actually, if you were at my link, i wan't that worried about the dinosaur part. the rest was the best
Homosexual Books for First Graders
actually, if you were at my link, i wan't that worried about the dinosaur part. the rest was the best
Homosexual Books for First Graders
One quick note, Rambunctious. I've stayed out of this evolution-genesis debate and will continue to do so, because I personally don't have a whole lot of knowledge on the subject. Yeah5 and Sororvis are much more suited to that subject. In fact, I skip over your posts, not by any means because they're ridiculous. They're highly intelligent. Anyway I'm rambling.
Basically you saying the snake with legs not being found thing does not go against Genesis. For one thing, I think that very snake lost it's legs. And even if it didn't that would have just been one snake. (it was referred to as 'the' serpent) The likelihood of finding one specific skeleton is almost incomprehensibly low.
Also, by the way if you ever should want to say something to me, you might want to post it in a short different post to get my attention.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
I just love the last part against evolutionists. 'God created the Earth so you evolutionists are obselete or you're calling God a liar.'
There are other things to consider. The Nile River most possibly wasn't around for several million years. Just because the sediment is different, doesn't count into accord that the Nile River isn't very recent. For example, Pangaea changed the world completely. To say this is a lie is dismissing all facts we have on this. The Mesosaur is one, the same creature being found on both South America and Africa, the Himalayas, the fact that Southern California is moving towards Alaska, and that Africa is splitting because of a rift valley. The problem with this? Most of these were formed before the 30,000 year ago period that the Bible suggests. So what does this say...?
Also, the part about Earth being deformed. Earth is deformed, it's a squashed sphere (forgot the sciency term). This is because of gravity's effect on the world.
Problem with the writing records is that humans used pictographs and some have not been found yet.
The shrinking rate may also not have anything to do with it. The shrinking rate could be rising over the years as the sun gets older, could have just started. Who knows?
And the PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA thing, it's been proven that they evolved at a slow rate. There wasn't this massive change like they say, it was one feature at a time change. And like I said before, 98% of the genetic mutations are harmful or render the animal and thusly they die. 1% does nothing and the other 1% helps this animal.
The fossilization thing is that I love this line 'All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.' What is technically a right condition?
Pretty much the vestigal organ thing is saying that those with an appendix live longer because they are better to fight diseases. Question is on where they got that from.
How do they get the magnetic field item? And they also contradicted themselves, saying the Nile was made 30,000 years ago but earth would have dissolved 20,000 years ago because of the magnetic field...
So, yeah, some flaws there. Also, this thing seems quite old as it is not done in real research format.
Checkmate, I'm not going to double post just to get your attention. You can reply whenever you want to my posts but I'm not going to direct one post just for you while doing Sorovis and yeah5's in another one.
And if you say that the Chinese Dragon had no legs as what I got from you then please explain how it flew. The Chinese Dragon was regarded to be immortal and the sign of luck depending on how it appeared. So, if it was immortal then there wouldn't be a skeleton but if it was a snake, we would've most possibly picked up at least part of a bone uncovered by the earth. Then again, there are earthquakes in China yet we've found several feathered dino bones there, older than the supposed time of the Earth's beginning according to the site yeah5 gave me.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Please; the typical sign of someone who isn't doing as well as they thought - the accusation that the opponent has no leg to stand on, and really should give up now. That would make it easier for you, I know that - only thing is, I haven't lost. I haven't struggled to argue against you at any point; you've struggled, as appears obvious in your statement that "I've lost" - particularly evidenced in the fact that in these debates nobody loses. I've not once said you've lost. Funny that you feel the need to resort to saying it of me.Originally Posted by Sorovis
Oh, and by the way, if you decide not to deal with any of my points, then it's your problem; not mine. By not replying, you're only making it seem like you have nothing to say - but not because you choose not to, but because you can't. It's your choice. Either reply or don't. Either way, the worst that's going to happen is that you'll seem like you've given up - and that reflects badly on you, not me.
You've obviously not been listening to what I've said in my "uselessly long post" (which I'm actually tempted to state you say because you find long posts intimidating and don't like them, rather than because there's no point. You refuse to make long posts, too - so my point is further evidenced. Oh, and just a fair warning, anymore double posts, and you will be reported in the relevant place and action will be taken against you [and this applies to your attitude that you're somehow above the forum rules, too]).Have you bothered to even listen to my points before replying with your uselessly long post? homosexuality is in animals. So is caniballism. Guess what? Some human cultures practice cannibalism. Does that make it right? Does that make it genetic? Anything animals do helps them in their survival, we do not need to use them as an example for what is right because we live completely differently. What animals do DOES NOT APPLY to people, I don't know how to say it so you understand.
Homosexuality is in animals. You tried to argue that it wasn't, and tried to tell us it wasn't natural. Obviously, given that it appears in animals, it is. Sure, some animals eat members of their own species. Some peoples do too. Just because we don't because we don't like it doesn't mean it's not natural for those that do. It doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, either - because obviously, our morals are not absolute. Our morals, however, are built upon the premise that it's okay as long as you don't hurt anyone else, or harm them against their will - at which point, cannibalism does become less acceptable. But how does homosexuality hurt someone? Does it hurt you, someone totally unrelated to the situation? No. Does it hurt either of the willing partners in a given relationship? No. Does it hurt anyone they know? No; none of these things have any more positive an answer than the same questions of heterosexuality. You fail to make any point that I cannot refute - but then, that's been your problem all along, and that is only reinforced with your opening statements.
Nobody, and I've said this before, is using animals as an example of how we should live - they are using them as examples of how your claims that homosexuality is not natural are false and flawed - and I note that you have now changed this, because you can't argue that animals don't exhibit homosexuality. Your entire argument, really, is as flawed as this.
So, you really haven't been listening. Interesting that you assert I haven't and turn around and prove the statement is true of only yourself. Had you listened, you would have found that I gave my own case as an example - that being, had I not become attracted to a specific guy, I wouldn't have known that I was bisexual. Just because before I had no solid proof doesn't mean that I wasn't bisexual - because obviously I was. The same applies to these people - they can be bisexual, but think they're straight, as long as they don't become sexually attracted to someone of their own gender; at that point, it is made clear to them that they aren't straight, but are bisexual. It's not a difficult thing to understand, although obviously again I've overestimated your capabilities.Hey guess what? There are some homosexuals who have become heterosexual. You try and tell them that it's genetic and they can't do that.
Now, at what point did I say a gay man couldn't, wasn't allowed, to become attracted to a woman? I didn't. You're pathetically twisting my words as if doing so gives your own more meaning - and it doesn't. So far, you're failing to provide any argument against me.
No, you actually really are desperate. Your own argument betrays this, and your claims that you aren't despite the fact I can see you are only make it worse for you.Actually I'm not desperate. Homosexuality IS harmful to other people. In order to have sex, they must use unnatural ways, and these ways harm people. If you even try to tell me that this is okay because both people agree, then I'll tell you it's okay to kill my neighbor because he wants to die anyways. What evidence do you want heterosexuality is genetic? Men and women go together. They can reproduce. It is ment to create offspring. Of course, this is all some huge coincidence, right? YOU my friend have a blatant lack of evidence.
Your example is fallacious - if someone is willing to do something, then it is not against their will. If you get into a car, you are at serious risk of being harmed - is it then a sin for the driver to drive the car, knowing that although you're there through your own permission, you may be hurt? No. Is it immoral? No. What's your point? It doesn't exist, and you have none. How strange. If you want to kill your neighbour, you can't argue it's okay because he wants to die - because unless you assist him in suicide, it's still murder. Butchering him or her with a knife is not assisted murder - it's psychopathic derangement that you've exercised on someone, that brings about what they wanted - but the end doesn't justify the means. Assisted suicide, where someone is involved in helping someone die (which is not the same as taking their life, as it would be if you killed a neighbour the way you imply), should be legal, because people should be able to do what they wish with their lives. I don't care about whether you think suicide is immoral because "god" said so - because basically, all you're saying is that once you're born, even if you want to die, you're trapped in this life, no matter how hellish. It's warped.
Your claims of evidence that heterosexuality is genetic is flawed, too. Why? Because you're trying to equate a relationship with reproduction, and that doesn't always work. Most relationships, in fact, don't involve reproduction at all - a man and a woman don't form a relationship because they want children; they do so because of the way they make each other feel, and the way the other makes them feel. Heterosexuality is not only heterosexual sex. Homosexuality is not only homosexual sex. Sex, in fact, is only a secondary part of most relationships - so just because you're a man, it doesn't mean you're predestined to have kids with a woman. Who you have relationships with isn't directly linked to what gender you are - of course, most men and women are straight, or appear so - that's genetic. Some are gay - that too is genetic. Just because a man is in love with a man doesn't mean it's not genetic - because the body is only a physical form. I don't mean anything of the "soul" kind of thinking, but that's the point - a person is either male or female, physically. That doesn't dictate who you love, how you love, for how long you love, or anything - because you could also be born with a lame leg, and that doesn't affect your ability to do anything apart from walk, which is also physical. But love is not a physical thing, as thoughts aren't, either. It isn't constant, and it isn't dictated absolutely by the outer gender - and nor are people themselves. Some men feel as if they're women in men's bodies - so they get sex changes. They don't choose it - and while they're physically male, they're mentally female. They love whom they love, men or women. It doesn't matter. Physical gender is not the decider when it comes to love.
When you claim that I have no evidence, you commit yourself to appearing hypocritical. You've already done this before, of course - but now you have no saving grace. You're a hypocrite. You're yet to give me any proof that heterosexuality is genetic and homosexuality not. Gender is genetically predetermined - but it doesn't necessarily dictate sexuality. Some men are asexual. Some women are, too. Are they commiting a sin by not loving anyone? Are they choosing not to love, or are they just not capable? They say they're not capable. That's not a choice. They're a certain gender, and yet don't love anyone of the same or opposite genders. According to your logic, they must be choosing. They must be sinners. They must be immoral. But they're not. Your argument is fundamentally flawed, but that's not the only fundamental thing about your argument, is it?
Please; you think the sign of intelligence is war? You must see George W. Bush as the pinnacle of human brain power then - a sad, sad prospect if true. And again, when are we saying, "hey look, animals do it! Let's do it too!"? We're not. We're saying, "look, animals do things - therefore, if humans do them too, then it's not unnatural". The two are not the same statement. The fact that you continually ignore this does nothing to help your "argument".War is just a modified and intellectual version of fighting. If animals were that intelligent, they would have war. See, thing is, they're NOT. I know Rambunctious or Scythemantis will bring up ants have war (and they actually present evidence for their cases). Ants do not have war, their battles over food have no strategic elements to them, it is simply gang fighting for food. Humans are too different to use animals as an example of what and what not to do.
You have...no time to learn how to quote? Well, I'll teach you. See at the bottom right of every single post in every single thread, there's a little button, saying, "quote". Click it in the relevant message, and it will bring up a reply screen with someone's entire post all ready for you to comment on. Astounding as that must seem, it's actually not difficult. Now, why should I have to reread my own posts to see what you're saying, when I do you to courtesy of providing the relevant paragraphs of your own post so you don't have to do the same thing? It's called being polite - was it too much for me to expect that of you, too? Perhaps so. In fact, it appears highly likely.You know what may help you? Actually rereading your posts to see what I'm saying. I'm in the middle of a debate now and I have no time to learn how, or havn't you noticed you aren't the only one here with me?
No, that's not strictly true - nobody has to stop being attracted to anyone of any gender - they just have to be attracted to a specific member (or members, if it is a continual thing) of the opposite gender at any given time. You can be in a homosexual relationship and not be gay; you may be bisexual. You can be in a heterosexual relationship and not be straight; the same applies. All it takes is that you find someone that you are attracted to, and have feelings for. A gay man might never be attracted to a woman - so what? A straight woman might never, too. But a straight woman might find herself attracted to a woman - that doesn't make her "gay". It makes her bisexual, given her previous attraction to men. And just because she's begun experiencing attraction to a woman, that doesn't mean she's now incapable of having the same experience for men. A man who was straight but is no gay can never say, "I'm just not attracted to women anymore, that was part of my past, fullstop" - because he doesn't know that this is going to be true in the future. He can say it for the present, but given his previous attractions, he may be experiencing something that doesn't last forever. It may do. He can't be sure. I can't be sure that I'll always be attracted to both men and women - but I know for now I am. I also know that in the past, I never chose to be. I know these things. I can't, however, predict the future.In order for heterosexuals becoming homosexuals to happen, they have to first stop being attracted to the opposite sex. If they were born like that, why would that have happened? Wouldn't they have been homosexual from the start?
Of course you have to explain - I can tell you that your mother is an elephant; but for my opinion to be taken seriously (or for people to consider it, at least), then I have to explain it. People can respect that another person has an opinion. They needn't respect the opinion itself - and that's what has happened here. You voiced your opinion - people respected that you had one. They did not respect the opinion itself, and asked you to justify it. You have so far failed to do so. You're still here because you have some need to attempt to justify it; not because we're making you reply. If I agitate you so much, leave. You're free to do so. It won't necessarily mean you lost - it just meant that you felt it a better way of expending energy not to reply than to keep this up. I'm not agitated, though, so I won't be leaving; and that's my choice. Not yours. You're not forcing me to reply - and I'm not trying to blame you for the argument, nor for my continued presence. You, on the other hand, are having a hard time not placing the blame.Yah, I said I thought homosexuality was wrong and that the children shouldn't be given the books. I didn't realise I had to explain why it was wrong as well. After all, I had hoped people would respect my opinion. Of course the few that didn't have brought this debate to what it is. Do you honestly expect me to believe by justifying my point at the start I would have been left alone? I've already justified it, and I'm still here because you won't except my justifying it. Instead of accepting this as what I believe, you seem to think you must cleanse my mind of such filth and show me I am wrong. Instead you have done nothing but agitate me.
Again, you fail to make a point because you have none. If you wish to demonstrate that you think I have no point, then do so with reference - otherwise it's just a hollow claim by someone who seems not to be daring enough to actually supply the evidence for his claims that his opponent's statements are irrelevant.Irrelivant. Go back and read what you said.
It isn't the same thing. You seem to have trouble understanding that I don't claim to see into Checkmate's mind; I'm not trying to tell him that he didn't see or feel something, as you're trying to tell me about myself. I'm saying that the way he interpreted it may be faulty, because he is interpreting something totally and utterly disconnected from himself - and all he can do is look at it through limited vision. He can't see beyond what is physically there. However, the fact that he saw something in his mind is not something that he has had to interpret - because he did see something, according to him - and nobody can contest that. They can't tell if he saw something, or felt something - because they don't experience in their minds what he does. What he feels is totally within himself, and he can't be told he didn't feel something. What made him feel it, though, if it comes from without himself - like a painting, or someone's voice, is not under his control, is not part of him, and so he can't say that that is a part of him and that only he will know it.Actually it is the same thing. Do you even remember what you are arguing about? Checkmate said he had a certain feeling, and you tried to justify that.
If you do not understand, then that is your problem. Checkmate himself appears to understand, however - so it seems the fault lies with you, not I.
Please. Again, you attempt to twist my words - did I claim I could tell you how my mind works in fine detail? No. Did I, instead, claim that I know my own thoughts, and feelings, and everything else? Yes. The way my mind works is not who I am, necessarily; my brain is my mind, and it works through complex interactions of neural activity; but that isn't me. I don't sense those synaptic firings; I think. I know. I feel. Sure, I'm a product of those neural workings - but I'm not only those, and they are not only me. I know what I feel. I know what I know of myself, about myself, for myself. I know what I think. You do not know any of these things of me, and yet you profess to be able to tell me you do. You do not. I cannot do the same for you, either - but I'm not trying to tell you I do.Tell me, can you give me a detailed description of your mind and exactly how it works to the finest point?
Again, an irrelevant statement because you didn't quote. Weak argument, if any at all.Not what I meant to say. I meant what Checkmate felt.
Well, see, actually what I'm going to do is give you an official warning, as Chris has done - any more instances, and you may just risk being banned. The same goes for yeah5; Checkmate, on the other hand, appears to have stopped posting consecutively - so he receives no warning.Then feel free to do so. It does not affect me; it simply makes it more difficult for Rambunctious or Scythemantis or Damian to know I am addressing them.
Then you prove yourself the weakest person here. "Oh, I can't refute him, because he stands by what he says and argues! I must ignore him, then!" This is no way to argue - it's a fine way to lose, though. I know I said you haven't lost so far, and that you might never, given that nobody truly wins - but the fact is, you have not just stopped replying - you've decided to ignore. You prove yourself weak, and unable to argue, by doing so. You prove yourself to have lost. I don't admit I'm beaten when I'm not beaten; and you telling me I have is only further proof that you know nothing of debates. You cannot just look at someone and say, "I win, you lose", because it's a fallacious claim to make. Like I said, ignore me if that's the only way you can feel like you're not failing; but by ignoring me you are only showing yourself to be doing exactly that.I simply can't sit here and defend Checkmate now. But I will say this. Unless you say something of importance and basis from now on, I am simply going to ignore your posts. Debating with you is pointless, as you simply won't admit you are beaten. Either Checkmate or yeah5 can deal with them. This will also give me more time to reply to deserving posts.
Oh, and Sorovis, make no mistake - I don't listen to members who tell me what to do. Mods don't. Members listen to mods, if the mods have something to say - but mods do not do what members tell them to do. That being so, I'm now reporting your "instructive" post to the relevant place, and what happens to you after that is up to the whims of those who decide.
But that's far more proof that it is than I've received that it isn't. What proof do you have aside from biased sites that start off by saying homosexuality is wrong before trying to reach that conclusion? It's like me saying, "I think water tastes like lemon", and then conducting research - but only of the sort that gives me the desired result, and discounting all other evidence that suggests otherwise. The fact that I've been able to provide evidence of homosexual animals, and state that I never chose to be bisexual, is more in the way of evidence than has been given from the opposition (and I note that Sorovis has now changed his claims that homosexuality is not natural at all, to, "fine, animals exhibit homosexuality" - so the point is, given the lack of proof on your side, and the seeming lack of proof on mine, neither can claim the other is wrong aside from me in the fact that I can claim to know that I never chose to be bisexual. You can make similar claims about heterosexuality, and yet, you have no more evidence than I have about myself. Odd that evidence is only needed in one case and not the other - and even odder is that I know for a fact something, while you can't claim to have the same knowledge unless you, too, are bisexual or homosexual).
Ah, but saying, "I can do whatever I want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone," is different from stating, "I can do whatever I want, as long as it doesn't harm anyone against their will, and as long as I have permission from those who will be affected." You can't be sure that an action doesnt' harm another person, no - so can I tell you that heterosexuality is a sin and immoral because it might hurt people, as has been told to me of homosexuality?You say that murder should not be equated with homosexuality because murder hurts people and homosexuality doesn't. That seems to hold with, what I'm told, is the main philosophy of the religion, Wicca. "If it harm none, do as you please." The thing is that since you are human and have a finite brain, you cannot dictate with 100% certainty what does and does not hurt people.
Fallacious example - you were left in charge of your younger sibling, you were left to govern whether his actions will or will not harm someone else or himself; you were left responsible. Obviously, if he burns the house down, you overestimated his trustworthiness; but that doesn't mean you burnt the house down. You may think that by leaving your brother alone, you weren't harming anyone - but only if there were no variables would this be true. A person can only do something to someone else if they give permission, and all those affected give permission. A gay man sleeping with another man is this situation - both men are consenting, and the action harms nobody uninvolved. Leaving a child at home, however, is not the same. You were left responsible - so your true guardian did not, obviously, give their permission. Besides that, the action of leaving your brother alone doesn't hurt anybody - but the variables involved, i.e., the availability of the matches, does, if he uses them irresponsibly. If you had told him that he could burn down the house if he wanted, and gave your permission, and so did your guardian, then the situation would have been comparable to two men sleeping together. But it isn't, because it isn't the act of leaving your brother alone that burns down the house. It's the fact that he found the matches, and the fact that he was alone is only indirectly related.I could say, okay I will to a friend's house today. In the mean time my little brother, plays with matches in my absence and sets our house on fire. My little brother could be 10 or 11 and perfectly trustworthy to be left alone. So I really have not been irresponsible in leaving him. I didn't think it would harm anyone if I went to my friend's house, but indirectly it harmed a lot of people.
I would, probably, just as you would disregard ay argument I gave you based on the Vedics of India.I could also argue this case biblically, but see no point considering you would just disregard any biblical references.
I don't mind, either - and apparently, it's okay, because Sorovis will now be ignoring my posts, not that this does him any favours.I was the one that said animals have war. I said so just to defend human intelligence. Actually that small point was not worth all it's turned into. I wouldn't mind seeing that point die out.
Of course, Freud's theories are not accepted by all people, whether or not they are involved in the field of psychology. Do you accept that you are subconsciously trying to replace your father and marry your mother (strangely reminiscent of my counter-claim from last time)? A psychologist can look at you demeanour, and how you behave in certain circumstances, yes - but they cannot see what you see. They can guess at what's going on in your mind, and sometimes can be quite accurate - but they cannot think your thoughts, or know what you know about yourself as you do. They never can, unless you communicate them to the psychologist him- or herself. A psychologist cannot tell you that you are now thinking about strawberry icecream and how nice it would taste mixed with passionfruit flavoured syrup, for instance. He or she can be told by you that you like that, and then they can tell you that you like that - but they cannot see your thoughts at all times. They cannot see your thoughts even as you talk with them, unless there is some physical effect from your thoughts that they can see - but even then, they cannot state your mind and tell you something you do not know or know is false.My doctor analogy was a bit crude. I should have used the analogy of a psychologist. And they don't have to talk with you to tell you things about you. Freud wouldl tell you no matter who you are that you have an idd, ego, and super ego. That has to do with your brain and is not physical like the more crude analogy I made earlier. I remember that when I was in eighth grade, my Health teach said that he knew more about us (addressing the class) than we did because we were teenagers and he knew about teenagers. He told us about clicks having leaders, and how we would react to our leaders.
I know what Sorovis is trying to tell me - but he has no grounds to state this for me. Only I can. Think about this for a moment - would a child look at his father or her mother, and decide that rather than being like that parent and be with someone of the opposite gender and have children, as, basically, there whole life knowledge is based on, they would be like the other parent and be with someone of the same gender as the original one they looked at (i.e., the father for the boy, the mother for the girl)? No. Why would they? Would they subsequently forget ever having decided this, given that it was contrary to all things they hold to be true in their life up till that point? No. If they did forget, why would it not be like anything else they forget - like, "Sesame Street is on in the mornings now, too - I want to watch it twice a day!", and then forgetting to get up and watch it? If it's a single moment, and you purport that I've forgotten it, then if I have, why does it hold true now? None of my other memories do - and a forgotten memory is that - forgotten. It could be thought of later, but if it's forgotten, it's gone. Perhaps you could try to argue that it was because I forgot and then had the same thought again later that I am bisexual - but then, there must be something making me have the same thought, right? Otherwise, there's the chance that I thought it once and then forgot, and then, as children do more often than not, decide something totally contrary to what they originally did.Also, Sorovis is not saying that you're lying to us. From my interpretation of Sorovis' point, he's saying you made some sort of choice before you could remember. My parents and grand parents tell me I did stuff I don't recall doing just because I didn't remember things at that age. Yes, they were there unlike Sorovis (unless of course Sorovis is your parent) but this is just to say that people with authority like doctors and genetic scientists (who Sorovis has brought writings of) can tell you something about you that you disagree with.
And this, people, is all a big, "what if", which is false - because I know that there was no choice.
Care to elaborate? I need motive, cause, etc., or it's just another baseless claim.Despite the fact you weren't affectionate with either gender at that age, you still could have done something to make yourself more likely to become bisexual later in life.
And the problem with this is that you cannot say for a fact, as you note below, that heterosexuality is what everybody starts off with. Skin, yes; heterosexuality? No. Sexuality, in general? Yes - but this does not exclude any or all variations.When I said you think homosexuality is right, I meant you think there is nothing wrong with it. (just to clear up the semantical confusion)
I've already stated in this debate that Sorovis' saying heterosexuality is genetic could be like one saying it's genetic to be born with skin covering your entire body. (minus the natural holes for ears, mouth, tear ducts, etc.) This is to say that it's genetic in the case that it is the same with all humans.
Although I can state it as a fact for myself because I do know for myself; whether or not you believe it is up to you, but just because you don't believe it doesn't make it any more false for me. I can't state as a fact that someone else is the same, because I don't know. I can believe that they are, or not - but I can't say to them, "no, you don't know" - because they do. No question. I do believe that all like me who claim not to have chosen didn't choose - because like me, they assert there was no choice, and they are the only people who can assert that with any actual knowledge. I believe that you didn't choose to be heterosexual, and from what I've heard/seen, my belief is right - but really, if you can sit there and make a claim that I must have chosen, then why can I not do the same of you? There's no stopping me. And yet, I don't. Why? Because there's nothing to say that I should (I refer not to someone telling me, but to facts and figures) - there are no theories, no evidence, no proof, to tell me that I can logically tell you that you chose to be heterosexual - and there is nothing of the sort to tell you to tell me that I chose to be bisexual. The problem lies not in my logic, it seems, but in the logic that lies behind the dichotomous claims being made against me and other people.What I'm saying is a suggestion because I have no proof to back it up. However, you have no proof to back up you're claim of it being natural. The only difference is you state it as fact (which it's not) and not a suggestion.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
I'd like to know what post of my allies you got this from.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
hahahahaha. look who its coming from. listen, i've already posted all my stuff. homosexuality is natural, nothing wrong with it, and you hate gays. it's as simple as that. let's move on.
and, let's not be so hypocritical, either.
Burning in water, drowning in flame
Homosexual Books for First Graders
I'm still getting used to the quoting thing. I obviously don't know how to seperate my comments from someone's quote, so any further instruction on that matter would be appreciated.
Some last points, you said in one of your previous posts, I'll find it if necessary that if I had personal experience that God existed you would not say I was wrong. I've stated that I had personal experience. You've said that I had the experience, but interpretted wrong. By the same logic, it would seem that I could say you have the experience of feeling that homosexual relationships are the same as those of heterosexual, but that your interpretation of the feelings are wrong.
Ultimately, it boils down to this. Humans are not omniscient. You cannot dictate what is true and what isn't with 100% reliability or accuracy because you are human. I know you don't believe in God, but doesn't it make more sense that a loving Creator made you just the way you are (not to say that homosexuality is just the way you are) and loves you. Not your homosexuality, but you. And that he knows more about you and about what's best for you than you do?
Or does it make sense that matter just spontaneously combusted and that life as we know it is just a product of a chance that had an astronomically (and that's an understatement) large chance of not happening.
Which really makes more sense?
Homosexual Books for First Graders
[quote=potatoman]a[/quote]
hello
[quote]b[/quote]
sup
[quote]c[/quote]
[quote]d[/quote]
^__^
yields:
hello
supb
c^__^d
Use that knowledge wisely in order to make technically awesome posts.
And since I don't want to be off-topic:
Although it is possible, it doesn't make that much sense. It would make much more sense that god would create us not because he loves us, but because we are useful to him. Action, consequence. Creating the world just for the hell of it, just to control it afterwards, is inconsequent. If you create the world because it provides usefulness to you, then yes. But if we were created by a loving creator, then this creator would ideally never interfere with his creations. The contrary implies that god is selfish and/or has psychological problems.doesn't it make more sense that a loving Creator made you just the way you are (not to say that homosexuality is just the way you are) and loves you. Not your homosexuality, but you. And that he knows more about you and about what's best for you than you do?
If you don't know jack **** about physics then don't bring that kind of points. What do you know about the "astronomically large chance of not happening"? What will you say when a computer scientist of genius will successfully build highly complex artificial intelligence (including emotions and socialization) via totally chaotic and incredlbly simple processes? You'll say it isn't the same thing? The thing is that you don't know anything about the real odds, and that common sense is of NO USE in understanding them.Or does it make sense that matter just spontaneously combusted and that life as we know it is just a product of a chance that had an astronomically (and that's an understatement) large chance of not happening.
edit: code tag cheated on me
edit2: made it totally foolproof
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Rambunctious, I actually mean that the ravens fed the people, not fed on them.
That would still be instinct. The camels do not simply have no reason, something the rider has done may have angered it, it could be mating season, or something else could have unsettled it. Animals do not wantonly attack anything.
No matter how solitary you may be, you still need human contact and communication to live effectively. Studies have shown that human voice and communication soothes people no matter how anti-social they may be (I'm not saying you're anti-social). I myself am a very independant person; but I could not live my life with no human contact.
If everyone followed their own set of morals, wouldn't that be the same as anarchy? Each person fighting for themselves and what they think is right. In truth, there is a base set of morals all can follow; it's just some refuse to do it.
If animals possessed the level of intelligence I am talking about, they would be doing much more noticable things than attacking their masters (attempting to communicate at an intellectual level, par say).
Also, reading that site, you see they hold some evidence against carbon and radiometric dating in particular. It would be wise to counter that, as it can disrupt anything an evolutionist might say. I do however agree with you that some of those reasons were not the best; many of them, however, did raise good points.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Brainstorm: God creating us does not imply that he needs us in any way. While it is never crystal clear as to why we are here (other than to serve him) it is clear we are not needed to him. I don't see how creating us out of love would mean that he would also not interfere with us; he loves us, so even though he gave us free will, he will try and keep those who are faithful obediant, and maybe aid them in strength and hope.
The Earth and universe could not have possibly come into existence by mere chance; especially if the material required to create them had no source whatsoever. Where did energy and matter come from?
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Argh why don't you stop talking about things you have no knowledge about. Do you think physicians are idiots? Do you think that your ignorant argument is worth anything to anyone who actually knows his ****?
1) Conservation of energy loses most of its significance in quantum physics. In quantum physics, the energy of any system is subject to a certain level of uncertainty. Modern physics admit that on a quantum level, it is possible to create new particles out of nothing, even if there exist unsufficient energy to allow their creation. These "virtual particles" that break the basic energy conservation principles will exist for a certain amount of time before disappearing, and they can cause an observable and calculable change in the energy of atoms. And it has been observed and calculated.
2) In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing". There's constant activity, constant quantum fluctuations of mass and energy in vacuum.
3) Time is not an absolute. One could say that there was effectively no time before the big bang. The problem of knowing what was there before the big bang is then totally irrelevant because there was no before. We already know, from relativity, that the time flow is slower when you are in motion, and that when you travel at the speed of light, time is downright frozen. I know it's extremely difficult to think about such things without giving up on common sense, but that's why we have trained physicists to calculate and put order in everything. Just trust them. It's not any worse than the problem of the origin of god anyway. Where does god come from? Also note that at the quantum level, there is no time line - events are random and in general not subject to causality.
4) Apparently, it's possible that the total energy of the universe would be equal to zero. Matter, as movement, is positive energy, the gravitational field/electromagnetic field, as a force of mutual attraction between particles, is negative energy - and according to several calculations, they cancel each other out. Interesting, isn't it?
5) There's a potentially infinite number of possible universes - at least one of them would have to be fine-tuned for life, no matter how unlikely it is, wouldn't it? And maybe we just happen to be there? Is that too hard to understand?
6) The Big Bang theory isn't the only possible one. There could have been more than one big bang, each followed by a big crunch, and then another big bang, etc., ad infinitum. There's no conceivable beginning, and no conceivable end to this, so the "before" problem doesn't apply. We could also be the product of a collision, or a fluctuation in a super-universe that would contain our universe. There are dozens of different theories about origins, and they all offer much more scientific evidence than bible creation.
Besides, you are still double posting and you are still not using the awesome quote tag, even though I explained how it functioned so clearly that even a chimpanzee could use it in an immensely productive manner and thus multiply his intelligence and efficiency in debate by a million.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
*sighs, staples sign to the thread announcing it has become one of the largest arguements in the Misc. board*
I will say that the relation between science and religion is not bright, but there is no point in debating over these two factors back and forth. And, because of many of you, this thread has veered off the original topic. Yet, tension is more noticable in religion alone. Religion has caused everybody to hate each other, and everybody believes they are right: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists...everything. Religion has caused people to hate each other and use their religion to blame others of a different belief for something that the person blaming the other did...as in my school. I am not saying I am against religion, it is that I don't understand why so much tension is caused.
Yet, I have noticed something. Why does almost everybody believe a mystical force called God(or something close to that) has created everything and rules over us? How come they believe miracles, when miracles have not happened(at least from how I have viewed it)? If something equivelent to this force exists, its power is only used for sorrow, making life mearly a game or a marionette performance.
I will not say anything else, except I hope you veer back to the original subject someday...*sighs and walks away*
...I'm not dead yet!
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Brain for president.
And discussing quantum physics on a pokemon forum, classic.
Dignity (n): the time elapsed between passing an attractive girl and turning around for another look.
Wait
If God doesn't exist who made puppies and dewdrops and maple syrup?
Homosexual Books for First Graders
maple syrup is indeed a godly creation.
also screw religions
the z0nk is the only way.
also werent we discussing homosexuality just a moment ago?
the z0nk shall set you free
#sup est. 2001
Homosexual Books for First Graders
no more canadas
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Hmm, I would say that even physicians don't know everything and it would be foolish to base all of your beliefs on people who don't know everything about what they are studying.
1) If these particles disappear, where do they go? You said yourself there was no such thing as nothing, so they certainly don't disappear.
2) So particles cannot simply disappear, as you so blatantly said they could above.
3) I find it easier to trust in an almighty being than in physicists subject to error in their experiments and theories due to their limited intelligence and access to everything in existence around them.
4) What about nuclear energy? You seem to have forgotten that.
5)What I find hard to understand is how I am expected to completely believe the theory you just stated that has no evidence behind it whatsoever.
6) But not a single one of those theories is exactly true, they all have their flaws. For instance, explain to me what negative matter is? It is much more common than matter, you know, and scientists have no idea what it is.
By claiming that you explained the process so easily that a chimpanzee could use it you are subject to attack. This is an exaggeration, and I would like to see your logic behind this assuming you know the intellectual limitations of primates such as chimpanzees. It is also an unnecessary exaggeration that it would multiply my debating efficiancy one million times over. Arguably that would make even the pariah's debate better than anyone's on here, unless of course it started a million times worse than it already was.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Kikyo: Religion is not what causes hate; at least not Christianity, which says one cannot enter Heaven while they still have hate because you cannot truly love God if you hate.
Life is how you wish to view it. If you believe you have only hope and despair, that is all you will ever have no matter what happens. God does exist, and miracles do happen. One man attempted suicide in many different ways at once in order to insure success. He came to a cliff standing over the ocean. First he tied a rope around an area on the cliff, then he ingested opium, tied the noose around his neck, and held a gun to shoot himself once he was suspended from the neck. Upon jumping, the jerk from him coming to the end of the rope caused him to misfire, which hit the rope and broke its hold. Falling into the ocean, he vomited all of the poison up due to the trauma and saltwater. He survived. If you do not call that a miracle, you are merely denying the existance of miracles period.
Let's get back on topic people. Enough of these snide and arguably useless posts.
Also, Brainstorm, you have failed to direct me to a link explaining and proving your theory on the mathmatical solution of right and wrong.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Never heard that one before or remember it at all. Then why are ravens associated with death? Doesn't make any sense if this happened...
Now you're just being stubborn. I can say 'No' to my mother when she wants me to do something, not from the fact that I'm mad at her, just because I can. Animals do that, my dog sometimes doesn't sit when I ask her to. She'll stare at me for a while but won't sit. Horses are the same way.
Camels can hate their trainer but they sometimes stop for no reason whatsoever. Humans can't do a thing about it because the camels will snap if they try to get them up.
My cat attacks everything. What does that make her? The thing did nothing to upset her, just moved. She attacks us at full speed when she wants.
True but some humans just don't like being around each other. Childhood problems, banned from society, other things. Though sure, they would go crazy after a while, it would be better than dying of the increased pollution in cities nowadays.
There's a base set but many people only take what morals they can do. Because of the killer thing I said earlier, people sometimes believe what is right is against the law. Can we do anything to change them? Sometimes, sometimes not.
Communicating at a human intellectual level is nothing. They can communicate with us, not in our language of course though. Many dogs can tell when an enfant stops breathing and run to the "leader," most likely an adult and begin to bark and howl as well as dragging the person to the room. Did they have to do this? No, but a pack's bond can get them moving, alerting that 'hey, something's wrong so get over here.'
I don't counter it because I don't know much about carbon dating. Except the point that most bones are made of well, bones. If not, then they're probably rocks. We can also find out how much of what element is in a piece of rock or alloid by other means of experimenting.
Also, back on the topic we were discussing earlier, I don't believe any evidence is present that these people were abused in childhood. This makes a strong case as if these people changed because of being abused, then that doesn't speak for the people who were not abused and are homosexuals.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Looks like my friend here has never heard of my other friend Murphy
Homosexual Books for First Graders
all your base are belong to us.
in other words, Brain is funny.
Burning in water, drowning in flame
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Rambunctious: I don't see why it doesn't make sense. Just because ravens are associated with death does not mean God is going to use them just to further that.
While I almost reconsidered, the reason animals do this is because they do not consider their master superior to them. Wolves and lions are the same way, before they allow their superiors total dominance they must first be shown that their leader is dominant. This could indeed be considered instinct. You telling your mother 'no' just to be defiant could be the same thing, I suppose, but I never said animal instincts were nonexistant in humans (I do agree that my last point on it was wrong in my previous post).
But my point was that humans are, always have been, and always will be social. Is that agreed?
I refer again to the point that if we hadn't sinned in the first place, we wouldn't have these problems. However, yes, people who believe killing is right can be changed, as can homosexuals, drug abusers, rapists, theifs, psychics, etc.. You must also understand though that if these people believe that what they are doing is right, you have to convince them otherwise before they change.
Yes, but this is not at human intellectual level as I said. Alerting the alpha male or female to danger above one's head is not at the same level as discussing right and wrong, and what we are doing now.
Carbon dating is essentially this: in every organism is a type of carbon. When the organism dies, this carbon slowly decays and changes to another substance. Scientists believe that by measuring how much of the carbon has changed in a fossils bones, you can determine how old the fossil is. Unfortunately, this is not as accurate or reliable as many believe.
In many homosexuals studied, a common occurance in each of them was indeed child abuse and molestation. By taking this and studying it further, scientists have come to infer from that that the cause for homosexuality may be mental disturbance as a child in some matter.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
wrong, you made that up. stop pulling **** out of your ass. i can't believe you just said that.
Burning in water, drowning in flame
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Snakes are considered evil by more than few accounts. Ravens are a sign of death in several places. Just because a whole unkindness of ravens did it by God's will doesn't mean that people will see them as more than a sign of death. And if this was the case, why are ravens feared now if they did something great for mankind?
This has been done by camels who have lived with their trainers their entire lives. Some camels just don't want to move until they are ready to and some can suddenly dislike that their trainer is trying to get them up. This is not instinct as it is not implanted that the camel has to listen to its trainer whenever it wants.
Yes thou some choose to live without humankind.
If we hadn't sinned, we most possibly wouldn't be discussing this now as computers probably wouldn't exist. 'Psychics?' That's just wrong. Some are frauds (like Miss Cleo) but some are quite believable. How else could they know you without actually seeing you before or hearing your name (unless you're stupid and have your life's story taped to the front of you)?
'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it' just as you can try to change a person though they have to decide if that's what they want. Just like people trying to comment suicide. You can do everything in your power and still they kill themselves. It's not your fault they did, it's just that they didn't want to change.
What is technically human intellectual level? The ability to create something that can hurt or help a person? The ability to communicate? This has been done by animals. Just because we have morals because we created them doesn't make us farther up the intellectual ladder than animals. Animals know not to kill each other without a good reason just like we do. Animals have tolerance, something we can lack of. Morals can sometimes screw the world over, making a hard to live in place. We have ten original morals and then junk that was added in for several different reasons, one being for the heck of it. I mean, how many of us can actually "Love" our neighbours if they are hateful people, making up gossip about their neighbours?
Thing is that it can work. Creationists just like to pick on it since it's not "completely" accurate. Neither are computers but we don't see a problem with them now do we? We can get a time range, sometimes being way past the Craetionists guess of when the world came into play.
But in some there wasn't any of the above material? Interesting enough to say.
This also has to deal with the 'horse' quote. Sure, some homosexuals can change because they want to. But some do not want to, finding that their lives are happier without fear.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
If he doesn't pull **** out of his ass, then how is he going to go at all?
But yeah, that is total and absolute lies. You replaced the word rapist with homosexuals.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Umm...no. They rarely use carbon for things as old as dinosaur fossils. If you truly knew the process you would know which particles they use instead to date fossils and up to how many years old carbon-dating is used.
1)Also actually bother to read the post Sorovis. He said that "that particle" disappears. He never said all particles would disappear. He never said that if something disappears everything disappears becoming nothing. He did say that that ONE particle disappears after. And actually, even though the particle disappears, the energy making up the particle doesn't disappear. It does something else, like make another particle, perhaps a different one, or act as a strong force to hold the nucleus together. Learn what your talking about before you talk, or don't talk at all.
2)Read 1
3)That basically said that you trust yourself, as a human, who you also said is subject to FLAW and ERROR. If you trust in something you can't test or prove, that is trusting yourself to trust something else. Therefore, you are trusting yourself to human flaws and errors.
4) Actually bother to learn some science before refuting science. Gravity only exerts as much force as great an extent as its size. Therefore, it's attraction counteracts motion to the extent of the mass of the object, and although it counteracts motion, it only counteracts motion of the object in one direction. Ex. You cannot move away from the earth unless you exert more positive energy against gravity. However, you can move on the Earth because it only pushes you towards it and not in any other direction (a "down" direction, "" because in physics there is no such thing as up and down. It is only referance we use to better translate direction in a situation with gravity). Similarly, the electromagnetic field, if it's from a positive force to a negative force, will do the same. However, an electromagnetic field, if its from similar forces, will repel eachother, causing motion and energy. Also, negative energy produces energy in itself until the object has been completely attracted. On the issue of nuclear energy, the subatomic particles in the nucleus possess a positive electromagnetic force and a strong force, the strong force being negative energy holding the nucleus together, and vice-versa for the positive electromagnetic force. The strong force, as obviously named, is stronger than the electromagnetic force, but the electromagnetic force accumlates from the number of subatomic particles (the isotope) making up the nucleus. To a certain isotope within the nucleus (I think it was 238 ) the electromagnetic force of the nucleus overcomes the strong force, breaking up the atom into a simpler element. They use Uranium of a certain amount of subatomic particles just below the max. no. of subatomic particles for the weak force to overcome the strong force, and fire subatomic particles (neutrons) at the nucleus to overcome the strong force, causing the uranium to break up into a simpler element. Some neutrons within the uranium break up seperately and become free, but crash into other uranium atoms with the same isoptope, resulting in a chain reaction that produces a lot of energy and heat which turns into steam which propels turbines which creates electricity. The movement of the neutron is not inhibited by gravity, as it is propelled at a speed that breaks the bind of Earth's gravity, and the neutron is not stopped by electromagnetic force (either forms) because neutrons have no charge. A lot of the negative forces holding us together belong to the strong force, which holds all atoms together, and the gravity, which pulls things together in only one direction. Therefore, it is possible for the TOTAL energy for the universe to equal zero in which means the universe doesn't move or change in size, (although it is still a controversy within science since the newly discovered "dark energy" seems to defy gravity). However, this doesn't mean the components within the universe don't move and create energy, only that this motion is, in the bigger picture, countered at some point by anti-energy (which is why particles move but don't continuously move forever. The energy is eventually countered).
5)Funny, there is no actual evidence of God, and what BrainStorm just said actually had more evidence and logic involved than the logic and evidence linking to God.
6)Look at 3.
Good-day, enjoy, and ACTUALLY READ
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Rambunctious: Just because somebody does something good for you, doesn't mean you'll call them a good person. Not to mention a lot of the religions who see the raven as a sign of death don't believe in the Bible. Also, the Devil is called the Snake, but that is not to say God is calling all snakes evil.
Obviously it is not implanted if the camels still refuse. There is never no reason for an animals disobedience; it would damage them in their lives in the wild. Camels I believe travel in groups, do they not? I will have to look into this more before giving you a supported answer, but it is possible they seemingly rebel for no reason in the wild as well.
Who would these people be? Also, if these people occasionally encountered people, I doubt they would respond to them the same way as, say, a mountain lion does when it encounters another.
I never said psychics were fakes; I actually believe in them quite fully and have had some experiences myself. However, the Bible specifically forbids the practice of arts such as magic and witchcraft. While I'm not sure if it forbids psychics as well, I believe they could fall under that category of 'supernatural arts'.
Everyone can change, but like you said some just refuse to.
Animals 'know' nothing in the technical sense. By instinct they do not kill eachother because over time they have adapted to the best way to preserve their species. If one rattlesnake encountered another, I doubt reasons not to kill the other would be passing through its head. Morals would unite the world if all people obeyed them. It's just as you've said, some people just won't abide by them. It also is not at all impossible for you to love your neighbor if they have wronged you some how. You simply must look past the sin.
Oh no, I don't mean it's not completely accurate, I mean that link yeah5 brought up showed it can be downright wrong in some instances.
What has been decided is that if the homosexual has not had a recorded past of abuse, a similar instance may have happened that caused them to become homosexual. Now, the problem with pinpointing what these instances may be is that people respond to things differently, so what makes one person homosexual may not make another.
Thing is, it's like you said about those who kill for what they believe is right. If they simply refuse to change, that doesn't mean it's impossible to change.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Your post shows how much you know. Just the rattlesnake example is enough to make me sick. DO YOU KNOW WHAT A RATTLESNAKE IS THINKING? Just the very fact that you say a rattlesnake doesn't think about if it's going to bite the other one shows how much you know. All animals weigh consequences before they make an action. Predators CHOOSE their prey, looking for weak and old ones so they can avoid risk to injury. Rattlesnakes CHOOSE if they should bite the other one. They rarely do because it would be a waste of their resources for it to fight another one pointlessly. It CONSIDERS these things. Cheetahs CHOOSE to leave their food without a fight when Hyenas and Lions come to eat of their hard work. A cheetah CONSIDERS his options, fight or leave? They CONSIDER their weaker physique, and therefore CHOOSE to leave their food. The don't do things out of whim. They do things that they feel is the better option. This requires THINKING AND THOUGHT. As a last example the camels you mentioned had a CHOICE on whether to be obediant as it was trained, or disobediant as it WANTED to.
P.S. Everything that is capsed refers to a conscience mind.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
In the "reply" screen after you've selected to quote something, it should show all of what is in the relevant post - and after that, basically all you need to do is sort out what was said to whom, and delete all the stuff that doesn't apply to you, unless you want to reply to that, too.
Perhaps; perhaps they do feel different. I'm yet to actually have either, so I'm unsure - but again, if it's me feeling what I'm feeling while having these relationships, and it feels the same, then likely the biochemical reactions going on in my brain and body are the same, too - so I can logically conclude that they feel the same. That's not the same as my original point, either - because that was that I experience something within myself, and you can't tell me I don't - but, if you experience something, like, you smell something, or hear something, or see something, etc., then nobody can tell you that you didn't experience what you did because of whatever it was that you smelt/saw/touched - but they can question whether the conclusions you draw about what the thing that caused the experience was. For instance, if you see a glowing light outside, and it makes you feel happy, light, euphoric, perhaps, you could interpret that as a sign from "god" - but someone else might interpret it as a UFO. Their beliefs dictate what they interpret things happening without themselves as; if you believe in "god", you're far more likely to interpret the glow outside as something to do with "god" than someone who is Atheistic is, right? And that can be done because the light is something that's there that you place your beliefs on, rather than a piece of knowledge separate from your beliefs that needs no interpretation because it's clear to you already (and is only known to you).Some last points, you said in one of your previous posts, I'll find it if necessary that if I had personal experience that God existed you would not say I was wrong. I've stated that I had personal experience. You've said that I had the experience, but interpretted wrong. By the same logic, it would seem that I could say you have the experience of feeling that homosexual relationships are the same as those of heterosexual, but that your interpretation of the feelings are wrong.
No, it doesn't; to me, it makes more sense that I really don't matter in the long run. Nobody does. It makes more sense to me that I'm the product of my ancestors, and I'm this way because of a combination of their genes, going back as far as life has been evolving on this planet. It makes more sense to me that the universe is the way it is due to the complex interplays of the particles and energies that make things "real". It makes more sense to me that because physical objects are made up of physical parts, they are bound by the rules those parts set. It makes more sense to me that the universe is not something somebody created; it's something that is, but not through the will of something. It makes more sense that something without scientifically supported proof or evidence is not what is real - but that which does have support is.Ultimately, it boils down to this. Humans are not omniscient. You cannot dictate what is true and what isn't with 100% reliability or accuracy because you are human. I know you don't believe in God, but doesn't it make more sense that a loving Creator made you just the way you are (not to say that homosexuality is just the way you are) and loves you. Not your homosexuality, but you. And that he knows more about you and about what's best for you than you do?
Now, I know that humans can't know everything there is happening at any moment of time; and they can't decide that this is the way it is and apply it to all circumstances - but which is the best source of reliable evidence - someone who has experience of the subject at hand, someone who knows what it's like, someone who has personal knowledge (that just happens to fit in with the statements of others who have the same knowledge and have experienced the same things) - or someone who has no personal knowledge, someone who is saying, "well, I think...", someone who is guessing, and failing as far as all those who do know are able to say?
Just because there's a large chance of it not happening doesn't mean it doesn't. A will doesn't have to be behind something for it to happen; and that's where the flaw lies in many religious doctrines. We're human. We have wills. We have the ability to cause change, if we want - but this does not apply to all things. Change happens regardless of will. Just because we cause change and can design doesn't mean all things are changed by someone or something, and designed.Or does it make sense that matter just spontaneously combusted and that life as we know it is just a product of a chance that had an astronomically (and that's an understatement) large chance of not happening.
Spontaneous combustion is still misunderstood by science - not that scientists in the relevant fields are misunderstanding it, per se, but they don't understand it enough to be able to explain it fully. They don't even know it actually happens for sure, although evidence supports it. Just because there's a large chance of it not happening, it doesn't mean it won't. There's still a chance of it happening - and obviously it does.
Like I said, what makes more sense to me is that not everything is designed, thought-out, or planned. There's no scientific support for it - and to suppose that there's design behind it where there needn't be to me seems proposterous.Which really makes more sense?
Aside from this, a warning to McGraw, Sandslashman, Sniper404, and ascalon; and wow, again I find myself reporting Sorovis for his consecutive posts. Surprise!
So, I know Sorovis is going to "ignore" me, but really, what does this say? This says that 1) homosexuality is the result of abuse. Problem? Heterosexual individuals, too, experience abuse as children; and far from all homosexual people are abused. I know I never was (unless, of course, this is another instance where really I have, and am now being told by someone else who doesn't know me from a bar of soap that I'm wrong).
2) If abuse causes homosexuality, then homosexuality is not a choice - so even if this claim was correct, this totally nullifies and undercuts Sorovis' major "argument" anyway. Or is it that the child "chooses" to be abused, and by extension therefore chooses to be gay or lesbian?
The problem is not that you can't pinpoint what these instances may be - it's that you're supplying flawed evidence in a feeble effort to explain something you don't like. Again, nothing has been argued here - and the only thing proven is that as soon as any shoddy, scanty and faulty evidence comes your way, as long as it supports you, then you'll use it.
And again, I'm finding myself pointing out hypocrisy in Sorovis' posts - he claims one minute to know the intellectual capacity and ability of species other than our own, and then accuses BrainStorm of doing similar things and says that he can't do it. At least there's consistency to his inconsistency.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
So basically physicians don't know enough about physics so you propose we believe in the... the... the BIBLE instead?
Get out.
Just... get out.
Yeah sure and that almighty being obviously exists and the bible is necessarily his word. Did I ever tell you I was Santa Claus?3) I find it easier to trust in an almighty being than in physicists subject to error in their experiments and theories due to their limited intelligence and access to everything in existence around them.
So far, I do not believe there is an almighty creator, and certainly not that the bible is his word. However, physicists are known to provide information that is coherent with observable facts. I know that with the proper tools, I would be able to reproduce their experiments, and observe the same things. I know that if there are errors, they will be fixed quickly, because other scientists will check the validity of every important experiment. I also know that there is a strong incentive to have exact results, because they can be extremely useful to create new technology. Therefore, I believe I have excellent reasons to trust scientists, because they are working solely on the basis of what they see, and that they have no incentive to come up with false information, because false information is never useful.
On the other hand, the bible is nothing more than a single series of books that were written a very long time ago, and which contain no useful scientific information. You aren't going to find out how to build a quantum computer by studying the bible. On the other hand, the works of famous scientists on the subject of quantum physics most probably contain a great deal of relevant information in order to do so.
I can't speak for everyone but I think that people who run particle colliders and can fill an entire blackboard of mathematical equations in order to show you how their theories come together have a lot more credibility than a book that never was scientific in the first place. If they come to conclusions that obviously contradict the bible, then I'll believe them - and if they are wrong, I'll move on, that's as simple as that. I won't let preconceived ideas impair my judgement.
In short, on matters that are relevant to science, you trust science. Not the bible.
As far as I know, there is absolutely no evidence supporting biblical creation other than the lame, flawed and biased efforts of creation scientists. Why don't you just provide some evidence for creation science? I'm merely providing possible scenarios to show you that creation isn't "the only possibility", and these scenarios that are widely considered in the scientific community. I never said they were necessarily right, but I do say that they should be considered for what they are worth, not to be dismissed by a theory that is not nearly as scientifically sound.5)What I find hard to understand is how I am expected to completely believe the theory you just stated that has no evidence behind it whatsoever.
Negative energy is energy that is lesser than zero. You can understand it by looking at the minus sign in front of the numbers that come out of certain equations. That's not rocket science now is it.6) But not a single one of those theories is exactly true, they all have their flaws. For instance, explain to me what negative matter is? It is much more common than matter, you know, and scientists have no idea what it is.
Besides, I'll kindly point out that absolutely no flaw in any scientific theory can be used to justify creationism. That is the "god of the gaps" argument, and it is extremely lame. Yes, modern theories have flaws. No, scientists don't understand everything yet. But the thing is, flaws in theories never last long. Of course at some point, every scientist must have wondered "where does that energy come from?", and effectively, since the theories were brand new, there was no obvious answer to that question. Does that mean "okay this sucks let's believe in creation?". No, it means "let's keep searching and maybe we'll find out". These gaps are being filled right now, as we are talking. You can't just go out and say "evolution/big bang doesn't explain this, and this, and this, therefore the biblical god exists". That's possibly the lamest argument one can think of.
And on a side note, even if we assume that the bible is historically exact, it does not automatically make it exact on non historical matters.
You have no humor, chimp.By claiming that you explained the process so easily that a chimpanzee could use it you are subject to attack. This is an exaggeration, and I would like to see your logic behind this assuming you know the intellectual limitations of primates such as chimpanzees. It is also an unnecessary exaggeration that it would multiply my debating efficiancy one million times over. Arguably that would make even the pariah's debate better than anyone's on here, unless of course it started a million times worse than it already was.
edit: champ
edit2: thanks for the help rei
edit3:
I would believe his issue is with the quote tag.
McGraw was truthful, SSM's argument about puppies and dewdrops and maple syrup was arguably the best argument pro-creation in this whole topic and Sniper404 was totally right about z0nk. I really don't know why you're warning them for that.Aside from this, a warning to McGraw, Sandslashman, Sniper404, and ascalon; and wow, again I find myself reporting Sorovis for his consecutive posts. Surprise!
Edit4: and ascalon, well, he's really cool
Homosexual Books for First Graders
No, he was having trouble separating my response to Sorovis from my response to him.
Because, and really I don't care if you find it humourous, it's also spam. If they had wished to contribute, then they should - they can be as humourous as they wish, as long as their comments have point. And they didn't.McGraw was truthful, SSM's argument about puppies and dewdrops and maple syrup was arguably the best argument pro-creation in this whole topic and Sniper404 was totally right about z0nk. I really don't know why you're warning them for that.
Cool enough to be warned, yes.Edit4: and ascalon, well, he's really cool
PS - good job on trouncing Sorovis.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Sorry but I disagree. While incredible that he could have lived through all of those things, it was certainly never impossible. With all the billions of things that happen in this world every minute of every day, stuff this unlikely has to happen sometimes. Every aspect of the event can be individually explained. Astounding luck isn't enough to make a miracle.He survived. If you do not call that a miracle, you are merely denying the existance of miracles period.
No, the rest was just...crap. All of it was. No offense, but this is the kind of pompous gibberish that gives you guys a bad name, I wouldn't use a site like that to back up my views. Every argument it makes is classic bullplop every scientist has heard and can instantly debunk. The final argument isn't even an argument, just "it's in the bible so it's true". What makes evolution "godless" anyway? Theistic evolution works out fine.
Why does it try to use an antiquated and nonsensical quack-theory like punctual equilibria to argue against modern evolution science!? That was just an IDEA, and a nonsensical one that noone needed in the first place. We have discovered scores of transitional fossils since then, and are always uncovering more.
And WTF, evolutionists have not "given up" the "argument" on vestigial organs. What argument? There's nothing inexplicable about them.
Charles ol' pal, you should be happy to know that in this day and age we are unlocking the mysteries of evolution with such precision. Too bad certain crackpot websites are still living in the 1800's.(from site, quoting Darwin)...why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
In other news, people are already gearing up for the inevitable shrimp marriage debate.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Yes it would. You'd call them a good person, it would depend if anyone else is listening. I know some Christians who believe that the raven is a 'sign of death.' It's not just limited to 'some religions' as quite a few are very similar but only have a few points different in them. I've never seen just 'one religion' of people scared of ravens because of them being written that they are evil.
Reminds me of my brother who said a black or turkey vulture was a raven...
Yes, camels travel in groups. Doesn't mean that they can rebel as not one is the leader. They travel in tiny groups or in none at all. Some will stay at a feeding spot and others will move on. Then again, there are few of the Dromedary camels left in the wild to actually study the behaviour of them without humans.
Some animals it would damage, others it would improve. If a zebra doesn't want to breed at that moment then she'll kick at the stallion. This can break the stallion's legs and kill him. A new one will have to lead the herd, one that can be stronger than the old stallion.
Mountain men survived pretty well, also hermits. Though I believe mountain men came down around maybe once every two years to gather and tell stories before running back up into the hills.
Then why be born a psychic if you're forbidden to even practice it? Why put something on the earth if it is going to be killed for using 'supernatural arts' in a religion where it shouldn't be?
Yes, and some homosexuals refuse to change. Why fight them as most are very stubborn. You can try but you might not succeed.
What is a 'technical' sense? Becasuse they cannot make something out of metal to help themselves? They do not have the "most improved" evolutionary thing, the thumb. If they could, they probably would use it to their advantage. Though some primates have thumbs, they use it to their advantage with grabbing items, like the panda.
Yes, the rattlesnake could actually kill the other one for being in its territory. No idea why as reptiles have a small hole of energy that can be used up quickly. And Rei_Zero summed it up pretty well.
I'll leave this for people who are better knowledgable in carbon-dating as I believe Rei_Zero did this as well.
Like what? Why not talk about it? Why keep it closed if it will only hurt you? Why keep this important fact if it will render "becoming" heterosexual again?
Quite a lot of questions. I'm not a psychologist but I known someone will say that it hurts them to think about it. What would be more important for a person in which homosexuality is influenced wrong? To hurt for a while as you progress or to spend more money trying to get through?
It is if they're stubborn. And it is if they die still believing they're right. It is if they go to jail, break out, continue what they were doing and disappear from human sight.
There are several factors involved when dealing with changing things. If the person doesn't want to change no matter what you or anybody else does, then he most possibly won't.
lol, Raz. Down with shrimp! *at least I'm not a seafood eater*
Homosexual Books for First Graders
First - Why does it matter wether or not they believe in the bible?
Second - Why would Satan suddenly choose a snake? You'd think that a "serpent" dubbed as evil who actually can kill a human with its' bite would be a bit of an obvious choice, and you'd think Satan would be smart enough to choose, say, a Kitten.
This makes sense until I read your later paragraph about wild animals "knowing 'nothing'"...Obviously it is not implanted if the camels still refuse. There is never no reason for an animals disobedience; it would damage them in their lives in the wild. Camels I believe travel in groups, do they not? I will have to look into this more before giving you a supported answer, but it is possible they seemingly rebel for no reason in the wild as well.
Mountain lion or human? If you mean another mountain lion, we'd know they were of our species, but be unaware how to deal with it. Humans are also taught by their parents how to act, you know. Humans just develop mentally a bit faster, so we've got the edge of being able to make our own decisions earlier.Who would these people be? Also, if these people occasionally encountered people, I doubt they would respond to them the same way as, say, a mountain lion does when it encounters another.
The bible forbids anything that gives humans any sort of fair shot at being equal with who they claim to be their almighty ruler. So basically the Bible says 'God is happy as long as you can't do anything he can."...Seems a bit jealous.I never said psychics were fakes; I actually believe in them quite fully and have had some experiences myself. However, the Bible specifically forbids the practice of arts such as magic and witchcraft. While I'm not sure if it forbids psychics as well, I believe they could fall under that category of 'supernatural arts'.
*rubs temple*YOU are an animal. So am I. HUMANS ARE ANIMALS...Do you even understand this? Humans don't know anything either. Just like OTHER animals, our instincts and experiences teach us. Just like with humans, if one rattlesnake sees another, instinct says 'He's like me' and they don't attack each other.Animals 'know' nothing in the technical sense. By instinct they do not kill eachother because over time they have adapted to the best way to preserve their species. If one rattlesnake encountered another, I doubt reasons not to kill the other would be passing through its head. Morals would unite the world if all people obeyed them. It's just as you've said, some people just won't abide by them. It also is not at all impossible for you to love your neighbor if they have wronged you some how. You simply must look past the sin.
I can totally understand this. I mean, not everyone is gay because it's natural. There are people who are gay for absolutely incorrect and false reasons, made up by absolutely false/moronically wrong sources.What has been decided is that if the homosexual has not had a recorded past of abuse, a similar instance may have happened that caused them to become homosexual. Now, the problem with pinpointing what these instances may be is that people respond to things differently, so what makes one person homosexual may not make another.
Give it up. That "Gays were abused that's why their gay" argument is not only wrong, but flawed. If I was sexually abused by a MAN why would I be SEXUALLY INTERESTED in men...? Yeah, think next time.
You're equating homosexuality with murderers? Ugh...you have no shame.Thing is, it's like you said about those who kill for what they believe is right. If they simply refuse to change, that doesn't mean it's impossible to change.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Rei Zero: I was referring to both radiometric dating and carbon dating. For your sake read the page before you come on this debate acting like you're the best.
1) Hmm, I did read the post. Did you not see my point? According to Brainstorm there is no such thing as nothing. So where did that particle disappear to? Maybe you should read my post.
2)Read one as well.
3)Wonderful logic; except we've already addressed that in the debate. For someone accusing me of not reading, you're not doing so well yourself.
4)I'm not going to sit here and debate quantum physics with you. However, if quantum physics disproves the Bible so much, why did Albert Einstein himself say that the whole process had to be started by a higher being? I would hold him as a much more intelligent person than you; not saying that your stupid.
5)Wow, I thought there had been several pages of us posting links to the sites that had evidence for God, along with posting quite a few bits of information ourselves. Again, you seem to have conveniently missed that as well.
6)Also refer to three.
Maybe you should learn to read before insulting people yourself.
Also Rei Zero: You should really see a doctor about that sick thing. I don't think it's natural. While my last point may have been extreme, my argument has already covered what you just said. Honestly, it seems to me that you're just too lazy to actually make sure your points are thourough.
Brainstorm: No, I am proposing that physicians were not around at the beginning of the world, nor the beginning of time. God was.
Did I show you evidence supporting the Bible? Yes I did. Using Santa Claus as a comparison merely shows your ignorance towards what I have shown. Why trust to science completely when they do not have all of the answers? There are seven dimensions, only four of them can we percieve. Are you telling me to base all my beliefs in people who cannot percieve three dimensions and were not around at the beginning of time?
Here I understand your point, but have already addressed it.
Sorry, I ment dark matter, which has NOT been explained. The Bible being historically accurate does give it credibility, expecially considering some of this historical fact includes the miracles done by Jesus. Care to explain those (rising from the dead, water to wine, healing the blind, lepers, lame, the list goes on and on)?
On the contrary, that was my humor, chimp.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Brainstorm: No, I am proposing that physicians were not around at the beginning of the world, nor the beginning of time. God was.
Did I show you evidence supporting the Bible? Yes I did. Using Santa Claus as a comparison merely shows your ignorance towards what I have shown. Why trust to science completely when they do not have all of the answers? There are seven dimensions, only four of them can we percieve. Are you telling me to base all my beliefs in people who cannot percieve three dimensions and were not around at the beginning of time?
Here I understand your point, but have already addressed it.
Sorry, I ment dark matter, which has NOT been explained. The Bible being historically accurate does give it credibility, expecially considering some of this historical fact includes the miracles done by Jesus. Care to explain those (rising from the dead, water to wine, healing the blind, lepers, lame, the list goes on and on)?
On the contrary, that was my humor, chimp.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
I know I'm jumping into the middle of the fray, but the Old Testament was very strict with all its laws, but the New Testament wiped that clean as long as you have faith in the Savior. Sin is inevitable, and heterosexuals have no right to judge homosexuals anyway. That job isn't reserved for you.
That's the religious aspect. I have no problem with it from a religious stand. From a law stand people have the right to do what they want provided they don't hurt any person or their property. If you find it offensive, that's fine. Just let them do their thing and leave them alone. Live and let live.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Scythemantis: By that logic, what is a miracle? What would you consider a miracle?
I must thank you for being the first person to actually read and attempt to disprove the ideas and points on there in the first place. First of all, quite a few of the ideas on there were very logical, but I agree with you on the dinosaur one, and I can understand where you're coming from on the Bible one.
Rambunctious: I doubt over thousands of years after the event with the reasons that people would remember with any particular strong feelings what the ravens did. Could you please give me some examples where the Bible refers to ravens as dark or evil?
See? Camels rebelling may be a just a basic characteristic in general. When that camel rebels when in control of the people, it may be seeing if the people will prove their superiority over it or not. Not doing so may result in further refusal to carry out commands in the future.
Being born a psychic is questionable indeed. I still have a few psychic experiences myself, but I do not practice in bringing them forth anymore. Having these experiences does not necessarily mean practicing them.
It's not up to you to change them. If they refuse, then it's not your fault, but theirs.
Rei Zero failed to see my whole point out of his/her ignorance. Animals do not have as advanced minds as us and do not have conciousness to see right or wrong as we do.
Already explained the carbon dating thing.
Like you said, some people refuse to become heterosexual. If they don't think it's wrong, they won't try and change. Others do think it's wrong and have changed. You also don't exactly have to know the source of the problem to change it, meaning the homosexual does not have to know what caused homosexuality in order to change.
Does all that make them right? Does all that make them unsalvagable?
The refusal of one to change is not your fault nor does it mean that it is physically impossible to change.
Muffin Man: First, because the people who believe in the Bible are the ones who know of the ravens and what they did.
Second: I doubt the very first people (Adam and Eve) would have already labeled God's creatures as people have today. Satan's incarnation as the serpent is very likely what gave snakes the image they have today.
I said in the technical sense. Meaning at human intellectual level.
Mountain lions respond to each other differently than humans do to each other.
He said men (humans) were created equal. I don't see a God in that.
Have you paid attention to this section of the debate? Please do and stop wasting time.
I don't believe that I ever specified how sexual abuse caused people to become homosexual.
Homosexual Books for First Graders
Raz: You are right to a degree. You see, I understand we are all sinners, but I am saying homosexuality is wrong because that is what the New Testament says. Not because that's what I say.
I'm not going to lunge out at the next homosexual I see and beat him/her with a bat. I'm trying to say why homosexuality is wrong and why it should not be legalized. I haven't quite taken this to the Supreme Court yet, nor have I forced people to believe homosexuality is wrong.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
