which has, regardless, methods of proper living, shared with most of the world's various religions. Is it the Word of God? Ask him. Who else has the appropriate answer? Some Sumerian?