Hebrew slaves were to be released after a time. The year of Jubilee set a maximum time of servitude of 49 years, but it could ve much less depending on how far off then next one was. But, Gentiles were meant to be an eternal posession. But the rules didn't work in reverse for resident aliens who acquired Hebrew slaves. They had to be let go. Also, there are OT passages that hint that Hebrew slaves were to be treated better(not "ruthlessly") than the Gentile slaves. (Leviticus 25)

People who think God is on their side always make an excuse to exploit the "heathens."

Not only that but today we have seen many parts of nature, such as the human cell which could never have been made by slow gradual proccesses, because in order for certain aspects of the cell to exist, the entire thing must have existed at once, and not been made piece by piece or else the cell would fail to live and die. Much like a mousetrap, if one section of the moustrap is missing, for example the spring, the mousetrap will not work. But in the cell, not only will the cell not work but it will die and not be able to further evolve.

This is untrue. A bacteria cell is very simple, just a cell wall, cell membrane, DNA, and ribosomes. The eukaryotic animal and plant cells with their membrane bound organelles could have easily evolved, by gradual steps from an ancestor similar to a modern bacteria. There are a number of theories as to how this could have occured. for example it is widely accepted among biologists that the mitochondria in eukaryotic cells are derived from bacteria that became endosymbiotic with a distint answer of the eukaryotes at some point.

As already stated the ""irreducible complexity" arguement for creationism has been used many many times, and has been debunked many many times. It does not work on eyes, wings, or cells. Sorry.

the Bible doesnt support human slavery, slavery in the time of Israel was totally different than the slavery we think of today...

In other words, Ryan, contrary to your own assertion, you admit that the Bible permits human slavery. You just believe it was less disgusting than the more recent slavery of Africans and other indigenous people. As I'll show, that is very far from the truth indeed.

Slavery in that time was by your own will... Not only that but he was also not permanently a slave. It would be a for a time of 7 or 10 years or so.

False. The Bible gives many examples of captured prisoners and others being taken as slaves or sold into slavery without their consent. It also explicitly says that there are circumstances under which the Israelites were allowed to keep their slaves forever (Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:6).

Also, though you didn't explicitly address the subject of cruelty, I will: the Bible explicitly says that masters are allowed to beat their slaves. It even permits masters to beat their slaves to death (Exodus 21:20-21). Does that sound kind or enlightened to you? To me, it sounds like exactly what it is: a savage and barbaric relic of an age far less morally enlightened than our own. Human slavery of any form is a vile and evil practice, and it's symptomatic of a severely warped moral compass on your part if you're really trying to make excuses for it.

Darwin himself said that if any part of his theory was incorrect then the entire thing was wrong.

Darwin was an excellent scientist and would not have said anything so obviously untrue. (For example, we now know Darwin was incorrect when it came to the nature of heredity. But his theory on the operation of natural selection and the way in which it acts to produce new species was dead-on.) I challenge you to produce a citation, but I'm sure you can't.

In Darwin's evolution theory, black people were supposedly the missing link between humans and apes.

This is a distortion of Darwin's views (he considered the topic in Descent of Man and concluded that all races of humans were the same species). In addition, Darwin's views on race were progressive for his day - he was a fervent opponent of slavery, for example, something that cannot be said of a great many Christians who were alive in Victorian England, including famous creationists like Louis Agassiz. But more important than any of this, Darwin's views on race are irrelevant. His theory stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of whether he did or did not hold moral beliefs that we disapprove of today. If he had been the worst racist who ever lived, it would not show that evolution is false. The only judge of that question is the evidence, and the scientific community is unanimous: evolution passes every test to which it has ever been subjected with flying colors.

Much like a mousetrap, if one section of the moustrap is missing, for example the spring, the mousetrap will not work. But in the cell, not only will the cell not work but it will die and not be able to further evolve.

Michael Behe's tiresome and false argument of "irreducible complexity" has been debunked on numerous occasions. Most pertinent is the fact that we have actually observed irreducibly complex systems evolve in real time, both in living things in the wild and in computer simulations that use evolution as an engineering design process. In fact, the emergence of irreducible complexity was actually predicted by scientists to be an expected result of evolution as early as 1918.

But the giraffe would not have been able to evolve these pressure releasers without first having learned that it needed them.

I think we can safely say that anyone who argues against evolution by asking how animals "knew" they needed any particular adaptation is so ill-informed about what evolution actually says that debate would largely be futile. The evolution of the giraffe's neck, in fact, is a question that was answered by Charles Darwin himself: a proto-giraffe with a gradually lengthening neck could evolve increasingly effective methods for dealing with the gradual increase in blood pressure. We have transitional fossils documenting this evolution, showing giraffe ancestors with shorter necks.

the Bible doesnt support human slavery, slavery in the time of Israel was totally different than the slavery we think of today

I've seen this argument before, and I think the main weakness in it is that this argument briefly says that slavery itself is not a bad thing, as long as it's regulated. I don't think that will go far in today's society.

Also, I recall another passage in the Bible where it says a master is not to be punished if he beats a slave to death if the slave does not die on the same day the beating happens. That by itself is pretty abhorrent.

In Darwin's evolution theory, black people were supposedly the missing link between humans and apes.

I think this is hugely unlikely to be true, irrelevant in the unlikely case that it is true (evolutionary theory has advanced a long time in the last 150 years), and stinks of an ad hominem attack.

I feel a bit too tired to take on the rest, so I'll leave this to see if someone else wants a go.

In Darwin's evolution theory, black people were supposedly the missing link between humans and apes.

Not only that but today we have seen many parts of nature, such as the human cell which could never have been made by slow gradual proccesses, because in order for certain aspects of the cell to exist, the entire thing must have existed at once, and not been made piece by piece or else the cell would fail to live and die. Much like a mousetrap, if one section of the moustrap is missing, for example the spring, the mousetrap will not work. But in the cell, not only will the cell not work but it will die and not be able to further evolve.

Many different examples of this have been found such as a giraffes neck. A giraffe's neck send blood up to the brain with great force in order to make the climb, but when a giraffe bends down its neck to drink water from a pond, the force of the blood would hit the giraffes brain with even greater force due to gravity and kill the giraffe instantly. But in order to prevent this from happening the giraffe has pressure releases in its neck to release the force and prevent such damage to the brain. But the giraffe would not have been able to evolve these pressure releasers without first having learned that it needed them. And by the time it learned that it needed them it would have died. And the giraffe wouldwould need the force in the first place or else it would also die from not having sufficient blood reach the brain, thus ending the evolutionary process there. But we can cleary see giraffes today, only proving that these parts must have been made simaltaneously, which is not explained by evolution.

Therefore these things must have been made all at once, because if they were made by gradual proccesess they would have hit many dead ends and not been able to continue.