I still call BS on that because that's really not being masculine and if you're not masculine you're just not masculine however being gay is a matter of choice in my eyes.
Not everybody is born the same. Some people are born puny and others are born muscular.
To me gayness is still a choice it's not like at birth you were programmed to like men... it's just still a choice.

Paul in the new testament basically says that we can touch pigs now, we're not under the old law.

If being gay were a choice, then wouldn't heterosexuals remember making the choice NOT to be gay?

Fellow heterosexuals, think about it... do you ever remember walking down the street one day, glancing across the street at a member of the same sex and thinking "What a hot looking guy/gal... I'd love to give him/her one, but today I'm gonna choose not to be gay and not to have gay thoughts."? Probably not. And why is that? Simple... your sexuality is hard-wired and is not a choice!!!

Anyway, if being gay was a choice, who in their right mind would "choose" to join a minority group that is discriminated against by homophobes and bible-thumpers alike?

Whether your gay or straight, the only choice you have is whether you suppress and/or act on your feelings or not (whatever those feelings are). Whether acting on or demonstrating your feelings is religiously, morally, or socially acceptable or not is the real argument.

Any homosexual I've ever asked tells me it's not a choice. And as the subject-matter-experts, I'll take their word over a bible-thumpers word anytime.

In closing, let me throw some fuel on the fire by saying my own theory is that anyone who thinks being homosexual is actually a choice, must be a homosexual who's mixing-up their suppressed feeling with the need to make a choice... stop feeling bad... you can't help it... your born that way.

Wasn't it the Apostle Paul who said "I am the Walrus"? Or was that John? I know it wasn't "Doubting" Ringo...

If Paul told Xtians that contact with unclean animals was acceptable "under the new covenent", then so is homosexuality, since the only biblical prohibition against it is found in Leviticus -- a book of the old testament and part of the same "old covenent". (Not to mention the fact that Leviticus was a book of rules that only applied to the Levite priests of Israel).

-Laz

I agree that sexuality is determined in the genes. I watched a kid grow up, who at 4 showed definite feminine traits. At 15, he is totally gay. It wasn't that he played with dolls, but rather that the kid acted, well, gay. Come on, we all watched "Who's the Boss." That kid was gay at 6 years of age. We all knew Jonathan was peeking at Tony and not Sam.

I love the groups that claim they can (with 8 - 10 weeks of "intensive therapy") cure the gayness right out of you. Usually through religion. Usually those programs are based on the 12 step programs where you need to find the solution to your problem in a higher power. As with alcoholism, you are always an alcoholic, its just that you fake enjoying being sober. With fags, well, you pretend you dig chicks, get married, have kids and fuck the mailman on the side. It must suck to be the spouse that walks in on that. Or to be the wife of the New Jersey Governor.

Anyone who thinks that gay is a choice is a complete idiot.

i don't believe that it's biological, nor do i believe that it's a choice, but rather that it's a matter of being a product of an environment. i believe that even the slightest hint of queer in a child's life has the potential to release the homo from within. judging from my "interesting" childhood, and the fact that i'm bisexual, i believe this to be true, although it seems quite possible that it could be biological as well. it would seem that flaming gays who generally have lisps have different genetics, whereas someone like myself who simply cannot be pinpointed as queer is most likely mentally damaged.

whereas someone like myself [...] is most likely mentally damaged.

Hey, your first intelligent comment!

So, what would God think of you having sex with men? I think you're going to hell.

So, what would God think of you having sex with men? I think you're going to hell.

Hey, your first... oh wait. Damn.

There is more evidence of homosexuality having a biological basis than there is evidence of the existence of "God".

You wouldn't know what evidence was if it was staring you in the face...

Oops, sorry... misread your comment :-(

Uhm try not to take it out of context. While we won't be stoned under the old laws he still clearly defines what is and is not acceptable as Christians in the NEW testament.

While being a homosexual isn't exactly wrong, living in that lifestyle and acting on those impulses is.

Remember false analogies...

A and B are similar.
A = C
B != C

Just because they can find biological similarities in Homos, doesn't mean they can't find incongruities as well. I think I just confused myself with that statement... heh.

Basically, for every Homo with the biological X you can find another with out X. I suppose the only way to tell for sure is to import the gay genes into HP and see if he turns gay because of them.

Somehow I doubt the biological variables are the cause of straight/gayness.

But hey, everyone has a theory about everything.

Now to address the church issue. The church considers everyone that isn't saved to be a sinner. It is our nature to sin. We are born into it. Even Christians fail and sin. But understand it is the acting out of those impulses that is the sin, just being a homo isn't.

"Anyway, if being gay was a choice, who in their right mind would "choose" to join a minority group that is discriminated against by homophobes and bible-thumpers alike? "

Way to stereotype.

Some people choose to be gay because of a hatred towards the opposite sex. I knew someone who was hurt deeply by a wife that cheated on him and had a kid 12 months after conception ;). He ended up going gay because he considered all women deceitful bitches that didn't deserve to be with him from then on.

In many places it is very easy to be a "minority" because in fact, in that area the minority is actually the majority. Take most of Oregon and the majority of King County Washington (Seattle areas.)

So we all have a little inner homo we can get in touch with?

I suppose that's true, I dress well and like my wife's butt.

The new covenent of Xtians replaces the old one of the Jews, as Paul said.

Jesus said NOTHING concerning homosexuality. Period. End of story.

-Laz

Talk about generalizations!

Gays are the majority in Oregon? Go figure! Gays aren't even the majority in San Francisco....

-Laz

You have got to be kidding me...

You have no idea about sexuality if you believe that shit. How could someone go from liking pussy to liking dick because a person had treated him like shit? You don't switch teams in the middle of an inning because you struck out once.

Your friend was probably gay all along which didn;t help his marriage to begin with. He probably sucked in the sack and his wife had to find satisfaction elsewhere.

Yes, Seattle has a big gay population. Strangely, Columbus Ohio does too, but unless you get down to the city block, i do not think you'll find a gay population that is the majority.

Ok I really have to ask, wtf is a xtian? I mean really. I never see that term used in any bible or holy work. Oh wait I get it you are trying to be a snarky little shit because that's all you have to defend your lack of comprehension. My bad.

Do you believe the Bible portrays exactly what was said and when and where regarding EVERYTHING Christ said? IF that's the case then you believe he has only spouted a few thousand words during his some 32 years of life (not counting the resurrection to current days.)

Of course heaven forbid we actually believe anything his disciples have to say on the matter. I mean they only traveled with him for years listening to his silence that whole time with minor breaks here and there to tell a story.

Again, try not to take things out of context.
Silence does not mean permission.
The old laws are still valid yet the sacrifices needed under the old laws weren't. That was the purpose of Christ coming and saving us. He never said you could do anything he didn't espressly forbid either. That's your logic coming back to haunt you it would seem.

They do have the larger voice in Oregon. I used to live there, I know from person experience how things are there.

You're right I don't go switching. He did.

Strangely I don't give a flying fuck about Colombus.

Don't get all pissy just because you hang out with poeple that aren't smart enough to realize they are gay.

Right, but they are not the majority.

You first said, "In many places it is very easy to be a "minority" because in fact, in that area the minority is actually the majority." Now you are exchanging your 1st statement with the watered-down "larger voice."

Make up your mind.

Silence means consent.

I've always liked that saying.

That and "Sometimes quantity has a quality all its own."

Actually homosexuality is mentioned in the new testament, but that has nothing to do with what I was saying.

If you turn your bible to Romans 1 Chapter 1 and Verse 1 (yes it's the very first chapter) God specifically talks about how he throws homosexuals into hell (the Bible is God's words) and sexual sinners into the lake of fire so you are very wrong.
People alter the word of God and don't tell it like it TRULY is... God said homosexuality is a sin and that he sends those people and other sexual sinners to hell.

Did God say that or Jesus?

Well it might have been Jesus but it really wouldn't matter because it's set in stone and plus Jesus preach what God says so it really wouldn't make a difference.
But in a nutshell I forgot and I don't really know.
However that part of the bible I pointed out it's actually doing the story part where God is ACTUALLY doing it while you're reading it. So it's not really coming out of anybody's mouth on that part... the story is actually taking action and place as you're reading that part.

Well I thought it was an important difference if Jesus in particular didn't have squat to say about homosexuals, per what Laz said, and because Jesus came along and said some very different things than God had previously said.

I mean golly, if'n we can't Bible-thump them faggots no more the (self)righteous will just have to go back to lynchin' niggers. But no, wait a minute--being Black just might be genetic too! Damnation! If'n we ain't got nobody left to hate, how in the heck will Christianity survive?

Thank the Lord Jesus we've still got them nuke-lovin' Sand Niggers to blow to Kingdom Come. Them and the squinty-eyed Chinese. I mean you could frog march those fuckers four abreast into the lake of fire and the line would never end! So I guess we're safe. Which always made me wonder, Jeb--how many abreast would you have to march them Chinamen if'n you did want that line to end?"

Kinda funny how they call gulit-based aversion therapy a "cure"...

Alright well think about this.
How can you want penis, if you're born with a Penis?
Unless you're mentally retarded or something and cant function right (gays who walk straight and can stand up and think and make sound decisions dont count)
When I see a gay person I don't scold or burn them however I do have a line I draw and I keep that line drawn.
The person who said product of environment is also a bit correct to me as well... when I say decision of course I don't mean they just woke up and said they want to be gay I mean some girls were sexually assaulted and raped as children and as a result don't want to be with the opposite sex or grow up to be strippers or porn stars and it's sad.
Things can influence that decision or choice of being gay, but either way to me it's a thing of sexual Preference (keyword) therefore still narrowing it down to a choice really of what gender to accept.

Yup, the bible is full of stuff that isn't true.

Why ask scientists (who can't fully prove it yet) or religious people (who don't base their views of facts) or red-neck homophobes (who are too stupid to matter)...

The only people qualified to answer this question at the moment are homosexuals themselves. And if you ask them, you'll find none of them will tell you it's a choice.

Sure there might be the exception of some poor fucker that had a traumatic sexual experience and/or has been guilted into thinking it's a choice by his/her church, but there are always exceptions.

Bottom line... who cares what we all think (heterosexuals, religious people, or homophobes)... we simply don't know.

I think eventually scientists will prove it's not a choice, but then there will still be people who won't agree, just like there are people now that base their views on a book that says the world is flat.

How can the bible be the word of God if it was written by people?

Bravo!

Never hear Dec. 25th refered to as "Xmas"?

Extrapolate from there.

Xtians is just shorthand for "Christians".

The rest of your reply I'll just ignore.

-Laz

If it's in the book of 'Romans', then Paul said it since that book is a letter to the Xtian congregation of Rome written by Paul.

-Laz

I grew up in Oregon. You know of course that Oregon is one of the states that has a law prohibiting same sex marriage, right? Which makes the original 'majority' statement even more of a non-sequitr.

-Laz

Good one, Juan. I actually laughed out loud.

-Laz

It's Romans 1:27 and in context it specifically states that their refusal to accept God is the CAUSE of both sexes participating in 'unnatural acts'. Which is admonition to accept the monotheistic Xtian God rather than a condemnation of homosexuality per se.

-Laz

You have to read the entire paragraph and chapter.. don't try to pull a fast one and start at verse 27 you have to read the entire thing.

"The only people qualified to answer this question at the moment are homosexuals themselves. And if you ask them, you'll find none of them will tell you it's a choice."

i'll go ahead and call bullshit here on the basis that both of those statements are way too generalized, and the likelihood that you actually know even one homosexual is small.

some homosexuals don't spend their days thinking about whether their sexual orientation is a choice, particularly because they simply don't give a shit. oh, and because it doesn't matter, so if you were to ask these homosexuals, they'd have no answer for you, which makes your generalized statements wrong.

to the person who replied to my earlier post: please stop hating blacks and asians. also, if you want to be funny, try an approach that doesn't scream "i'm old, bitter, and unoriginal."

I encourage you NOT to believe a word I say, and ask for yourself.

The problem is that self-rightious people are too ignorant and arrogant to even consider someone else's view as having merit, if it doesn't align with theirs.

RE: "the likelihood that you actually know even one homosexual is small"

Statistics suggest that 10% of the population is gay. Lots of sources on the Internet for these stats. To shut down the argument that this is an inflated figure use 5% or even 2%.

Assuming you meet more than a few dozen people in your lifetime (at school, at work, in your community, at church, etc.), the math is simple... chances are you'll meet and know several homosexuals in your lifetime.

I'm guessing the reason some people don't think they know any homosexuals is their own judgmental, self-rightious attitude stops others from opening up to them.

RE: "some homosexuals don't spend their days thinking about whether their sexual orientation is a choice"

Really not surprising if it isn't a choice... thank you for trying to further strengthen the "it's not a choice" arguement, but I must disagree... if your persecuted for something, whether it's a choice or not, I am certain you think about it a lot. What really fascinates me is how much energy non-homosexuals put into thinking about whether homosexuals have a choice.

Over the last many years, I've gotten to know several homosexuals. Whether they were or not is actually irrelevant to me, but when you get to know someone, and they learn that your not gonna judge them, or try to impose your self-rightious beliefs on them, it's amazing how easy it is to have an open, honest conversation on any number of subjects, including sexual orientation.

And on 4 occasions when I had the opportunity to asked the opinion of someone who is gay their thoughts on this topic (after I had gotten to know them over some time and thru a number of other trust-biulding conversations), none of them said it was a choice.

Call bullshit all you what, your turning off your brain, not me...

I thought he replied to me with his hate of black and asians and not you.

I wonder if homosexuals are capable of capitalizing their sentences?

I did and I have read it all. I was merely pointing to the exact verse. Still, they are the words of Paul, not 'God', nor Jesus.

You're right however. Read all of it. Especially the part in the printed version that says "Letter from the Apostle Paul to the congregation of Rome" that appears BEFORE the first verse.

-Laz

I know gays who have chosen their lifestyle and openly say it's a choice. Why are you insistant on defining not just one gay person's choice/birth gayness but making all gays birth gays?

Here in southern California we have more gays than I can believe. I think this place is a magnet for them. I've had the opportunity to know a few, both men and women. They all say it isn't a choice, and they all knew at a young age that they were different. I'm quite certain that all of them or most of them said they wish they were straight, and surprisingly the biggest reason was so they could have kids and a family. A few of the men have had sex with women multiple times, and it just doesn't do it for them. They tried to be straight, but had to accept the obvious fact that they were not. So that to me is yet more evidence that it's not a choice.

Based on this, my vote is that it's not a choice, and it's mostly genetic.

The real flamboyant ones, aka the "flamers" irritate me, but I don't want to burn them at the stake like some religious folks do.

(I'd rather save the stakes for Muslim Jihadis)

"I thought he replied to me with his hate of black and asians and not you."

that was to the reply below my initial post, not to you or grizzly.

"I encourage you NOT to believe a word I say, and ask for yourself."

i asked myself...apparently you're wrong.

"The problem is that self-rightious people are too ignorant and arrogant to even consider someone else's view as having merit, if it doesn't align with theirs."

i'm not sure who these assumptions and implications are directed toward, so i'm not going to bother replying to this.

if you like coherent debating, try not to shoot off on tangents.

"Assuming you meet more than a few dozen people in your lifetime (at school, at work, in your community, at church, etc.), the math is simple... chances are you'll meet and know several homosexuals in your lifetime."

again, there's way too much generalized tripe being spewed here. there are so many factors that play a part in this, yet you push all of those aside and present us with a simple statistic. you are one ridiculous retard. your bullshit doesn't account for ANYTHING, whatsoever. how are you so dumb? your queer statistic makes it sound as if this ten percent is nicely peppered across the nation, which is obviously FALSE. this of course means that there are areas, and in this case, MOST areas, in which the likelihood of meeting a homosexual is fucking null. get real.

what if a person's community doesn't welcome homosexuals?

what if a person's church doesn't welcome homosexuals?

what if a person's state doesn't welcome homosexuals?

what then, is the likelihood that that person will meet a homosexual in their lifetime? there goes your bullshit "simple math."

"I'm guessing the reason some people don't think they know any homosexuals is their own judgmental, self-rightious attitude stops others from opening up to them."

this statement belongs with its twin. it's pretty blankety and irrelevant. it has no direction, etc.

"Really not surprising if it isn't a choice... thank you for trying to further strengthen the 'it's not a choice' arguement, but I must disagree... if your persecuted for something, whether it's a choice or not, I am certain you think about it a lot. What really fascinates me is how much energy non-homosexuals put into thinking about whether homosexuals have a choice."

good job taking what i said out of context by removing the rest of the sentence and paragraph in the quotation. when will you stop being a loser? quote entire ideas, or don't quote anything. stop being shady, and grow the fuck up.

1. not every non-heterosexual is persecuted. please stop generalizing.
2. feel free to stop making assumptions and implications about my sexual orientation. you clearly haven't been paying attention. if this isn't the case, stop being so vague.

"Over the last many years, I've gotten to know several homosexuals. Whether they were or not is actually irrelevant to me, but when you get to know someone, and they learn that your not gonna judge them, or try to impose your self-rightious beliefs on them, it's amazing how easy it is to have an open, honest conversation on any number of subjects, including sexual orientation."

"wow guyz i cnt beleve how nyce peeple our when i dnnt treat them lik shite."

one minute you're a bible-bashing windbag, and the next you're a real wholesome and tolerant person. i can't help but think that you're full of shit.

"And on 4 occasions when I had the opportunity to asked the opinion of someone who is gay their thoughts on this topic (after I had gotten to know them over some time and thru a number of other trust-biulding conversations), none of them said it was a choice."

i call bullshit again. i hardly believe any of this. most of what i've seen are the words of an exaggerator.

"I wonder if homosexuals are capable of capitalizing their sentences?"

ask yourself the following questions:

1. am i too old for this?
2. am i witty, or do i simply think i am?
3. is capitalization relevant in this situation?
4. am i a bore?
5. do i still hate blacks and asians?

grizzly, i don't really think that you're an eater of shit encrusted hairs, it's just that the internet is only good for a few things, and messing with persons is one of them.

we should get together.

grizzly, i don't really think that you're an eater of shit encrusted hairs, it's just that the internet is only good for a few things, and messing with persons is one of them.

we should get together.

However, X-mas was a word created to take the religiousness away from Christmas in an effort, a stupid one( for Christ's sake just call it Christmas), to make it less offensive for those that celebrated it merely as a secular holiday. X-tians??? Why would someone need to take the religious affiliation away from that word. It, in and of itself, is a religious word. Besides, it just looks stupid. Anyway, it's misspelled; "X" takes the place of Christ, so it would be X-ians or Xians.

Actually the number of gays is much less than 10%... more like 5 - 6%.

The 10% statistic came from some dude in the 40's. Obviously, gays like this statistic.

Now, ask any one on the other side of the issue and they will point to statistics that say 0.9% of the population is gay.

Statistics: Confusing the shit out of us with the truth for over 400 years.

While my little survey of gays is 4 for 4 that it is NOT a choice, I'm okay with someone claiming they've talked to homosexuals who say it IS a choice. In fact, I've been saying all along that if you are not gay, your opinion is irrelevant. That includes my own opinion (and I assume yours).

However, as insignificant as my opinion might be, forgive me if I don't change it until I've actual met a single homosexual who tells me directly it IS a choice... I've seen too many people twist this argue based on what they want to believe.

Believe it or not, I don't care either way. However, what I do care about is not being misled by someone who says they know but don't (which I'm not implying you are doing).

There is another possibility... perhaps in some cases it is biological, and in others a choice? Never having had to make such a choice I have a hard time believing that, but in any case, if someone tells me they can switch their attraction to the same sex on and off, who am I to say they can't...

Alright now you're just being silly being the Bible ITSELF (not the human who actually wrote it) is God's words because God commanded them to write the bible and the fact that will be his word... I'm not going to argue over something I already know.

Your either a complete dick head or maybe just a partial dick head... hard to tell when your posting as an AC and mixing in your comments with all the other ACs. Perhaps your way of raising you IQ. Get a login.

I'm wondering besides yourself and your husband, who the other two people you surveyed were.

That's the best you could come up with? Jeeze, I've been away for a while, leaving you a lot of time to practice and this is what I get?

Someone should revoke your trolling license.

"And if you ask them, you'll find none of them will tell you it's a choice. "

Not entirely true. I've heard both sides of the srgument stated from them. You should try and avoid absolutes in your arguments. It only hinders you.

You're right, no-one will ever agree as long as people continue to get ideas from books that tell them they are just clothes-wearing, car-driving monkeys. :rolleyes:

You know, the subconscious choice of liking tube-steak doesn't mean it is in the genes.

Your choices can still be limited by variables other than genetic code.

"3. is capitalization relevant in this situation? "

If you want to be taken seriously, yes it is. Respect some of the rules of English. Otherwise you will be looked upon as a child, somebody from downtown who traded a crack rock for Internet access, or somebody retarded.

Get an account.

So what you are saying is never use absolutes in an argument.

Next.

Uhm, your logic confuses me. Just because same sex marriage isn't allowed doesn't mean they are a minority. You do realize we are a republic and NOT a democracy right?

Oh that's right, our representatives would NEVER implement laws or other garbage we don't want... our voices count right? Bwahahahahaha.

You're a funny guy.

Did you actually notice the use of the quotes? You should have... well maybe not. You were just cutting and pasting... my bad.

It would be easy enough to presume the majority has a larger voice. The gays in Oregon do in fact have a larger voice. They are a butt-ton of them. Granted the legislature tends to ignore them but they are there none the less.

Sorry I confused you. I'll try to use smaller words and shorter sentences for you next time. :)

ALWAYS try to avoid them ;)

Come now Juan, even you know absolutes that are contradictory only hinder. Trolling is easier when you force someone to reply to a vague truth or an assumed fact. Trolling 101. You taught us this.

If you attempt to troll with a fact that can be denied with little effort the troll fails.

Do you think God proof read the bible?

Why.. you looking for a date?

Oh, and we should just take your word for it, eigh? So if I heard voices in my head that told me to write down a bunch of stuff, and I did, would you believe it too was the word of God?

But when science has solid proof of evolution, you will ignore that because God told you scientists are wrong?

Wow it took an AC to get it. :D

What Bible are you reading?

Ahem... I do believe this is what ROM1:1 says "1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,"

What version of the English/American language are you using to even get that kind of fantasy?

The Bible isn't necessarily God's words. People wrote the stories after many encounters. If the Lord said something it usually designates such. If Jesus said something again it says so.

Perhaps you should put down the "bible" you are reading and grab one that is actually based on the Christian religion.

Jesus also stated that all Sin was paid for by His sacrifice. While you may enjoy omitting the relevant parts, I'll be happy to put them back in so you can't falsely teach those that don't have any real knowledge of the Bible.

Hahahahahah

Posted by an AC "Get an account."

I am humored ;)

Well thank you... wait, what exactly is it that I am supposed to have gotten? Well, whatever it was I'm glad that I did.

Laz has a thing for fancy words.

[link]

"No one knows what day Jesus Christ was born on. From the biblical description, most historians believe that his birth probably occurred in September, approximately six months after Passover. One thing they agree on is that it is very unlikely that Jesus was born in December, since the bible records shepherds tending their sheep in the fields on that night. This is quite unlikely to have happened during a cold Judean winter."

"In 350, Pope Julius I declared that Christ’s birth would be celebrated on December 25. There is little doubt that he was trying to make it as painless as possible for pagan Romans (who remained a majority at that time) to convert to Christianity."

Have you listened to The Beatles "Rubber Soul" bitch? It will make you want to learn how to play guitar ! Oh yes, in my humble opinion I would like to unleash the next mystery disease on the filthy ass arab moozslums like we did over in arfrica on the jungle vermin bitch

"no-one will ever agree as long as people continue to get ideas from books that tell them they are just clothes-wearing, car-driving monkeys."

Uhhh, it's from observed evidence according to the scientific method that we are related to monkeys. Not just a book.

So, do monkeys have world wars? Do monkeys pollute the land with radioactive waste? Do monkeys overpopulate the earth? Not only are we a part of the animal kingdom, but in many respects we are the worst part of it.

But since we are talking about books, let us quote the Bible:
"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)

Theres more quotes here: [link]

Since the Bible says the sun moves, does that mean it orbits the earth?

So Rev, you support the use of logic, but you reject evolution which is based upon science which itself utilizes logic as its foundation. Hmmm... That does not make sense to me. I think you should reject logic just as you reject science.

That is pretty funny

Well, yes, and Easter (X-er or Xer for those of you too lazy to type it out) was pagan in origin as well. But they have become widely recognized as Christian holidays. Obviously they are celebrated as secular holidays with no religious affiliation whatsoever. And even among Christians they are celebrated secularly.

The Church chose these specific days, as you mentioned, to ease the pagans into the Church, so that they wouldn't go into complete shock and, of course, so that they would be more likely to convert. The day may have it's roots in a pagan religion, but the word Christmas most assuredly has it roots in the Christian religion.

Funny, I don't recall mentioning that Christmas was the day of the birth of Jesus Christ. Why are you making such a fuss over it? Hell, I'm not even a religious person. But I do like to fan the flames, no matter what side of the fire I happen to be sitting on.

Who knew an AC would be so popular?

Next.

So Rev, do you think God is the reason some people are gay?

I saw an opening (ha ha) and I took it.

I'm an equal opportunity basher.

Good points. I guess you're entitled believe what you'd like. I just hate it when people claim to have a knowledge of the mindset of a gay person when they aren't gay. I'm now open to accept whatever they say as the truth, insomuch as they, at least believe it.

"Uhhh, it's from observed evidence according to the scientific method that we are related to monkeys. Not just a book. "

Hrmmm. They've actually proved through irrefutable evidence that we have evolved from apes? They have been able to reproduce thisexperiment correct? I mean after all, for it to be a scientific fact the experiment should be able to be reproduced with the same results each time, thus proving the theory to be true and henceforth... fact.

Oh. That's right, we can't simulate millions of years in a lab yet.

Seems to me the evidence is just a perspective of the way people choose to interpret the findings. I'll refer you back to the apple/orange/fruit analogy I made earlier. Until someone can make a species evolve (apes into humans, mutations of natural genes -not splicing genes that are non-existant mind you- or even worms into humans) in a lab it is just guesswork.

On a tangent... genesplicing and natural evolution should remain separate and one shouldn't be used to prove another. The experiment should be used with natural "tools", and effects to make it valid.

I know you need clues so here are a couple. The books are written by people with opinions. Books can contain facts. However, there are no facts when it comes to evolution. It is only guesswork and people looking for similarities. Similarities don't make things equal.

Before you make an appeal to authority (in this case the scientific method) try to understand what it is first. The scientific method has a few steps to follow. Remember, theories are not facts.

"So, do monkeys have world wars? Do monkeys pollute the land with radioactive waste? Do monkeys overpopulate the earth? Not only are we a part of the animal kingdom, but in many respects we are the worst part of it."

Sort of irrelevant. However it does help in a way. It just goes to show we aren't just apes. We are a different species altogether.

As for radioactive waste... does throwing poo count?


But since we are talking about books, let us quote the Bible:
"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)

Theres more quotes here:[link]

Since the Bible says the sun moves, does that mean it orbits the earth?

Ok kids, the word for the day is perspective.
When you speak of sunrise do you actually claim "morning hour earthspin?" I mean, after all, you can't possibly use colloquialism right? Perhaps the world is mistaken in calling it sunRISE and sunSET, because surely we are all aware the sun stays put.

"So Rev, you support the use of logic, but you reject evolution which is based upon science which itself utilizes logic as its foundation. Hmmm... That does not make sense to me. I think you should reject logic just as you reject science."

Wow. You are retarded. Evolution isn't based on science. Science is just a term we use to describe events. "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." The event itself isn't based on science tardling.

Science isn't necessarily based on logic. Math is yes. Science is based upon observation and yes... PERSPECTIVE. The logic comes in when trying to create a plausible theory that doesn't get you laughed out of the room. There are many theories out there they are pretty illogical. That is a discussion for another time however.

I also do not reject science. I reject the THEORY of evolution. You should brush up on some reading comprehension in your sped class.

Why? Are you looking for someone else to blame because you like the skin flute and your daddy beats you because of it?

"They've actually proved through irrefutable evidence that we have evolved from apes? They have been able to reproduce thisexperiment correct? I mean after all, for it to be a scientific fact the experiment should be able to be reproduced with the same results each time, thus proving the theory to be true and henceforth... fact."

That's not how science works. We know the sun is powered by nuclear fusion, but we don't have to assemble a bunch of hydrogen, pack it together, wait a countless number of lifetimes, and watch it ignite, in order to consider it a fact that a star is a gravity powered fusion reactor.

"Until someone can make a species evolve (apes into humans, mutations of natural genes -not splicing genes that are non-existant mind you- or even worms into humans) in a lab it is just guesswork. "

I'll refer you back to my example of the usefulness of a solid scientific theory even though it has some holes in it. Your logic states that the theory of the atom was worthless because we did not know the speed at which an electron orbits the nucleus. I would point out nuclear medicine, bombs, and power as proof that the theory of the atom is quite solid even though it has some holes in it. You would likely respond that unless it can be proven in a lab that the theory is 100% complete then it's just an opinion. Actually, you would likely respond "it's still just a theory", even though I've already stated that science utilizes the word theory differently than other fields. A crackpot idea with no serious evidence can be compared to a hypothesis, but a theory in science is a working model which explains things, from which facts can be derived. Your requirement that we must take an ape and turn it into a human in a lab in order to prove that we evolved from primates shows a lack of understanding of science.

"However, there are no facts when it comes to evolution. It is only guesswork and people looking for similarities. Similarities don't make things equal. "

You state that there are no facts when it comes to evolution? Then you know nothing about the theory, and have obviously not taken any college level science classes that covered evolution, or you would know that the theory (the working model, remember) is the most complete and solid of all theories of science. There are countless facts regarding evolution, but you are obviously in denial about this.

"It just goes to show we aren't just apes. We are a different species altogether."

I never said we are apes, I've said that evolution states that humans and apes have a common ancestor, and we evolved from primitive primates, whereas I assume you believe that god created adam and eve a few thousand years ago.

"You are retarded. Evolution isn't based on science."

I'm just going to laugh at that statement. Then I will say this: if evolution was not a valid scientific theory then scientists would of torn it to shreds long ago. There is much motivation in science to reveal the truth, because science is based upon skepticism and logic, whereas religion is based upon blind faith.

"There are many theories out there they are pretty illogical."

Yeah, like quantum theory which states that a particle can be in multiple places at the same point in time, and it's not until you actually observe it that it suddenly chooses a location to exist in. And the theory of "negative information", which I won't bother to explain. Yeah, these are some very wacky theories, but they hold to scrutiny, therefore they are not illogical but instead are rather strange. Big difference.

"I also do not reject science. I reject the THEORY of evolution."

For the 4th time, in science a theory is a working model that explains things, from which facts can be derived. Evolution is such a solid theory that it's considered a fact that evolution happened. It does not mean that the theory is 100% complete, but neither is the theory of the atom. If you reject the strongest theory of science, then in my opinion you reject science. Next time you need medical care, I recommend you turn to god for help, not to science.

The problem Rev is that religious folks like you are worried about your ego and pride, and can not accept that humans are just a part of the animal kingdom. You can't accept that we evolved from primates. Your pride requires humans to be divine creations of god which are 'above' the animal kingdom. And you are desperate to exploit what you see as weaknesses in the theory of evolution to nullify the entire theory and say something like "it's not 100% complete, therefore it's wrong"

Here's something that's your style Rev, and remember, there are many theories of gravity and none of them are considered very strong, like the theory of the atom and the theory of evolution. So enjoy this, because it represents your way of thinking: [link]

If you don't think it's genetic, then what is your hypothesis?

I consider it a fact that most homosexuals wish they we're straight, this comes from my own observations of asking gays "do you wish you were straight", not from asking them if they enjoyed being gay. From that I logically conclude that those same people did not make a conscious choice to be gay, because if it was a choice and they wish they were straight, it would be illogical for them to chose to be gay. From that I logically conclude that their sexual orientation was not a choice, but rather something forced upon them. From the article I observed evidence of sheep having a biological explanation of their homosexuality, and since we have a lot in common with sheep (we are both mammals), I extrapolate that the same applies to humans. This assumption is supported by the articles mention of the brain scans done on homosexual men with AIDS. Therefore my conclusion is that homosexuality in humans is likely a biological cause, specifically a gentic cause. I acknowledge that it may be a virus, but I assume this is unlikely since such virus would of likely been discovered by now. I acknowledge that it may be a combination of genetic defect and a virus, but I also consider this to be unlikely.

You have stated that you think it's a choice, and I'm asking you to logically explain your rationale for said conclusion.

So, again, what is the reason you think it's a choice Rev?

Let me guess: "God is punishing them"

Well, if that happens to be your explanation, how do you explain that these people knew they were homosexual before they ever had sex. So why would god punish them BEFORE they committed the sin? Perhaps from this you can deduce that reincarnation is a fact, because these people must have sinned in a previous lifetime, thus God was justified in punishing them immediately in this lifetime before they committed a sin? If this is the case, and since Christianity does not support the belief of reincarnation, we can logically conclude that Christianity is wrong and Hinduism in right. Therefore you will burn in hell Rev for worshipping Jesus.

Here Rev, read this: [link]

and [link]

Because someone like you wants to call it a fact it is now a fact?

So much for the scientific method.

Paul didn't walk with Christ for years. He wasn't one of the 12.

I think that the environmental angle is a pretty significant one to bring up because it could play a factor (large or small) as far as we know. But I think it's really sad that you consider yourself "mentally damaged" because you're bisexual. Why is it we see homosexuals and bisexuals as being "less than" heterosexuals, as if heterosexual were somehow the superior way to be? The idea that one preference can be better than another is far too present in society, even outside the realm of sex.

That's not how science works. We know the sun is powered by nuclear fusion, but we don't have to assemble a bunch of hydrogen, pack it together, wait a countless number of lifetimes, and watch it ignite, in order to consider it a fact that a star is a gravity powered fusion reactor.

Do we know it for a fact? How is that? Did they perform experiments to replicate it? If we are following the method proscribed for theories to be fact then the answer should be obvious.

Your logic states that the theory of the atom was worthless because we did not know the speed at which an electron orbits the nucleus.

Uhm no, my logic states no such thing. Please don't enter into this argument anything that I haven't said or implied and try to use it as a defense as if it were said and/or implied. My logic clearly states that a theory is just a theory until it is proven. Once it is proven it is fact. (Unless of course other facts come out that change things... our perspective usually.)

You would likely respond that unless it can be proven in a lab that the theory is 100% complete then it's just an opinion.

Not so, you speculate too much.

Actually, you would likely respond "it's still just a theory", even though I've already stated that science utilizes the word theory differently than other fields. A crackpot idea with no serious evidence can be compared to a hypothesis, but a theory in science is a working model which explains things, from which facts can be derived.

Bingo. It is just a theory. It isn't pure fact. It is just something that can explain things based on our current understanding. Hrmmm perspective keeps popping up. Here's an example:

Atoms spin. Fact. We've seen it.
Space is infinite. Theory. We just don't know because we can't see far enough.


Your requirement that we must take an ape and turn it into a human in a lab in order to prove that we evolved from primates shows a lack of understanding of science.

No it shows that the theory is flawed in many ways. It isn't something that can be reproduced at all well. Pointing out similarities and calling them the "same" is flawed anf not an appropriate way to "prove" we evolved from apes.

You state that there are no facts when it comes to evolution? Then you know nothing about the theory, and have obviously not taken any college level science classes that covered evolution, or you would know that the theory (the working model, remember) is the most complete and solid of all theories of science.

Haha, appeal to authority and begging the question. Well then, I guess I'm wrong just because you say so! Hahahahahaha.

There are no facts proving we evolved from one species into another. I know you are trying to focus on only bits and pieces because you can't argue against whole thoughts but I'm happy to remind you that it doesn't work with me.

I never said we are apes, I've said that evolution states that humans and apes have a common ancestor, and we evolved from primitive primates, whereas I assume you believe that god created adam and eve a few thousand years ago.

Really? Then what exactly were you trying to imply with your little analogy regarding human actions and their non-comparison to apes? It appeared you were trying to say we didn't act at all like apes or any animals. I agreed with that. In fact it helps support the idea that we didn't go species hopping because there aren't other species out there doing the same thing.

"Common ancestor" is just a way of candy coating the idea of one species hopping around into another one.

I believe God created man. I also believe the timeframe was something put into terms man could understand at the time.

I'm just going to laugh at that statement. Then I will say this: if evolution was not a valid scientific theory then scientists would of torn it to shreds long ago. There is much motivation in science to reveal the truth, because science is based upon skepticism and logic, whereas religion is based upon blind faith.

Good because I am as well. You should proof-read your comments before posting. If you didn't mean what you said about evolution being based upon on science then you shouldn't have posted it. The two are separate. As I explained science is a way of describing "events" whereas the theory of evolution is there only to say we came from other critters. Perhaps you misuse the term "based upon." The theory of evolution could quite easily exist if we didn't have a way of describing the process of how it supposedly works.

I was simply pointing out the terms you so casually throw together are exclusive, even if they use "science" to poke around in our DNA.

In case you aren't keeping notes, that was a strawman you threw out there. I'm starting to lose count of your fallacies :/

As for motivation... there is more motivation in finding answers that earn you the most money ;) The truth is relevant to the person stating it. I also find many believers also very skeptical. Take the skepticism

Argh... friggin bah...



They tend to be very skeptical of stuff like the theories regarding people evolving from animals, bugs, whatever.

Yeah, these are some very wacky theories, but they hold to scrutiny, therefore they are not illogical but instead are rather strange. Big difference.

Again perspective. I would say something existing in more than one place is rather illogical. Strange too. If a finger (middle) is held up in front of you, how can it also be put away? ;)

For the 4th time, in science a theory is a working model that explains things, from which facts can be derived.

And again I'll say the same thing. It doesn't "work." It is pretty broken. There are many pieces of evidence that suggest the contrary of evolution. Similarities don't cut it. Hell the theory of evolution is a damn logic fallacy. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because we may have some similar stuff in our bodies doesn't mean we are/were related. Shit is carbon based, does that mean you're shit? Christ almighty, you may be shit but that doesn't mean because you both are made of carbon that is the reason ;)

If you reject the strongest theory of science, then in my opinion you reject science.

That is completely your opinion. However, your opinion stops where my facts begin. I know for a FACT what I know and think. I understand science and accept quite a bit of it. Just because I do not accept a fucking theory doesn't mean I don't accept the rest. How many logic fallacies are you going to throw into this argument? Any more and I won't bother with you anymore. I'll leave it at, "you're wrong."

The problem Rev is that religious folks like you are worried about your ego and pride, and can not accept that humans are just a part of the animal kingdom. You can't accept that we evolved from primates. Your pride requires humans to be divine creations of god which are 'above' the animal kingdom. And you are desperate to exploit what you see as weaknesses in the theory of evolution to nullify the entire theory and say something like "it's not 100% complete, therefore it's wrong"

I'm not worried about my ego. I'm very secure in it. I'm worried about your mental state though. It must be hard growing up thinking you are a monkey.

I WON'T accept it because it isn't true. You cannot prove it is true. You cannot accept the fact that someone won't just take your word for it as the God given truth. Seems like you're the one with the ego issue. You have yet to prove or convince me of anything. Perhaps if you used more facts and less fallacies it would help. Then again, you can't provide facts of something that is false so I guess you're doomed to rant about it.

I exploit nothing. The theory simply fails to prove it is accurate. As I have said many times I do believe in adaptation and believe many animals and humans exhibit these traits. However, adaptation is not evolution. Species don't evolve from one, into another.

I also don't believe I said anywhere that it wasn't 100% so it's wrong. I said it was wrong for other reasons. Try to stay on task hmmm?

I guess I was wrong. It appears you aren't able to handle intelligent discussions. Feel free to try your hand at trolling anytime... I'll be happy to hand your ass to you.

"Do we know it for a fact? How is that? Did they perform experiments to replicate it? If we are following the method proscribed for theories to be fact then the answer should be obvious."

So, if you don't believe the sun is fusion powered via gravity, then it's obvious you don't have much faith in science as a whole. If you remember history, scientists built the nuclear bomb only AFTER they did the math that explained how stars could operate. The fact that fission and fusion bombs work is direct evidence that the 'theory of stars' (I don't know the formal name) is valid, and the theory of the atom is valid. You are saying that you will only believe science if you see it with your own eyes. Ok, how do you feel about people saying "I will only believe in god if I saw him/her/it with my own eyes?" I assume you would likely respond that you do not need to see god with your own eyes to know it exists. Or you would say "look around you, that is your proof of god". Well, is the earth also flat? I look around me and I see a flat earth.

"Uhm no, my logic states no such thing. Please don't enter into this argument anything that I haven't said or implied and try to use it as a defense as if it were said and/or implied. My logic clearly states that a theory is just a theory until it is proven. Once it is proven it is fact. (Unless of course other facts come out that change things... our perspective usually.) "

Sure it does, you reject evolution because it is not complete and because we can't walk a monkey into a lab and have it walk out as a human. You are placing your own requirements on what must be proven in order to convince you. However, you are a man of faith, whereas scientists are people of skepticism. You have already decided that god made humans, therefore this typing is a waste of time, but hey I'm still doing it. You are placing an unreasonable expectation in order to accept a fact which qualified scientists accept as a fact. They do not place such unreasonable expectations, and they are the scientists, so who are you to tell them they are wrong, are you trained in science? Separately, you have been ignoring the definition of a theory which I have provided to you over and over again, even the links I provided you in the second post define how evolution is both a theory and a fact. You say "My logic clearly states that a theory is just a theory until it is proven." Well, your logic is flawed because you are using the non-scientific definition of a theory, such as what a police detective would use when trying to solve a mystery. Their version of a 'theory' is more like 'an idea of what happened', whereas in science that is most closely related to a hypothesis. In science a theory is a working model which explains things, from which facts can be derived. It is accepted by mainstream science that species DO evolve from one into another, and that evolution is a fact. The exact details of how it happens are still being worked out, but enough has been learned to consider it the strongest of all the theories in science, because the evidence is overwhelming and from so many different sources. Yet you reject this, because you are a man of faith, faith in god, not faith in science.

"Haha, appeal to authority and begging the question. Well then, I guess I'm wrong just because you say so!"
You laugh at me pointing out your ignorance when you say "there are not facts when it comes to evolution", that is no different that me laughing at you if you said "2 + 2 = 5". Let us count the ways: first you dont understand the definition of a scientific theory even when it's been provided to you including links and you have the internet at your use, second you are a grown adult and you don't know that evolution is regarded as a fact by mainstream science, third you assume that a theory steps up and becomes a fact when in reality there is nothing higher than a theory in science. If I never studied math and I tried to tell you that 2+2=5, then you would also laugh at me, because I'm making such a fundamental mistake that it's obvious I don't know anything about what I'm talking about. Theres no need to argue about calculus if I can't do basic addition, is there? And if I responsed with something like "haha, I'll just have to take your word for it that 2 + 2 is not 5, haha like you are an authority on anything". I CAN claim to be an authority on basic common issues of science and so can lots of other common fokks, just as you could claim to be an authority on basic math when it came to what 2+2 equals. Answer me this: I have taken the college level classes, have you?

"Then what exactly were you trying to imply with your little analogy regarding human actions and their non-comparison to apes? It appeared you were trying to say we didn't act at all like apes or any animals. I agreed with that. In fact it helps support the idea that we didn't go species hopping because there aren't other species out there doing the same thing."

You didn't read my statement that we are a part of the animal kingdom.

""Common ancestor" is just a way of candy coating the idea of one species hopping around into another one. I believe God created man."

Well, then there you have it folks. God created man, evolution is wrong, one species does not evolve into another. Do you also agree in the theory of Intelligent Falling? Does gravity not exist since it's theories are weak? Is Jesus the cause of gravity since science doesn't yet have a good explanation? [link] Did you know that the Saudi Arabia's religious leader Sheik Abdel-Aziz ibn Baaz, who claims to also be a man of god like yourself, claimed that scientists are wrong and the earth is flat? He said "Anyone of the round persuasion does not believe in God and should be punished" So, do you agree with your fellow man of God that the earth is flat? After all, he is well respected among Muslims. Will I burn in hell because I think the earth is round? I wonder if you see the logic in this paragraph.

"You should proof-read your comments before posting. If you didn't mean what you said about evolution being based upon on science then you shouldn't have posted it."

Hmm, I seemed to have confused you, so I'll make it more simple for you to understand, Reverend. If layer 3 rests upon layer 2, and layer 2 rests upon layer 1, then layer 3 relies upon layer 1 (in addition to relying upon later 2). Now, the theory of evolution was created by scientists according to the scientific method (layer 3 rests upon layer 2). Science / the scientific method relys upon a few different things, among them is logic, skeptisicm, consistency, and a few more I'm sure (layer 2 rests upon layer 1). Therefore evolution depends upon logic, skeptisicm, consistency, and others (layer 3 relies upon layer 1). I'm sure you understand now.

"As I explained science is a way of describing "events" whereas the theory of evolution is there only to say we came from other critters."

Wrong, the theory of evolution says a lot more. It explains why humans have an appendix that is useless, it explains why whales have tiny rear leg bones buried deep within their muscle and fat and are only visible when all the flesh is gone, (whales evolved from a dog-like land animal). It explains sexual selection, survival of the fittest, etc. It explains how giraffes have long necks. Tell me, why would god give humans a useless appendix? Why would god give whales tiny rear legs that don't do anything? God makes no mistakes, right? You are a Reverend, so please explain these FACTS to me.

"In case you aren't keeping notes, that was a strawman you threw out there. I'm starting to lose count of your fallacies :/ "
Uhhh, I don't respect your selective use of logic. You use it when it suits you, then ignore it when it does not suit you. That is not logical.

So, if you don't believe the sun is fusion powered via gravity, then it's obvious you don't have much faith in science as a whole.

I don't believe I said any such thing anywhere. I simply stated questions. Those questions were evidence that a theory is still just guesswork until it is proven fact.

Ok, how do you feel about people saying...

I don't feel one way or another. People can see God if they choose to.

Sure it does...

No it doesn't. Period.

The monkey analogy was again to point our your flawed perspective about theories being truth. If the theory was fact we could reproduce the events.

How is it unreasonable to ask for solid proof? It isn't. They are only stating opinions on the matter.

Further you repeatedly re-state a FLAWED definition of theory.

And no my definition isn't flawed. The statement was dumbed down for you. Clearly not far enough.

In science a theory is a working model which explains things, from which facts can be derived...

It isn't a working model. It is a logic fallacy when you point at the end results to justify the cause. If you can't prove how it happened, why, and the steps inbetween it doesn't work. Ergo, you are still wrong.

Further evolution isn't accepted by "mainstream" unless your definition of mainstream is only those who believe the way you do. There are opponenets on both sides.

You laugh at me pointing out your ignorance when you say...

Your idea of stating facts are making assumptions about ones education and making an argument against that. That is a logic fallacy. Even if I was uneducated, it wouldn't make the statement false.

For every link you google I could provide a contrary one. Surely you aren't expecting that to be your overwhelming evidence regarding your "education" hmmm?

Answer me this: I have taken the college level classes, have you?

Yes.

You didn't read my statement that we are a part of the animal kingdom.

Yes I did. You must not have read what I typed. Either that or you chose to ignore it in favor of setting up a straw man.

Do you also agree in the theory of Intelligent Falling?

Nope. Never heard of it until you brought it up. Clearly your source of education is finding an error made in one place and using it to discount everything else in relation to it.

Does gravity not exist? Well the term is just something to describe that we stick. We have evidence that we stick or fall if we happen to leave contact. Simple enough. WHY we stick is another matter.

In a way yes, God is the reason. After all he did create it all ;)

Is this sheik a Christian or does he believe in a different "god." Please don't put be in the same category as Islam/Muslim. We do NOT worship the same God. Further I don't think I need to state the obvious. I've been around the earth.

Using something to form an idea isn't the same as saying it is based on it. Clearly you still don't understand even the drivel you are spouting.

Wrong...

Again trying to grab onto something you perceive as an error to deny an argument. Remember kids, fallacies don't help you.

Whales didn't evolve from a dog-like animal. Sure some scientists may believe it has, but there is no proof. Just because something is similar doesn't make it the same. Pointing at similarities and calling them facts is a bit naieve. It would seem your blind faith in science it getting the best of you ;) Looks a lot like a religion.

Good questions. I have another. Why would God give you a brain if you never use it? When he chooses to answer I'll let you know. I'm not God and I don't claim to have an understanding of his infinite intelligence.

Uhhh, I don't respect your selective use of logic. You use it when it suits you, then ignore it when it does not suit you. That is not logical.

I use it all the time. I point it out more when tards like you need a lesson. Of course you don't respect it, it gets in your way. It causes your arguments to fall apart. It is very logical.

Keep on trollin' I'm sure someone else is bound to bite. I'm done here.

Environment has a lot to do with it. Choice has a lot to do with it.

I have also witnessed the effects of both

Let me guess: "God is punishing them"... :rolleyes: You make it obvious you are just a troll.

" Those questions were evidence that a theory is still just guesswork until it is proven fact. "

It is considered a proven fact that the sun is a gravity powered fusion reactor. Those facts are out there if you care to look for them.

" If the theory was fact we could reproduce the events. "

In science you don't have to reproduce an event to consider a theory solid or a fact to be a fact. If you have enough evidence from different perspectives/methodologies that all say the same thing, then it can be taken as a fact. We do not need to reproduce a black hole to consider them facts. We instead rely upon measurements from observation. You are wrong when you say something must be recreated in front of your own eyes to be taken as a fact. That's not how science operates, and you should know this if you studied it in college. Your position here is very naieve.

"For every link you google I could provide a contrary one. "

So does this mean there are no truths out there, simply because somebody else has an alternative opinion? Have you considered comparing credentials? If department heads at Harvard, Stanford, and many other well known universities around the world say "evolution happened, it's a fact and the theory is solid", but many crackpots say "god created man a few thousand years ago, that's a fact, evolution never happened, scientists are wrong" does it mean that the crackpots cancel out the respected universities? No, of course not, because statements from some people have more weight than others.

Since you've taken college level science courses that cover evolution, and you still hold to your opinion, I consider you a closed minded fool that I should not waste time on. All the statements I've made can be backed up by doing some research from legit sources. You want proof the evolution happened and one species can evolved into another, include proof that whales evolved from land animals, it's out there if you care to look for it. But you wont, because you are a man of god and you 'know' science is wrong.

"Please don't put be in the same category as Islam/Muslim. We do NOT worship the same God."
What? A Christian saying that there is not one god? Don't you respect the fact that Muslims consider Moses and Jesus to also be prophets? According to Islam and Christianity, there is but one god. How can you not know this?

"Whales didn't evolve from a dog-like animal. Sure some scientists may believe it has, but there is no proof."
As I've said, the proof is out there if you chose to read it. Perhaps you can prove that they are not related since science says they are. Whales are mammals, they breath air, give birth to their young, feed them milk, and have leftover body parts from being land animals such as the tiny rear legs. Sharks and fish don't breath air, they aren't mammals, because they never evolved on land. Those are hints that what I'm saying is correct, but of course mainstream science is wrong since we can't walk a dog into a lab and have it come out a whale, per the Reverend's requirements. From fish came amphibians, from amphibians came reptiles, from reptiles came mammals, a few mammals on land migrated back into the sea, hence whales, seals, otters, dolphins, etc. Those are the facts, you can do the research if you wish to verify it.

"I use it all the time. I point it out more when tards like you need a lesson. Of course you don't respect it, it gets in your way. It causes your arguments to fall apart. It is very logical."

When there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution, and weak/flawed evidence to say it does not exist, it is only logical to support the view that has the most evidence. You are the one who rejects logic when it suits you. I've made claims that can be easily verified, but if I provide a link for you, you simply claim that you can provide an alternative link that says something else, therefore no matter what I provide nothing can be proved in your opinion. That is illogical. I don't see any major logical fallacies that I have committed, but I see some that you have committed.

Since you obviously think you've won this debate, don't forget to give yourself a pat on the back.

"Environment has a lot to do with it. Choice has a lot to do with it. "

Uhh, that sure doesn't explain anything. HOW does environment have something to do with it? Are you saying that children raised by gay parents are more likely to turn out gay? What evidence do you have to support your claim.

Choice has a lot to do with it? So does this mean you've spoken with gays who have said "I chose to be attracted to the same sex"? What evidence do you have to support your claim.

You made a quick statement, you did not lay out your rationale for us to examine.

Please try again.

Actually Laz is Buddhist, so he customarily uses 'Xtains' out of habit on newsgroups to keep devil worshipping trolls and disgruntled Xtians at bay.

-Laz

Exactly. Paul was originally Saul of Tarsus. A Roman agent sent to infiltrate the early Church of Jerusalem (Christianity). Then he supposedly "saw God" on his way to complete his mission. As the Romans have done time and again during the history of their conquests, they soon absorbed Christianity and made it their own, adding their own Pagan embelishments like the triune monotheistic doctrine (trinity), Christmas (Satrunalia) and other things. Coptic Christians were and are closer to the original form of Christianity than most modern churches. Remember -- the Nag Hamadi came from Egypt, the home of Coptic Christianity and that shows their link to the early church after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.

-Laz

There is no place on earth that has a homosexual majority. Not Oregon. Not even San Francisco. No logic (in rhetoric) is necessary when one makes a statement of fact.

-Laz

Admitting you're wrong about your original "majority" claim would be a good first step....

-Laz

That's about the same percentage of Apple Macintosh market penetration! Coincidence? I think not!

-Laz

Science has no absolute answers. All of science is theory.

-Laz

You said penetration!

Science is not foolish enough to claim to have absolute answers.

Those that say science is useless because it can't provide 100% certainty should refuse medical treatment and rely upon God when they are sick. They should not utilize electricity, or automobiles. They should go back to living in caves.

You make it obvious you are just a troll.

:D

Are you looking for someone else to blame because you like the skin flute and your daddy beats you because of it?

Mr. Kettle, I'd like you to meet Mr. Pot.

"Because someone like you wants to call it a fact it is now a fact? "

I wonder if you even read that first link? It was not a single person speaking, it was quotes from a collection of scientists. The author of the paper is a professor of molecular biology at the university of Toronto, if you which to check credentials. If you wish to label this person a crackpot, you will have a difficult time proving it. If you wish to state something like "that person knows nothing", I would appreciate some logical rationale to back it up, otherwise you are simply providing yet another opinion, and that would have little value. Furthermore, in my opinion, it would weaken your position greatly if you were to make such a statement.

Tell me Rev, what evidence do you have that God created man and that evolution is not a fact?

You have stated your beliefs, but provided NO evidence to support it. You have stated your requirements to accept what science holds as a truth, yet your requirements are far beyond what mainstream science requires. Perhaps you can explain why you require something so extraordinary, when accomplished scientists with impeccable records do not.

I have stated my beliefs and provided some evidence to support it. Therefore I think it's time for you to show your evidence to support your position.

nnsqtr? xpln

nutted in yo mouf?

"Nutted"?
"Yo"?
"Mouf"?

Go back to the ghetto you idiot.

Actually, Christmas was not originally a God/Jesus holiday. The celebration is pagan in nature, dating LONG before Christianity borrowed it, and the story of Jesus is actually just a re-written account of the birth and death of Mithra, a much older demigod from a much older religion.

Christians borrowed most of their holidays in an attempt to strip them from the pagans.

As for the homosexuality thing- Well, who cares if the Bible condemns it? Some of us aren't xtian and don't give a damn what the xtians think, as they're usually WRONG anyway.

I'm fairly sure that is what the both of us already said.

I'm fairly sure that is what the both of us already said.

If I were wrong, I would.

I'm not. I stand by my statement.

All right I'll bite on just this one because it is my duty as a Christian to educate...

What? A Christian saying that there is not one god? Don't you respect the fact that Muslims consider Moses and Jesus to also be prophets? According to Islam and Christianity, there is but one god. How can you not know this?

There is only one God. Note the capital G. This is in case you didn't get very far in grammar a pro-noun. The lower case g is simply a noun.

According to Christians, there is only one God. The Bible clearly points out there are other "gods" which are worshipped from time to time.

No I don't respect the Muslim view of Moses and Jesus. It is wrong. Jesus is the son of God, born to a virgin. Further He lived a perfect life and later was crucified, laid to rest and later rose 3 days later.

Happy trolling!

So appeals to authority are proof? I'm amused.

I will admit though... logic fallacies make the best bait.

Keep on trollin'

Your fallacies won't get you the answers you want. Perhaps you should seek God ;) I'm done running laps around the logic track with you.

No, no no. I'm just an insulting asshole. False analogy!

So close. Try again ;)

Wow, you sure provided lots of info to back up your position.

Reviewing the opinions of scientists when it comes to science does not seem like a logical fallacy to me. You've claimed that mainstream science does not consider evolution a fact, so I provided a bunch of scientists saying it is a fact, and you dismiss it because they are authorities on the subject?

Yeah, that makes lots of sense. And I'm the one who's a troll? Ha ha...

Ha, logical fallacy. An appeal to authority. I WON'T accept it because it isn't true. You cannot prove it is true. You cannot accept the fact that someone won't just take your word for it as the God given truth.

There is no evidence that proves God exists. The existence of Jesus is just a theory, not a FACT. You can not provide any proof.

You are obviously a troll, committing logical fallacies.

It appears you aren't able to handle intelligent discussions. Feel free to try your hand at trolling anytime... I'll be happy to hand your ass to you.

(I wonder if any of the above sounded familiar to you)

Hey Ricky: when are you going to approve my review of that website about Jesus being a myth and the Bible being unoriginal?? I dedicated that review to the Rev.

I just nutted

god created everything in this world. so as homosexuals.

wow. this thread is just brutal to read.

Simply put, God loves everyone. He loves them regardless of whether they are gay or straight.

If I were gay I wouldnt feel like god loved me. The deal is that he loves me whether i'm gay or not but just doesn't if i commit homosexual acts? He'd be saying I'm not allowed to have a mate and must be single forever and make do with just friends. Thats pretty brutal.

God is gay.

very true. there are vast numbers of christians that approach homosexuality as if it were contagious and harbor a lot of malice towards it. but really, even as a sin, none of us had any place to look down upon homosexuals or make any judgement on them. I certainly still live a very sin filled life, but aspire to be as good of a person as I can. People forget that the disciples themselves were not perfect. Peter lied. Judas was a hypocrite. Paul was a pharisee. And then there is myself. No... I'm no cleaner in God's eyes than anyone else.

By your reasoning then, heterosexuality is just as much as a sin as homosexuality is. Thanks for clearing that part up :)

no. and i don't see how you derived that. i didn't say that heterosexuality was a sin, but rather there is no one among us who is sin-less and therefore no one among us is in any position to say "i'm better than you because you're a homosexual."

So being homosexual (and acting on those urges) makes you more of a sinner, but since everyone is a sinner because they commit other 'sins' it really doesn't matter. Tek, you don't have to hide your bigotry behind dogma; I just cannot believe that we live in an age that still persecutes people for the way they were born. However, one day hopefully more people will derive their sense of reasoning from reality and not a 2000 year old book.

But you see, thats the thing. you quantify sin. all sin is the same in God's eyes, regardless of whether it's lying, or murder, or whatever. mother theresa's sin was just as repugnant in God's eyes as Hitler's. and I know that when I say that, some people will be aghast at me comparing the two. but it's not their deeds. it's the fact that God is metaphorically light and sin metaphorically darkness. homosexuality doesn't make you any more of sinner than anyone else, but yes... it does make you a sinner. i'm sorry if my beliefs and opinions frustrate you, but understand that people over-simplifying my beliefs and berating my opinions is also frustrating to me.

See, I don't hate gays because of the bible. I hate gays because they are so damned annoying!

Do you know how hard it is to have a gay guy flippantly criticize your style of dress and have them be right! At least when a straight guy tells me my hipster clothes look bad, I can deny it and accuse him of being gay.

Damn you gay people! Get out of my closet! And my dresser drawers! And my laundry basket!

you guys may find this to be a good read.

[link]

Yeah, I couldn't stop laughing! I think the term 'FUD' sums up that article pretty well.

i kinda agree with you on the article. i definitely notice a heft of fear and bias in there. the author seems to be trying to write it as a logical reasoning, but comes off as just a religious defender. i would, however, like to hear more as to why you consider it FUD. i'd like the other POV.

It seems as if the author is saying 'hey! lets deny human rights to a section of society because it will cost us more money!', and if Rev was here I'm sure he'd point out the many logical fallacies in that article. The author is far from being neutral and such a subjective commentary from a conservative group would naturally appeal to those who have already made up their minds and would hope to persuade those who are on the fence about the issue; the title 'how will same-sex marriage affect me?' alludes to this.
All the topics the author discusses and fears hes trying to spread could be applied to slavery as well - 'how would releasing slaves affect me?'. I dont think anyone outside a conservative base would take this article seriously.

sounds good to me.