Homosexual Books for First Graders

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Also, evolution has a lot less proof backing it. There is constantly the flaw of missing links. I know a few fossils have been found, but they alone can be merely dismissed as freaks of nature.

And this is true because...? A freak of nature, IMO, is classfied as a creature that is different from all other creatures of the same type. Example: A two-headed snake, a porcupine who cannot produce quills, white tigers (yes they are, this is created because of a genetic disorder in the colouring). These are freaks of nature, not several accounts of the same animal being found in different places or in the same place.

Based upon the theory that God created everything in the world in six days, how did it come to the part where dinos and humans lived together? No evidence is found that more complex mammals were around during that time or place.

Evolution and the Big Bang are both titled as theories. Yes, I'm aware that many commonly accepted scientific concepts are labeled as theories, (such as the atomic theory which says that everything is made of atoms) but that still goes to show that scientists do not have enough information to call it fact.

Yes they are. But they are hard theories as there is evidence of this. Darwin found that their were several different types of Finches, each one different in its own way. Look at dogs and domestic cats, there is at least over three hundred breeds for each sepcies. Horses as well and cows. Quite a few breeds have only popped up within the last hundred years.

And yes, they don't have a complete amount of proof but we don't have a complete amount of proof that God created the universe, no? We have a very large and heavy book that tells us this, how is this different from Darwin's book on evolution? They are both books on why the animals are as they are but each is not complete for we don't know it all.

[Cferra]

Hello, Checkmate and Sovoris. Allow me to introduce myself. Name's Ledian_X. I'm an Italian American and Roman Catholic. While I do believe in God, I practice in my own way. I don't go to church and I often meditate as well since Buddhism has some very interesting things in it. Now then, after reading the opinions here, I have come to assist my friend, Damian Silverblade.

You see, I went to an Augustinian college in Northeastern Massachusetts. While there I took part in many, many religion courses that were required and not once did the professors, the preists and stuff say that "The Bible is law! YOU MUST FOLLOW IT!" Nope. They said that the Bible was never meant to be taken litterally. Hell, they even said that oral tradition messed things up.

Now then you can continue your radical Chrtistian beliefs which makes you no better than Al Quada in my opinion. You're pretty much as bad as the other Bible thumpers running around giving moderate Christians of all branches a bad name. In fact, a friend of mine had this to say about your radical Christian Right views:

"Realistically, the bible belt is just as bad as Al Qaeda, except they're actually numerous enough to go for democratic terrorism instead of the explosive variant."

Democratic terrorism. That's what you're guilty of. You come on here running your mouths hoping to change the world. Now you're talking about evolution. One of the philosophies we discussed in the religion classes taught by ministers and stuff was that God probably set off the Big Bang and created the universe setting things in motion for evolution. And yeah... believe in evolution too.

There is ample proof about evolution. Huamnity has evolved from apes swinging from trees to what you see looking into the mirror. We have fossils that shgow that. It takes back millions of years ago. Then we have dinosaurs. Which you call freaks of nature. I doubt these are freaks:

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/dino/maias1.htm

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/dino/tricera1.htm?128,40

http://www.nmnh.si.edu/paleo/dino/diplod2.htm

Those were living, breathing creatures who became extinct millions of years ago. Humanity has only been on this planet a short time. On the whole maybe a million years. And let me just reinterate these points:

1.) Thje Bible was never meant to be taken litterally

2.) Evolution has occured. How else would you explain humanity getting taller every year. Species have changed and new ones are discivered every day.

Now, back onto the main topic of Homosexuality. I got no problems with that as one of my friends who was a mod here is Gay. He's a cool guy but see y'all seem to fall into the trap of being a radical Al Quada like Right Wing Christian extremist whose minds are very closed off.

Try to accept people as they are. That's the true meaning. Do not take the Bible literally because oral tradition is bad. Very bad. Hope I made some sense because well..Drilling all this into your heads is a hard thing to do. We can't change the world. But, you shouldn't come on here and act like you know everything.

L_X

[Damian Silverblade]

And which has been proven wrong just as often.

I don'T see you adressing the point I raised earlier that Mathew's story about them having to journey to Betlehem (I think. I get the two towns mixed up some times) due to the cenus being bollock.

Let me explain again :

1-Historical FACT : The Romans ran census for taxation purpose. They wanted to know how many people there were in their provinces so that they could determine how much money the governor of the province should be forking over to the higher levels of government.

2-Historical FACT : The romans were thus interested in where people lived (since that is where they worked, and thus paid their taxes). Not where their families were form.

3-Historical fact : Roman census would never therefore have required the kind of ludicrous bureaucratic nightmare the bible portray.

4-Therefore there is a fallacy in the bible, which proves that it is not the flawless word of any being whatsoever.

---------------

Raising another point : The slaughter of the children.

1-Some of the Gospels claim that the king of Israel, hearing of the prophechy of Jesus' birth, ordered all children two and younger slain.

2-Historical fact : we have access to numerous historical sources from the time, including the chronicle of Josephus, which is highly critical (ie, says all the bad stuff he can find) of said king (and who documented his life in great detail as well), yet fails to even mention what would have been by far his greatest atrocity if it were true.

3-Historical fact : The romans ran Judeah et al at that time, as evidenced by the fact that they held the above-mentioned census.

4-Historical fact : the romans would not have been particularly interested in letting their puppet-king slaughter a whole generation of future tax-payer. There's a reason they were able to build an empire lasting nearly a millenium.

5-If the slaughter of the children really did happen, then why is Mathew's gospel the only source to mention it (none of the other gospel does), and moreover, why is there no source outside the bible - while we have quite worthwhile, quite well-documented and quite

----

Those are simply two questions to be raised.

Other points where the bible writers fail their history classes :

1 Chr 21:5 - claim the Israeli had an army of 1 500 000 men. For comparison the *modern* American army - the army of a state that has 300 000 000 inhabitants - is 1 300 000 men or so. It would have been *strictly impossible* in ancient time prior to the creation of all our modern means of transportations, canned food et al to maintain such a large army for any period of time.

1 chronicles 16:30 also claims the earth is stable and does not move. We have known for centuries however that earth in fact spin on its axis and around the sun.

2 chronicles 4:2 - either god was giving very approximate measurements when he set down his words (and if he was being "Yeah' that sounds about right" there, why couldn't he have been approximating and not making sure that the facts were 100% right elsewhere?), or else he changed the value of pi from 3 to 3.1415(etc) at some point since.

Job 39 13:17 - Ostrich actually care for and protect their youngs, and certainly do not leave them unatended as this verse implies.

That's without mentioning such "wonderful" creatures as the Satyr, Dragons, Unicorns and Coc-katrice (no - supposed to be there, but knowing this board it's going to sensor the word if I don't use some of the old tricks.). Beasts of which no traces off exist outisde myths and legends, either alive or fossilized. This, my friend, point to the bible being - just as every other creation myth and religious story - a *myth*.

Continuing...

Daniel 1:1 - "The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim". That would be 606 BC at which time Nebuchadnezar was not yet king of Babylon. The first fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezar occured in 597 BC, at which time a new king had risen in Israel.

Daniel 5:2-22 - The author of this book refers to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezar and king of Babylon after him. This is false ; the son of Nebuchadnezar was Awil-Marduk (Evilmerodach in Kings), who became king after his father. The next king afterward was Nabonidus, and Belshazzar was his viceroy - not the king.

Daniel 5:31 - The author claims that Darius the Median took over the Babylonian empire. This is false - it was Cyrus of Persia who conquered Babylon in 539 BC (all extra-biblical sources agree on this). Darius of Persia (not of Medea) only came to power in 521 BC, by which time the dust of Babylon had already settled.

John 1:28 - quote the baptizing of Jesus as happening in "Betharaba" or "Bethany" beyond the Jordan (depend on the translation which of the two names you get). However Bethany is not beyond the jordan at all ; as for Betharaba no record of it whatsoever exists outside this one mention.

Just a quick list of very much debatable points.

Next on : contradiction between different parts of the bible.

[Tainted]

2.) Evolution has occured. How else would you explain humanity getting taller every year. Species have changed and new ones are discivered every day.

L_X

Actually, evolution has occured-- that is a fact, but what you stated is false.
We are getting taller every year due to us eating more properly, as compared to the middle ages-- some also believe it's because of the steroids in our food, but I choose not to believe that.
We aren't actually getting that much taller every year, either, and we are only taller than our predecessors when compared to the people in the middle ages-- when they did not eat anywhere near nutriciously. Now, I know we aren't all green-eating people nowadays-- but we're better off now than we were then.

Evolution can be compared in terms that-- in a few generations time, our thumbs will be longer than they are now because the thumb is becoming the prominant finger and the index is becoming less used.
Also, this is not near as proven as the first, but some scientists say in five or so generations our smallest toe will slowly diminish into nothingness as it is proved as obsolete.

That's evolution, and don't get me wrong-- I'm an evolutionist and used to think the same thing as your statement, but I found it to be faulty.

Adieu,
Zak Hunter

[Checkmate]

Rambunctious, I don't understand how the several different breeds of animals justifies as proof of Darwin's evolution theory. Also, if it's true that they have found several of the same kind of animal, (say, several fossils of a fish with legs) Then couldn't it be that they are just another breed of animal that died out. If it is indeed true that they've found several (more than three or four) of one specific type of missing link to the point that it could be considered an extinct species, then I'll admit that that animal is not a freak of nature and instead a distinct species. I can be reasonable.

Also, the Bible proves itself. After countering this evolution point there will once again be zero stated flaws with the Bible. That proves its validity.

Ledian X, I'd be interested in knowing a little more about you. You see I've never understood people that hold to some of the Bible but not all of it. How can you call some of it right, and some of it wrong when it claims to be perfect. It's either wrong or it's right. It's not a book written of people's opinions over time. 2 Timoth 3:16 says that all scripture is God breathed, (emphasis on all) so you either believe it or you don't. I'm interested to understand how you can be a believer in the Bible and yet you say it is fallable.

Now Damian, finally someone brings up some points. Thank you, for at least attacking the Bible intellectually instead of ignoratantly calling it a story book.

First off, the American army is primarily of young men. The officers are much older, but the majority of the army is made of privates who are in their late teens and early twenties. Ancient armies were comprised of a much broader age range making size of the army not exactly impossible.

The Earth is not 'moved'. It moves. God was declaring his glory by saying no human could move the earth.
Also, while I have said i don't believe in evolution, I do believe in micro evolution (or 'adaptation') Humans do it. Only they do it more with inventions and innovations than their bodies. The book of Job was written in the time of Genesis. At least 5000 years ago. It is possible that ostriches could have acted in that manor then and have improved now. (after all if they didn't improve from that they'd be extinct by now)

Your beef with first Daniel first verse, could be a historical error on your part, however I accuse of no such thing, considering I have no proof, and I have faith in you that you do.

As for the rest of your points that I didn't knock down. Consider me 'checked'. I'm going to confer with some people that know a heck of a lot more than I do and come back with some more answers. However, until I do, I will make no more claims biblically based. Sound fair?

Noticed I said you 'checked' me. I most certainly do not admit checkmate until I've conferred with some others. Bye for now. Don't think I won't be back.

[Crazy]

They said that the Bible was never meant to be taken litterally.
L_X[/QUOTE]

I agree perfectly with that.

[Damian Silverblade]

Oh, I wouldn't want you to admite checkmate now. Where would be the fun in that?

As for the army, you still dodge the fact that it would simply have been beyond the capacity of anyone in the world in these days - and up until we had canned food and the ilk - to field that kind of humongous army.

Regarding the first Daniel verse, it could conceivably be a mistake on my part, or a misreading of teh bible. It may need to be double-checked.

EDIT : Also, regarding your point on Timothy claiming that the entire bible is god-breathed :

If someone decides to believe that only parts of the bible are true, then it doesn't matter to that person that Timothy says otherwise - he'll just believe that Timothy himself is one of the "wrong" part of the bible.

Side records note : historical studies (which is my field of study in university) show the Old Testament was written down by a pair of author, half of it during a time of religious turmoil in the 7th century or so BC, and the second half during the exile to Babylon. For the new Testament, evidence shows nearly all of it except the letters was composed around 70-100 AD, by disciples of the disciples of the people credited with the four gospels. This means they were written in many cases 40-70 years after the fact.

[Cferra]

Ledian X, I'd be interested in knowing a little more about you. You see I've never understood people that hold to some of the Bible but not all of it. How can you call some of it right, and some of it wrong when it claims to be perfect. It's either wrong or it's right. It's not a book written of people's opinions over time. 2 Timoth 3:16 says that all scripture is God breathed, (emphasis on all) so you either believe it or you don't. I'm interested to understand how you can be a believer in the Bible and yet you say it is fallable.

Well, I'm 25. I majored in Political Science. I have a degree in that field and I have taken enough religion courses to come up with my own philosophy. Some people hold certain parts of the Bible in high regard and others not because of many things. You can call some right and wrong because of contradictions:

1.) Sometime reading the bible you get the impression some of the writers really were writing for nitwits. Like this: "And whoever does this, we shall stone him WITH STONES!" and "And her children I shall slay WITH DEATH!"

Not the exact sayings were said but come on. Some of those were a tad moronic. When you slay someone they do die. And It's obvious they were stoned with stones, I mean come on..Some of these things can't be bought.

Also, the church fathers have said time and time again that the Bibl's not to be taken litterally and it's a myth. I wouldn't be surprised if Christ comes back and ***** slaps you all. Assuminbg he wasn't a group of people as different records show.


I can be a believer and still say it's fallable due to my education and common sense. That's all there is to it. Take it or leave it.

L_X

Edit: oh and Checkmate, I do what I can because I worship in my own way. People believe some parts because most do not make sense. Hell, most of Gensis was proven wrong.

Earth was formed 4.8 Billion years ago fro molten rock. We know this throw carbon dating.

Dinosaurs first appeared 125 million years ago and died out 65 million years ago. We know that through fossil records, radio carbon dating and bones scattered all over this planet.

Our mammalian ancesters walked with the dinosaurs as small rodents and evolved over time into apes And the rest is history.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Rambunctious, I don't understand how the several different breeds of animals justifies as proof of Darwin's evolution theory.

How do you explain the same animal but yet there is a difference. All tigers are related. There is only one tiger. But they have evolved to be more suited to where they live, like the Siberian Tiger who's coat is lighter and it is more bulky. The Sumatran Tiger has a longer face and much smaller body.

Dogs are the same. Wolves were at first all there was. From human interaction, they turned from the Irish Wolfhound to the Beagle for specific purposes. The Lab is popular as it is a retreiving dog, meant for swimming after ducks and ther fallen fowl. The Beagle is a fox hunting hound, small enough to slip into fox holes.
But with other canine species, foxes for example, have differences that are etremely recognizable. The Maned Wolf, a proven fox that lives in the forests of Central/South America is tall, long-legged for moving through the forest easily. The Fennec Fox has huge ears for it lives in the desert of Africa and uses it's huge ears to release heat.

Also, if it's true that they have found several of the same kind of animal, (say, several fossils of a fish with legs) Then couldn't it be that they are just another breed of animal that died out. If it is indeed true that they've found several (more than three or four) of one specific type of missing link to the point that it could be considered an extinct species, then I'll admit that that animal is not a freak of nature and instead a distinct species. I can be reasonable.

Explain the many bones of Tyrannosaurus Rex found. Sue is a nice example. There are several bones of this animal out there but only parts until Sue was found.
Crocodiles my friend? The giant animal that walks the earth? They've found a creature they've dubbed Deinosuchus, a huge 50-foot crocodile in Africa. The ancestor of our now small crocs?
Explain Coelacanth, the ancient fish that has been alive without change for over millions of years. They believed it was extinct before they found a living one by catching it.
Sharks are another example of evolution. The only fish who keep the cartilidge skeleton. They have adapted to life yet still have the bones their ancestors had.
The whale is a descendant of a creature who walked on land. We have findings of it, compared the snout of a modern dolphin with this animal and found a match. Seals and sea lions are related as well, only they choose the sea and land life instead of just the sea.

In what I get from this, I have a feeling you believe the wooly mammoth, the saber-toothed cat, Megatherium (the Giant Ground Sloth), and the moa are just science screwing with us.

Also, the Bible proves itself. After countering this evolution point there will once again be zero stated flaws with the Bible. That proves its validity.

I have nothing to say to this really. As soon as the Bible is proved to be 'The Greatest Book in all of Time Because it Says how we Came About, Not you Loser Scientists' then I'll believe every word of this. But since there isn't full complete fact that it is, it's another book in which has our origins, just like my science textbook.

Also, Ledian_X. My first response to your post was to hug you and I believe it still is.

[Checkmate]

I'm still going to be a lot humbler temporarily because I haven't yet disproved all of Damien's points but I have made progress.

For one thing, Herod killed all the newborns in Bethlehem, a fairly small town. That pales in comparison to ordering 3000 men randomly killed after he died. So pleading pro-silence doesn't impress me.

Damien you didn't misread the Bible but it is possible for human history to have errored by six years or so. I admit that's just the best answer I have for Daniel 1:1 but it's not as desperate as some counters I'm sure you've heard of for Bible debates.

The census was also for military purposes, so they did have to go to the town of their clan in order for the Romans to make sure entire clans were enlisted.

Any able-bodied Israeli was counted as a member of the army. That's how they such a big army. It was for the most part 40-45% of their population. That isn't to say that that many troops were mobilized in times of war.

In response to Ledian, one could speculate (I'm not saying it's true) that each of the seven days were representative of pockets of millions of years, considering a 1000 years is like a day and a day is like 1000 years to God. It's just a possibility. I didn't create the universe I don't know how it was done. More on that later.

No loud boastful comments on the Bible's perfection seeing as how I haven't completely beaten Damien's claims yet, but you haven't shaken my faith. That's all for now.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

What boastful comment? That was pure sarcasm on my point.

It would be more than a 1000 years if the time when the Earth was formed and the time the first dinosaur appeared. And from that logic you gave, a thousand years for a day to God? Why can't there be a thousand years of rest then?

Can't we get back to the point (though this is all so fascinating) of the book as shazza says we should? Ban it or whatever, nothing good will come out of banning it anyways. The school board could get sued for it but where I am, the people suing wouldn't get much money anyways or they'd hurt our education more than it is now. Better to let it go and not let your kids check it out.

After all, it is a book, a piece of fiction based on life like most other books. Like Harry Potter which some religions were mad about. It didn't get banned so why should this book? 'OMG, there's a guy kissing a guy! Forget the witch since the Bible says that's wrong! Ban it!'

And yes, most evil is associated with witchcraft. The Devil is evil and left-handed...hmm...that must mean all left-handers are evil! Destroy my brother!

So, yes, the Bible is flawed right there. It doesn't come right out and say left-handers are evil, it implies it though. A lot.

Whoops...went off topic again. Rats...

[Damian Silverblade]

Do you have any idea of the kind of bureaucratic nightmare you are talkign about with the census process you describe Checkmate?

Even today, if you had to go to the town of origin of your family, that would be a costly nightmare for the state and the people.

Back then, with travels taking weeks if not months, it would have been a logisticasl impossibility. You'd be paralizing large parts of society for months easily - not something Rome would have wanted.

And finally, if that was the way Romans ran census, we would have other traces of it in the records left behind by Rome.

[shazza]

Whoops...went off topic again. Rats...

Yes, yes you did.

[Damian Silverblade]

Oh, lay back Shaz. At least there's a lively discussion here, as opposed to total lack of activity.

[Sorovis]

Damian, I admit my knowledge of the Bible and things related to it pale in comparison to Checkmate's, so I'm afraid I must let him deal with what you have brought up.

Rambunctious, What Checkmate is trying to give is an example. He did not literally mean that a day to God was a thousand years, he was merely speculating since there is no time to God (because he created time), the person who wrote the Bible may have had the task of defining the ages in which God worked.

Not all Christians were opposed to Harry Potter, so it is wrong to classify the people that disproved of it as 'religions'. I personally have no problem with it and have read all five books, but I can see where the opposition is coming from as I know a person who's faith in Catholocism was swayed by being too involved in the book.

Also, in defense of Checkmate, different types of the same animal does not prove evolution. All this shows is adaptation. You do realize that a raptor evolving to a bird is evolution do you not? What you say is called adaptation, not evolution.

Where does the Bible say left handed people are evil? For the sake of your debate quote some of the scripture you speak of.

[The Rusted One]

The Rusted One, once again I ask you where is your information? As you can see, I have come up with quite a few sources supporting my point, some of them non-Christian, and yet you have avoided all those. It seems to me that you have no information to support you arguements and therefore nothing you say is valid. Sorry, but claiming yourself that you need no outside information is a terrible excuse. So as of now, your post is a waste of space. Oh yes, and about how you're bisexual, that still makes you biased because you still are to some degree homosexual. Sorry, but by all the posts you've made, that would be like me claiming to be unbiased, and I know you'de love that.

It actually makes me, what's the word...knowledgeable. If I had made a choice to be bisexual, why would I now be telling you I didn't? What reason would I have to lie to you? I might, instead, take the position that even though it was a choice, it isn't anything to regard as a sin anyway. Now, I haven't avoided a thing you've said - I've read all that you've posted, and basically most of the links, apart from the one I actually picked out aspects of in my last post, were religiously biased, or otherwise homophobic (homophobia doesn't rely only on the belief in some religious doctrine). Feel free to feel that I have because I haven't actually said, "invalid" - but with other people here first, saying it, what need for me to say it again is there? Apparently, I see now, a great deal, though to me that seems quite a waste of time.

But let's see how invalid anything I've said is - you asked for an internet site link to an unbiased source - and I didn't provide one, because I know full-well that most things on controversial issues on the internet are, indeed, biased. Instead, I relied on myself - and like I said before, if my "story" was any different, what reason would I have to fabricate something? None - because I'd be able to argue from a different point of view (such as, why is choosing to live one way, that doesn't hurt anyone, and involves two people who have the same feelings for the other that a heterosexual couple would have, a bad thing? How is it a sin, without reference to the Bible? In fact, please do answer those for me). But then, I'm not fabricating anything - I'm using personal experience, and asking for yours in order to demonstrate a point (you still haven't enlightened me as to whether or not you ever had to make a choice about who to be attracted to. And consider the point that if you did make a choice, then you could just as easily have chosen the other option). I know I never chose to be bisexual; I know I've never chosen to be attracted to a guy. I've also never chosen to be attracted to a girl, either.

Now, think of what I've been saying - that homosexuality is not a choice. I've relied on my personal experience to tell you this (whether you believe it or not is up to you, but I could equally say that nothing of what you look like is actually up to genetics, then, it's just that as the baby is forming, it chooses to develop into a human being, and it chooses what hair colour, and eye colour, and skin colour, it will have), because I know that at least I'm not personally biased to prove a point while ignoring evidence. You give me evidence about choice, and I can say that honestly, I've never chosen - so this evidence doesn't apply to me - and nor to you, I suspect. Back to the point - homosexuality is not a choice. I've used knowledge of genetics to propose how it might be genetic, have I not? Has anyone refuted my statements about the way genes work in genomes? No. Could you research what I've said to see whether the things I'm saying about the laws of heredity are accurate? Yes. Feel free to do so, too - but again, I'll reiterate the points I've been making.

Genes code for proteins that form the greater structures of our bodies, interspersed with sugars, etc., etc. - these make us look the way we are. A single genes may be responsible for a single characteristic - but attempting to disprove that something is genetic given that one gene marker has been tested (a single one, on a single chromosome) and found to have a dubious connection at best doesn't work. For one thing, homosexuality may not be the result of a gene located only on the X chromosome - so that means that the entire genome would have to be searched in order for you to tell us, as you have before, that it isn't genetic. Another thing is, the only gene marker they've selected is not representative of the rest of the genes - i.e., you can't take one and get a negative, or iffy, result, and say that whatever was being tested for is not genetic. Not only that, but homosexuality may be caused by multiple genes - that is, a complex interaction and interworking of genes found all over the place. There's a few aspects so far not considered by you, it seems.

Now we move onto behaviour - we know from observation that behavioural characteristics are a mix of genetic makeup and social conditioning. Genetic makeup makes a chimpanzee social; social conditioning makes it adopt the culture of the group it's born into. Homosexuality is not dependent on culture, as we have seen in evidence unearthed by archaeological and anthropological studies; and no matter how looked-down-upon it is in a given culture, it still occurs, despite the lack of benefit experienced by the people directly affected by it (that is, they don't get more pleasure from being gay, or lesbian, the love they feel is the same, and any variety of variables that don't actually vary). And, we know that it occurs in animals, illustrating that it appears to be part of the innate behavioural patterns in animals. Given that, it's not at all a leap of faith to say that homosexuality is a natural part of human behavioural patterns. I also proposed that it was from a lack of hormone presence in the womb, which is not necessarily genetic but a product of the environment - but either way, homosexuality is not a choice, which is supported by most, if not all, homosexual people, and disagreed on by those who actually have no personal knowledge of the subject at all.

Also, in defense of Checkmate, different types of the same animal does not prove evolution. All this shows is adaptation. You do realize that a raptor evolving to a bird is evolution do you not? What you say is called adaptation, not evolution.

It is - it isn't the crossing of a line from one species into the next, of course, but it is evolution. Evolution is change to suit given environmental constraints exercised upon a species (and human selection of good traits is an example of this) - so any change in a species is it evolving. Evolution isn't just a raptor changing into a bird (and you'll find it was actually small dinosaurs such as Compsognathus, not a raptor, per se, that is theorised to have evolved into birds) - it's all the steps along the way. Evolution doesn't start out with a goal in mind - the natural variation within a species is such that if one environmental constraint changes, the species will cease evolving one way and start another (i.e., a small bipedal dinosaur would not evolve along a single, predetermined path, no matter what the environment) - so all steps along the way are new evolutionary ones. A chicken with four forward-pointing toes and not three is a new evolutionary step in the evolution of the chicken - and it's a freak of nature at the same time. Freaks cause change, if you will - their characteristics will be passed on, if they get to breed and produce offspring. What you ask for is missing links - and if you actually stepped back and thought about it, you'd see we have them. Any variation on a theme is a missing link - you won't find a half-fish, half-lizard if you look for a "missing link" in the evolution of reptiles from fish - you'll find fish that have multiple bones in their fins that have similar structures to vertebrate limbs - and then you might find a fish with a fully jointed limb - and then you might find an amphibian, which is actually what the "midstep" between fish and reptiles were - and you'd be able to trace along like that. Like I said, you won't find a fish-lizard; you'll find what has already been found. A species is only a species because we label it so - there is no definite break, or line, that is crossed, between parent and offspring. An individual is only of a species because we say it belongs to a species, but in reality it's part of a continuous chain of change that has at some point changed so much it can't breed with its distant ancestors. There are no gradated steps, just a continuous slope - and say you were walking down a slope like it. You could only step so far, and form a link between one foot and the next - this would be one species capable of interbreeding with an ancestor of itself. You can't, however, take a step and go from the top of the slop, ten metres away, to the bottom - and nor can a species at the "top" breed with one at the "bottom". That's what evolution is.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

Rambunctious, What Checkmate is trying to give is an example. He did not literally mean that a day to God was a thousand years, he was merely speculating since there is no time to God (because he created time), the person who wrote the Bible may have had the task of defining the ages in which God worked.

And what is time but an illusion to give us a concrete detail to which we can grasp and explain the different zones in which creatures lived and died, cherished their mates, transformed to help themselves? The people who wrote the Bible may have a hard time getting through what the time God spent on the world is, sure. But what is a day to a human? Surely this comes into conclusion in which what is a day to us is not to God but when we write it in its form now, it is a human day.

Not all Christians were opposed to Harry Potter, so it is wrong to classify the people that disproved of it as 'religions'. I personally have no problem with it and have read all five books, but I can see where the opposition is coming from as I know a person who's faith in Catholocism was swayed by being too involved in the book.

I know but it's hard for us to define 'Christian' anymore now is it? There are separate forms of the church, Baptist, Lutheran, etc. There are adaptations of one but each is varied in its own way. In this way, each branch of churches are a different part of a whole religion, making sub-religions. And since some sub-religions found that Harry Potter was 'evil,' they fought to ban it. It wasn't passed and neither should this.

Also, in defense of Checkmate, different types of the same animal does not prove evolution. All this shows is adaptation. You do realize that a raptor evolving to a bird is evolution do you not? What you say is called adaptation, not evolution.

Then which is true according to the Bible? That evolution isn't real or is it? Yes, I did confuse just a bit of that up, it is still a question that needs to be answered. Going by science, we evolved from reptiles who started to slowly change, growing hair or feathers. Hair is a modified scale. Feathers are modified scales. Some apes or monkeys have thumbs, others don't. Some mammals (platypus and echinda) lay eggs still, a bird and reptile attribute. Explaining these to be adaptations wouldn't work too well as it is more effective most of the time to give live birth as eggs cannot protect themselves, live offpring have a chance, if not a small one, to get away.
But yes, a raptor turning into a bird, most likely a bird of prey, is evolution. What the Bible speaks of is not. It is creatures dying out and other still being there in a time they weren't supposed to be there if going by science records.
Ever wonder of the maruspials of Australia? They evolved like that because they had no natural predator most of the time.
But technically, evolution is a sudden change in genes that can be for the best or worst. An insect with three wings might not last but what of the great thumb? A change in genes in the ape line allowed the thumb to be successful.

Where does the Bible say left handed people are evil? For the sake of your debate quote some of the scripture you speak of.

Christianity is strongly based towards the right hand. It is the right had that gives the blessing and make the sign of the cross.

On one count, the bible contains over 100 favourable reference to the right-hand and 25 unfavourable references to the left-hand. E.g.: The right hand of the lord doeth valiantly, the right hand of the lord is exalted (Psalm 118 vv15,16)

Ah, the right hand is valiant.

The left hand does worst in the parable of the sheep and goats. The sheep are set on Christ's right hand and the goats on the left. Those on the right inherit the kingdom of god while those on the left depart into everlasting fire.

Quite weird that those on the left hand of God shall burn forever.

And quite weird that most words for left in other languages that had the Bible as the main source of religion. 'Gauche' in French also means 'clumsy.' In Latin, the original word for left was 'sinistra,' a term for sinister.

These were found Here, Here, and Here

But let's get back to the second original topic which is if changing to heterosexuality is so important to people who are homosexuality, why don't they? Maybe, I don't know, they don't want to? They are happy the way they are, let them. This is like standardized tests. There are kids who pass them and kids who don't. Some who don't pass don't give a huge crap about the test and therefore don't pass because they don't want to do it. We can't do anything about that since it's their choice, we can't force all homosexuals to change if they don't want to. If all can change that is.

[Sorovis]

If you are 'knowledgeable' as you put it, then so am I. And I already told you myself (and with my various sources agreeing) that you may have made the decision before your memory developed. Nobody is calling you a liar, but I accuse you of not bothering to read my pages thouroughly.

If you relied on yourself for you information, then why did you demand sources from me? Are you saying that you are a more intelligent and trustworthy person than I? Not to mention you attacked my theories and ideas when I did not provide information to back them up. You'd better figure out your side fast, because you are constantly contradicting yourself.

Homosexuality could be considered a problem aside from the Bible in this way: It can spread STD's. But this obviously isn't immediate enough to illegalize it, which is why you don't see many atheists against gays. Obviously my argument comes from the Bible, and I have already 'proven' that homosexuality is neither biological or unchangeable. Therefore it is unnatural, and I have a base for my argument.

Considering you've said what I 'know' is wrong, I will do the same for you and say you made a choice as a baby or child to be bisexual. You could change if you wanted to, but you have decided you never will.

While I may not have control on who I am attracted to, my attractions are natural. A mentally ill person may not be able to control his illegal actions, but that does not allow them to be legal. Homosexuality is illegal in the Bible because it is unnatural and an abomination to what God has given us.

If homosexuality is genetic, then it should not be changeable. Yet it is. It always has been, and it always will be. You cannot simply change genetics, they are irriversable. Like you cannot change eye color or hair color. So until you explain that I still stand firm.

You're debate for evolution is strong, and it intrigues me. Could you explain to me how a small dinosaur such as the compsagnathus could eventually evolve freak feathers? And then how it could continue to evolve these feathers further when they could at that time not aid the dinosaur? And how would it go so far as to eventually produce a completely different species, with lighter bones, different skin, that is covered in feathers and flies with an expert skill? Each of the steps of changed required would leave the dinosaur at a disadvantage: the lighter bones would make it fragile, the useless feathers would slow it down, and the evolving species would not survive the change.

[Sorovis]

Rambunctious, I don't quite find the use of your argument against days to God. What would be so terrible if the writer of the Bible personally defined the ages of God's work as days? Days are a revolution of the Earth, and the writer may have defined a day as a new great change in the Earth: the appearence of creatures of the sea could be one day; while the appearence of creatures of the land could be another (I would also like to note animals appeared on the Earth as the Bible says: water, ground, then air).

Still, calling those opposed to Harry Potter a religion is generalizing and a terrible thing to do in an open debate. I was not opposed to Harry Potter but I am to this new book. Why not just say "those opposed to the book, generally Christian"? That would be true.

The point you raise on the left hand is interesting, but the reason this is in the Bible is because to the Arab world where the Bible is written, the left hand is used for cleansing while the other for shaking and other things. Jesus never said that the left hand is bad, and therefore it is not in our culture. But the arabs considered it to be, and that's who it was written by. In order to find a flaw, you must look into what Jesus said himself what was right and wrong. Homosexuality is wrong he says, but left handedness is not.

Homosexuality could be considered harmful in that it spreads disease. Sure, they don't have to have sex, but neither do heterosexuals. That will either be argued or simply allowed, and the increasing spread of these diseases will run out of control totally in time.

[Damian Silverblade]

"Homosexuality could be considered a problem aside from the Bible in this way: It can spread STD's."

So can heterosexuality ; moot point.

Now, one question for you. I want an answer on it :

According to you, homosexuality is not natural (which means it is not part of our nature ; ie what our genes tell us to do).

Is heterosexuality natural then?

[Sorovis]

Yes, heterosexuality is genetic.

[Damian Silverblade]

Thank you for making my point Sorovis.

Yes, heterosexuality is genetic.

Evidence 1.

If homosexuality is genetic, then it should not be changeable.

Evidence 2.

According to you, heterosexuality is genetic. According to you, something that is genetic cannot be changed.

Therefore, heterosexuality exists and cannot be changed in all of us.

Yet, homosexuality most definitely exists, which means that people have changed their "genetic" heterosexuality, proving that what is genetic can in fact be changed OR that heterosexuality is NOT in fact genetic, making it just as much as a choice (and therefore not natural) as heterosexuality.

So Sorovis, which is it?

Is heterosexuality just as UNnatural as homosexuality, or is it that what is genetic can in fact be changed, meaning that the ability of people to change from homosexual to heterosexual does NOT disprove the genetic idea?

Either way, you lose and have to admit to being wrong on at least one point.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

You're debate for evolution is strong, and it intrigues me. Could you explain to me how a small dinosaur such as the compsagnathus could eventually evolve freak feathers? And then how it could continue to evolve these feathers further when they could at that time not aid the dinosaur? And how would it go so far as to eventually produce a completely different species, with lighter bones, different skin, that is covered in feathers and flies with an expert skill? Each of the steps of changed required would leave the dinosaur at a disadvantage: the lighter bones would make it fragile, the useless feathers would slow it down, and the evolving species would not survive the change.

Let's go through this step by step.

First. Water was there with some land. Plants or plant-like organisms lived in the ocean. Bacteria was there, feeding off the plants and plant-like organisms.

Plants began to "figure out" that there was land and slowly started to change, a spore containing a gene that was received and made the plant better and stronger. Slowly, the plant was getting stronger and it began to "crawl" onto the land, finding a better source of light there to survive better.

The plants boomed in life and soon took over the entire land. The plants that still were in the ocean began to change as well, some forming leaf-like appendages and some growing into a larger organism. Bacteria was starting to change as well, getting used to the new environment as the planet slowly formed into a hot and tropical climate.

Not positive but either bacteria with a screwed gene or plants began to evolve to eat other plants, becoming the most basic form of an animal, the jellyfish's ancestor. This creature began to thrive as the plants were thriving as well.

Millions of years of changing jellyfish-like creatures made the next step in evolution, sea stars and nautiluses and insects, crustaceans, and other hard-shelled creatures. These creatures then formed into a new creature which became armoured fish, like Coelacanth. These creatures were the most developed then.

After a while, the new insects figured out that there was more food above the ocean surface. The creatures started to crawl out of the water for short periods of time until a gene went haywire and the insects had their spiracles. The spiracles let these insects crawl over land without having to go back into the water. The insects were then the dominant species of the land.

Fish then realized that there was food above the surface as well, including insects. Their fins morphed after the creatures were catching insects from the water into digits. These let the creatures crawl out for short periods of time as the new limbs were weak.

A change in genes created lungs for the newly formed amphibians. The creatures of course had to keep going back to water for they would dry out, unlike insects with their hard shells.

Another change in genes created the dry skin which helped the amphibians stay out of water, allowing them to catch more food and eat more. The change in genes then allowed claws to form, a better way of holding their prey.

These creatures were tiny mind you but then change started happening again. The new reptiles lived on plants and became bigger as there was nothing to stop them.

Then carnivores hit the scene. The first were omnivorous and had a great advantage as the herbivores had no real protection. There were few of these carnivores and when herbivores grew bigger, carnivores had to grow bigger to take down their prey. Raptors were different as they kept the "herd" knowledge and used it to their advantage.

After a while, the sea became inviting once again as there were no predators in the sea. Some reptiles evolved once again to swimming into the oceans and another screwed gene and flippers appeared, providing better water travel.

Pteradons were another story. The air was free to whoever claimed it. The creatures took on the webbed skin after years of jumping and catching flying prey. Pteradons didn't actually fly, they glided which would make them different then the birds.

Now then, as the climate began to change as another scientist theory came about. Pangaea, the super continent in which all the land masses were all together, were splitting apart. The lands drifted to colder climates, making the creatures struggle for a way to be warm.

A gene change here and the Caudipteryx became known. The feathers on this bird were most likely colourful and parts of scales. This feathered dino ate insects which dominated the air. Years of jumping after these prey made it grow wings in which it could glide after its prey and catch it in the air. The bones became light because the creature weighed too much to actually glide.

Mammals formed from reptiles, another change in genes in the smaller variety of creatures. Fur sprouted and the brain became more developed. Being smaller meant that the larger predators couldn't hunt them very well. These tiny rodents wern't able to do anything for quite a while but evolve, mature, and stand back.

Then several theories are evident. A meteor struck the Earth which such impact that it caused the sky to cloud over with dust, effectively killing most plants. Large herbivores began to die out as the plants died and carnivores began to die of starvation. Soon, the only creatures that remained were the feathered dinos, the tiny lizards, snakes, and insects, and the tiny mammals.

The other was that the cold climate killed them off with an Ice Age. By then, mammals had grown to be warm blooded along with the new feathered dinos as this conserved energy and made it possible to hunt for long periods of time without stopping.

The next was that a weird occurence happened, causing volcanoes to explode ad earthquakes to happen. The newly birds survived along with the tiny mammals who were fast and used less energy to get away. Smaller lizards and snakes followed and since dinos were not accustomed to a huge amount of heat at one time, died of overheating and stroke.

With the large dinos gone, the mammals and birds began to take over. Tiny primates found their way into society, becoming bats while they were at it. Rodents evolved into weird creatures...like the carnivore goat.

Humans suddenly popped in after a change in genes in the primate line. These humans were hairy but lived in groups. They found that living together benfited them, like a pack of Saber-Toothed Cats.

The humans began to evolve, some reverting into chimpanzee ancestors and others becoming less hairy as the time changed. Tools were invented to help the humans, sharpened sticks and pestle and mortars.

The new humans spread out, taking different paths. Some crossed the bridge to America by the Bering Strait while others hung back.

The Ice Age hit and mammals began to struggle. Migrations to the Central and Equator started. Birds controlled the sky while huge armadillos bashed clubbed tails. A creature by the name of Megatherium lived, weighing as much as a full grown elephant. It was a powerful creature that lived off of plants and one that took several Saber-Toothed Cats to take down.

And then, as slowly as it began, the creatures began to die again. A change in climate most likely but then evolution took place again. Cats became the leopard, jagura, and tiger, the wolves that man claimed as their own turned into dogs. Primates became what they are today.

The hoatzin is a nice way to show evolution. A native of South America, this bird has a claw on the wrist of its wing, where feathered dinos had their claws. The babies retain these until fully grown or keep them all together. Other birds have a useless digit instead of the claw.

Whales are another example. These creatures have pelvic bones but no back legs. That is because the creatures before tham lived on land and returned to the ocean for the same reason dinos did. These pelvic bones became smaller and smaller along with the back legs until the back legs were useless and disappeared. The pelvic bone remains thoughs.

A better way to see this is Discovery's Walking with Prehistoric Beasts or Walking with Dinosaurs on during the late night or gaze at the book which is now in bookstores.

[Sorovis]

Would you consider homosexuality as permanent? A person begins as heterosexual. At some point an experience changes them to homosexuality. And yet they can change back to heterosexuality as is proven. So homosexuality could be considered a mask, and beneath every homosexual is still heterosexual urges. With the will of our mind, a person's attractions may be forced to something unnatural; but beneath, percievable to some (bisexuals) but not to others (homosexuals), there is still heterosexuality in them. It could be like dying your hair, it can wear away, but if the homosexual refuses the change, they will remain; like re-dying your hair.

[Damian Silverblade]

So it's possible for "genetically hetero" people to become homosexual, but not the reverse?

That's imbecilistic. If the genes can be changed one way by experience (ie, from hetero to homo), then there is NO - ABSOLUTELY no - basis to the statement that the other way is not possible.

Either genes can be changed (from choice, experience or whatever), or they can't. There's no one-way change to it, it's either they can, or they can't.

If they can be changed then your whole construct that homosexuality cannot be genetic because people can change is false.

If they cannot be changed, then heterosexuality is no more genetic or natural than homosexuality.

You've lost, and trying to avoid what I raised by repeating your earlier statements won't help it. Your post just above this one failed to adress what I stated earlier, so I'm stating it again, in clearer terms here.

[Sorovis]

I assume by this, Rambunctious, that you are trying to prove evolution. While what you said is intelligent and well researched (I've heard it before), it is nonetheless a waste of time for you. Saying insects spiracles went 'haywire' and allowed them onto land is too farfetched. How many of these insects would have gone 'haywire' in order for them to successfully reproduce and create a new species? While I have said I believe in adaptation; fur color changing to adapt to an environment, a complete change in a species, scales to feathers, is too unbelievable. Mammoths have gone into present day elephants; sabertooths to tigers, but neither of these have changed their species. Neither went from warm to cold blooded, neither evolved feathers, and neither fly. The only true changes are those of tooth length, tusk length, and the length and thickness of fur, along with other minor changes. This disproves what you (or others) may say that they evolved. They did not, they merely adapted. Show me they came from a different species (an article, please), and I will consider.

[Damian Silverblade]

Show me a non-religious, modern article stating that Earth was created by a divine being with all species already there with only the capacity to adapt then.

Again, you are the one challenging the commonly accepted claim ; the burden of the proof rest on you.

[Sorovis]

Damian, telling me I've lost neither intimidates nor disheartens me. If you listened to what I said, it was that even a homosexual was still heterosexual deep down. So no, I did not say homosexuality was a change from heterosexuality, but a mask. The mind is a powerful thing, and it can almost, but not quite, change genetics. No genetics do not change by the mind. No I have not lost.

[Damian Silverblade]

Ah, so you claim an homosexual is still an heterosexual deep down.

Prove it.

Otherwise this is a MEANGINLESS theory of yours which has NO scientifical valididy (no study to back it, no proof, no witness, etc), NO proof, NO support and therefore NO relevance in a debate. It also does nothing to account for homosexual animals - are they still heterosexuals deep down ignoring themselves and chosing homosexuality? HOW would they do so, given that animals live only by instincts, ie genetic and very simple association of ideas?)

I could just as easily say that "all heterosexual are homosexuals who ignore themselves because of society's needs and pressure". That would not make it so, nor would it be a valid argument in a debate.

Bring forth valid proof of your above claim - that homosexuals are heterosexuals deep down (and no, the fact that they can "change back" is no proof).

You are building bridges out of thin air and offering reasonings (although I hesitate to associate your claims with reason) which have not a ounce of proof behind them, and therefore no place whatsoever in debating.

[Sorovis]

I am going to oppose what you have said, Damian, with the burden resting on me. Back to the roots of this debate, I said I was here to defend the anti-homosexuality Christian view. This debate will not end if I bring you evidence, as you have seen. Because I have brought it, and still this debate lives; mutated to a different topic, but lives nonetheless. If you want me to continue bringing evidence to this board, you must first convince the Rusted One and others that homosexuality is not genetic and is able to be changed, or convince them to at least match my evidence instead of making excuses such as 'they need no outside source'. So you see, I have fallen into believing I can change anothers mind, and now I understand this debate will last until it is closed. Bringing evidence of what you say will result in a second challenge or a refinement of the first. At first, I had to prove there was evidence supporting non-genetic homosexuality; then it had to be unbiased; then the other side needed no evidence. It is an endless battle, and I cannot waste time here as I have many to debate with. It is not because of no support I will not bring evidence, but because it would in the end be obsolete.

[Sorovis]

I add this in an second post to draw more attention.

Damian, I would also like to note that you think I am challenging the common view of the board. If you will once again return to the roots of the thread, I did not challenge anything. I was the one who was challenged.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

I assume by this, Rambunctious, that you are trying to prove evolution. While what you said is intelligent and well researched (I've heard it before), it is nonetheless a waste of time for you. Saying insects spiracles went 'haywire' and allowed them onto land is too farfetched.

Technically, Iwas trying to not repeat the word 'evolved' or 'changed.' Back then, it was a weird thing so it went haywire. And insects didn't have spiracles then, they had gills.

How many of these insects would have gone 'haywire' in order for them to successfully reproduce and create a new species?

One. For while the others were still struggling with the new found land, this one was beyond that. The strongest survive and the strongest get the mates. Basic animal instinct.

While I have said I believe in adaptation; fur color changing to adapt to an environment, a complete change in a species, scales to feathers, is too unbelievable.

So is the fact that one God created the masses of organism life we see today. And compare the genetic make-up of hair to feathers and both to scales. They are almost alike.

Mammoths have gone into present day elephants; sabertooths to tigers, but neither of these have changed their species.

Yes they did. Mammoths and elephants are different species of the same Family if you want to do this scientifically. Why are Asian Elephants and African Elephants different species? Because they are different in more ways than one. Africans are wild, Asians can be tamed.

Tigers and caracals are two different species in the same Family of Felidae. Both are different, one can roar the other can't. A small bone or tendon changes the difference in these two. Cheetahs are an entirely different species yet they are cats. They have their own Genus now because of the differences in the claws and other attributes.

Neither went from warm to cold blooded, neither evolved feathers, and neither fly. The only true changes are those of tooth length, tusk length, and the length and thickness of fur, along with other minor changes. This disproves what you (or others) may say that they evolved. They did not, they merely adapted. Show me they came from a different species (an article, please), and I will consider.

They did. It's a simple fact in life. Since we learned how to cook, our stomachs devolved to digesting raw meat. We cannot eat it without getting sick. Some carnivores changed into herbivores, some herbivores changed into carnivores.

And no, all evolution is not good. About 98% of all evolutions are useless or harm the animal. The other two percent do good for the creature.

A good link in which I must say that Caudipteryx's feathers were not used for flight or gliding but most possibly were after a while is this. A link for whale evoltuion is this. And here's another feathered dino.

There is also a way scientists classify dinosaurs. Some have the reptile or lizard hips and others have bird hips. All bird hipped dinos were plant eaters. Carnivores were mostly in a group with the reptile hipped dinos along with some plant eaters. The raptor was involved in another group of dinos, the dromaeosaurs. These besides the dromaeosaurs were found Here.

To go along with your post, I know people asked for unbiased reports. I have commented on that was impossible unless a computer wrote it out without human interaction. Though I would like to ask what other side you mean here.

[Sorovis]

But in order for this one to get a mate, their had to be two. If this insect had spiracles instead of gills, it would not have been able to return to the water.

Scales and feathers may look similar, but their is still quite a long way to go before you get feathers out of that; especially feathers that provide flight.

Thank you for correcting me on my misuse of species. By how you continued, I assume you knew I ment family.

Your information on this is very good, but I still have some doubts to it. The feathers on the dinosaurs tail must have changed very slowly, yes? But how would the tiny nubs of feathers which appeared on the creature's tail aid the creature upon their first appearence? While I will understand and to some degree go along with that the fully tail-feathered creatures could have used them for balance and mating purposes, I still do not find how just the beginnings of feathers could aid the dinosaur.

About unbiased reports, I believe it was your post that actually opened my eyes, and I thank you for that. What do you mean by 'the other side' comment? I haven't found it, but I may have just overlooked it.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

But in order for this one to get a mate, their had to be two. If this insect had spiracles instead of gills, it would not have been able to return to the water.

The insects could still return to water, just not as long. And the dominant gene beats out the recssive gene. One reason why in most families with light coloured hair and dark coloured, the offsrping will have a more chance of having dark coloured hair than light coloured. Since spiracles are more dominant than gills in this case, the spiracles were reproduced. Though the spiracles became what they are today after thousand of years of changing, just like our thumbs.

Scales and feathers may look similar, but their is still quite a long way to go before you get feathers out of that; especially feathers that provide flight.

Yes, but most feathers have been proven to be light besides the ground birds like ostriches which have no use of flight feathers. Feathers are a source of insulation, just like fur. And flight feathers found on the wings of birds are just feathers that are longer and designed more to create uplift. These feathers are not found on ground birds since there is no use for them, like the feathered dinos.

Thank you for correcting me on my misuse of species. By how you continued, I assume you knew I ment family.

Partially. Species and families are different when used as classification.

Your information on this is very good, but I still have some doubts to it. The feathers on the dinosaurs tail must have changed very slowly, yes?

Yes. By the timeline I created, that whole thing was over 300 million years of evolution. By the time I reached the feathered dino, that was nearing the 65 million mark.

But how would the tiny nubs of feathers which appeared on the creature's tail aid the creature upon their first appearence?

Mating purposes. Best colours got the best mates while the dull ones died without a mate. This created a large group of colour dinos in which the more impressive the feathers, the more the creature mated with females. A bird attribute with many of the tropical species (Birds of Paradise, lyrebirds, etc.)

While I will understand and to some degree go along with that the fully tail-feathered creatures could have used them for balance and mating purposes, I still do not find how just the beginnings of feathers could aid the dinosaur.

Answered above to my knowledge of evolution. Insulation to the slowly chilling climate, mating purposes, blending in a tropical rainforest.

About unbiased reports, I believe it was your post that actually opened my eyes, and I thank you for that. What do you mean by 'the other side' comment? I haven't found it, but I may have just overlooked it.

You're welcome. English actually did something for me for once. And I'll await your comment on the other side hopefully soon.

[Sorovis]

Congratulations, you have out-debated me on Evolution, as I have no further evidence to support my beliefs against it. Unless I find something to combat what you have shown me (which is unlikely), I will leave you with the victory unless Checkmate or another challenges you. Further posting by me may result in careless mistakes, and being one of the two defenders of the Christians against homosexuality, I cannot afford careless mistakes.

Ah, I have found what you mean. There by saying the 'other side', I was referring to any opposed to my view on homosexuality.

This will be my last post for the night, as I said above I cannot afford mistakes and sleep is taking hold.

[shazza]

Oh, lay back Shaz. At least there's a lively discussion here, as opposed to total lack of activity.

But this discussion is boring and not fun. Whatever.

[pokemaniacbill]

Then it is quite evident that if, as you say, God would not allow his word to be corrupted, the Ten Commandments incident with the Golden Calf would not have happened.

It is also quite evident that the Bible is, in fact, NOT inspired by God, because the book is NOT perfect: Why would he want that pesky free will getting in the way of his words?

I'm dissapointed that you essentially copped out from the smallest of points that's hammered into you from the Bible itself more then I can imagine 'Humans are fallable, and you will screw up.'

[Checkmate]

I congratulate Sorovis on his (in my opinion) excellent debating against (in my opinion) the most intimidating poster on this forum, the Rusted One. Not to offend you Jamirus. You have also proven a great intellect.

I could suggest that evolution was how God created the world, but that would be mostly contradicted by the scriptures that say he created animals of the air and sea and then the land animals. So I won't make that point, but I'd definetly be interested if someone found about a flying fish. Or a swimming bird like the penguin.

I along with Sorovis admit defeat on the evolutionary front. I quoted a scripture on page 9 or 10 from Job which you have just proven. I didn't create the universe, and I don't know why that sane possibility exists. If God shows me his home videos on how he created the universe sometime in the near future I'll debate you again. But since you doubt that possibility even more than I do.

I admit checkmate on the evolutionary front. However I will stubbornly protest that you won by your superior knowledge of the theory and not the justice of your cause. Yes, it's stubborn, but I still have too much personal proof of God and Jesus to dismiss the possibilities on mere (though admittedly well thought out) theories. You have to admit my stubborn concession is more than most will offer when defeated.

I don't quite consider this stuff as a biblical flaw, though it was also not by any means a ridiculous answer to my challenge. No history has recorded evolution and in my opinion it doesn't quite hold the ground, Damian's seem to. I'm still working on Damian's alleged biblical flaws.

But in the mean time, here's something for you to chew D. Saying heterosexuality is genetic, is like saying it's genetic to be born with skin covering all of your body (except of course the basic pores, mouth, nose, etc.) To my knowledge, there is no disease that makes holes in your skin at birth. (not to say there isn't) If I cut a person with a knife, the skin is torn, however it can be healed over time. That's a rough analogy of a person considering homosexuality. Easily healed. It's true the skin can be scarred by large wounds. That would be the act of being a homosexual. The scar will never go away. If a homosexual becomes once again a heterosexual, the fact that they were homosexual isn't completely discarded. It's still a part of their history, and they will most likely fight temptations against it for the rest of their lives.

If heterosexuality is considered genetic, I call it genetic in that manner. That's all I've got to say. I prefer to fight on the Bible front, but I currently can't. Also, I thought I'd just help out my valiantly fighting partner by at the very least throwing him a weapon.

[Checkmate]

Pokemaniac Bill, as I recall from last hearing the story Moses went back up and got the ten commandments back. If that story proves anything, it proves that indeed God doesn't let his word be corrupted by human error. Thank you for teaching me the equivalent I might learn from a Bible Study.

Unless you're using Damian as your weapon, you haven't proven that the Bible is fallable. I have not copped out. I've only said what you accidentally proved. God is omnipotent and is well capable of overcoming human error and having a human do perfect work. Actually it proves how powerful he is which could be the reason he didn't write it perfectly.

Also a little side bar. If left hands were unholy why would God have one in the first place? Just a thought

[Damian Silverblade]

Actually that's the whole thing on the "fragile skin" theory (or the masks). I understand your reasoning perfectly, but the thing is - it's just a guess. There's no proof whatsoever that nobody is born homosexual - that's just something the two of you came up with.

Besides which, you both admitted that it was possible to "force" oneself to be interested in the other gender (ie, from whatever our genetic makeup make us interested in normally).

At which point I rest my case - I made my point already. The whole "It's possible to go from homosexual to hetero ; therefore it can't have a genetic cause because if it was genetic it wouldn't change." argument does not hold water at this point. We all admit it is possible to force oneself (or to be made by events) to be interested in the side we're not genetically programed to be interested in.

That particular debate I started about a page ago was never meant to prove homosexuality is genetic or heterosexuality is not ; that's something I don't want to get in. It was meant to disprove the argument "Homosexuality CANNOT be genetic because it's possible to change from it."

Seeing as we all claimed that it was possible to change (although Sorovis claimed it was a "fake" change - that's irrelevant, since it's just as possible for the people who make themselves hetero after being homo to be "masking" their homosexuality with heterosexuality) from our genetic background, the point is made.