Is there really a god?

[wizdom]

newby your right! So than abortion is wrong right? What about gays adopting kids are they taking away that child's right to have a mom and dad? i have nothing against gays infact i have friends that used to be gay and half of them realized by being set free from that lifestlye that it was not right and they no longer desire the opposite sex. If we are born gay don't you think that desire would never go away?

 

also i can give my opionon without imposeing anything on you. I can only be imposing if you are feeling convicted. otherwise who cares what my opinon is you are intitled to yours right? i don't say you are imposing evolution on me or gay rights no i don't i say that is your moral standard and beliefs we will all know the truth when we die and we will see what holds up.

 

who ever said something about idiolizing the Bible. I don't feel so strongly about God soley on the Bible. I am not dumb i know it's possibel that man could have tampered with the writings just like man could have tampered with the theory of evolution. God has revealed himself to me and I will never doubt his existense. this is my truth not my imposing onto anyone else.

[Moai]

I knew what i wrote would not be commited on. I did debate with you by giving you facts that help to disprove evolution.

 

If you are so confident as to why your long cut and paste post form Kent Hovind was not commented on, pick ONE assertion he makes and I will be happy to show you why it is wrong.

 

Sadly, it is typical of Creationists to shotgun a bunch of nonsense that would take literally hours to address, and then claim victory when their opponent doesn't have time. I didn't respond because just typing a response would have taken me a couple of hours (I don't need to cut and paste, as I understand the subject), and halfway through Loveshack would log me out and it would all be for naught.

 

I again ask that you pick one thing Hovind (or any other Creationsist) has asserted and I would be happy to show you that they are at best misguided or at worst that they are lying.

 

i am very rational and i never said gays don't love, i love my best friend and i am devoted to her doesn't mean we are gay. Being gay is more than that. i simply gave you guys things to considerd it doesn't matter if it is spelled wrong or if it was copied in past off of a site that does not make it any less true. i wanted real responses to back up what you call true but non of you can do that.

 

When have I not asserted facts? You cut and pasted something that you yourself don't understand. If I wanted to debate Kent Hovind (which I'd LOVE to IRL), I would invite him here and have at it. But you are the member of this thread, so I have to debate you.

 

Again I ask: Pick just one assertion at a time from your previous Hovind post and I will explain not only why his assertions are false, but what the evidence is that shows he is wrong.

 

infact you result to name calling and talking about my grammar what does that have to do with anything, second i am typing to get my point across not writing a thesis statement so as long as you can read get over it. you did not respond b/c you have no response.

 

See above. Also, it is sometimes difficult to discern yourmeaning when your grammar is so spotty. I am not saying that to be insulting, bt you can't be sure that I am getting your actual meaning when it has to be decyphered as it does.

 

I have a response to every single asserti]on of Kent Hovind's. Every single one. In fact, Hovind isn't even a very good Creationist.

 

I would assert that perhaps you don't even understand what Hovind says, and that is why you cut and pasted from his website instead of writing it in your own words.

 

i have never said b/ i don't believe that's why I gave you proof. Not one of you acknowledge that proof you say it's a lie how do you come to that conclusion. give me something intelligent I know you guys have a answer to my question b/c science is the most logical answer so what is your response.

 

When Thrawn suggested that Carbon-14 dating was wrong because of it giving a wrong date for a living thing, I answered him. Again pick one Hovind thing at a time znd I'll be happy to answer it.

 

again like i said i don't hate anyone and people can live how they want i don't judge that is not up to me that is up to God. If judging were up to us we would all be held in comtempt. so stop twisting my words and beating around the bush and if you are going to quote me quote the whole thing not just part of it to make your little snide comment make sense.

 

If you are going to quote Kent Hovind you should at least understand his position when you do so.

[newbby]

While I agree with your sentiment, there is smoething inherently dangerous in being too credulous. Credulous people are often taken advantage of, to their peril.

 

To say that we cannot impose our belief system on others is to say that we must teach that it is a valid position that the Earth is flat, simply because it makes some people happy to believe that.

 

i understand what you are saying moai.

the problem with these discussions is that nobody wants to listen to anybody else, that goes all around. everybody is too sure that they are right and each other is wrong.

i dont know if it is a case of being credulous, maybe it stems more from an emotion. in any case each person needs to really check themselves and the real reason why it is so important to them for others to agree with them or see what they see.

[Moai]

newby your right! So than abortion is wrong right? What about gays adopting kids are they taking away that child's right to have a mom and dad? i have nothing against gays infact i have friends that used to be gay and half of them realized by being set free from that lifestlye that it was not right and they no longer desire the opposite sex. If we are born gay don't you think that desire would never go away?

 

Human sexuality is a complex thing. While there are certainly people who seek satisfaction from the same sex and don't find it, it does not follow that all gay people are the same way.

 

I find it curious that gay people are such a focus as far as this goes, but the straight people who are into things that are far more disgusting or dangerous (IMHO) are given a free pass, simply because their perversion involves both sexes. And I say that in the sense that what they are into is not for me--as long as nobody is getting hurt what people do in their bedroom is none of my concern.

 

also i can give my opionon without imposeing anything on you. I can only be imposing if you are feeling convicted. otherwise who cares what my opinon is you are intitled to yours right? i don't say you are imposing evolution on me or gay rights no i don't i say that is your moral standard and beliefs we will all know the truth when we die and we will see what holds up.

 

Right there you are imposing your belief on everyone. You have no idea what we will find out when we ie. It is simply your beleif that everything is revealed upon death. It is very probable that no knowledge is imported when our bodies expire.

 

who ever said something about idiolizing the Bible. I don't feel so strongly about God soley on the Bible. I am not dumb i know it's possibel that man could have tampered with the writings just like man could have tampered with the theory of evolution. God has revealed himself to me and I will never doubt his existense. this is my truth not my imposing onto anyone else.

 

Man tampers with the Theory of Evolution all the time. Thatis the whole point. The theory explains the fact. Evolution stays the same, our undertanding of it changes.

[newbby]

newby your right! So than abortion is wrong right? What about gays adopting kids are they taking away that child's right to have a mom and dad? i have nothing against gays infact i have friends that used to be gay and half of them realized by being set free from that lifestlye that it was not right and they no longer desire the opposite sex. If we are born gay don't you think that desire would never go away?

 

also i can give my opionon without imposeing anything on you. I can only be imposing if you are feeling convicted. otherwise who cares what my opinon is you are intitled to yours right? i don't say you are imposing evolution on me or gay rights no i don't i say that is your moral standard and beliefs we will all know the truth when we die and we will see what holds up.

 

who ever said something about idiolizing the Bible. I don't feel so strongly about God soley on the Bible. I am not dumb i know it's possibel that man could have tampered with the writings just like man could have tampered with the theory of evolution. God has revealed himself to me and I will never doubt his existense. this is my truth not my imposing onto anyone else.

 

i'm not arguing with you. you can believe what you want to. my only point was that equating murder with being gay did not make any sense.

[wizdom]

Please explain his postition then. I ONLY cut and pasted so you could see what i was talking about.

 

 

Did you ever notice how sometimes big surprises can come in little packages? Well, such is the case of the surprising little bombardier beetle. The bombardier beetle is a small insect that is armed with an impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this spirited little beetle blasts irritating and odious gases, which are at 212ºF, out from two tailpipes right into the unfortunate face of the would-be aggressor.

 

Hermann Schildnecht, a German chemist, studied the bombardier beetle to find out how he accomplishes this impressive chemical feat. He learned that the beetle makes his explosive by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, this clever little beetle adds another type of chemical known as an "inhibitor." The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store the chemicals indefinitely.

 

Whenever the beetle is approached by a predator, such as a frog, he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes, and at precisely the right moment he adds another chemical (an anti-inhibitor). This knocks out the inhibitor, and a violent explosion occurs right in the face of the poor attacker.

 

Could such a marvelous and complex mechanism have evolved piecemeal over millions of years? The evolutionist is forced to respond with a somewhat sheepish “yes,” but a brief consideration of this viewpoint will reveal its preposterous nature.

 

According to evolutionary “thinking” there must have been thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually, we are assured, they arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the other hand, if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such an arrangement would never arise apart from intelligent foresight and planning.

 

Nevertheless, let us assume that the little beetle somehow managed to simultaneously develop the two chemicals along with the all-important inhibitor. The resultant solution would offer no benefit at all to the beetle, for it would just sit there as a harmless concoction. To be of any value to the beetle, the anti-inhibitor must be added to the solution.

 

So, once again, for thousands of generations we are supposed to believe that these poor beetles mixed and stored these chemicals for no particular reason or advantage, until finally, the anti-inhibitor was perfected. Now he is really getting somewhere! With the anti-inhibitor developed he can now blow himself to pieces, frustrating the efforts of the hungry predator who wants to eat him. Ah, yes, he still needs to evolve the two combustion tubes, and a precision communications and timing network to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the explosion. So, here we go again; for thousands of generations these carefree little beetles went around celebrating the 4th of July by blowing themselves to pieces until finally they mastered their newfound powers.

 

But what would be the motivation for such disastrous, trial and error, piecemeal evolution? Everything in evolution is supposed to be beneficial and have a logical purpose, or else it would never develop. But such a process does not make any sense, and to propose that the entire defense system evolved all at once is simply impossible. Yet, nature abounds with countless such examples of perfect coordination. Thus, we can only conclude that the surprising little bombardier beetle is a strong witness for special creation, for there is no other rational explanation for such a wonder.

 

The water beetle is also equipped with an impressive—although different—defense mechanism. He manages to escape his enemies by secreting a detergent substance from a gland. Ejecting the detergent accomplishes two things. Firstly, it serves to propel the beetle forward quickly so that he is out of the immediate danger. Secondly, the detergent causes the surface tension of the water to break down, and the pursuing insect sinks into the water. How true are the words of the psalmist who wrote: "O Lord, how manifold are they works! In wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches" (Ps. 104:24).

[Moai]

i understand what you are saying moai.

the problem with these discussions is that nobody wants to listen to anybody else, that goes all around. everybody is too sure that they are right and each other is wrong.

 

Yeah, and it is a drag. It would be one thing if this were specifically a debate about faith, but as usual it has morphed into a discussion about science, in which case one side is right and the other is wrong.

 

It is not just me saying this, nor does it make me "feel" good knowing that I am right. It isn't even me, I just accept that for which there is evidence. Mountains and mountains of evidence.

 

i dont know if it is a case of being credulous, maybe it stems more from an emotion. in any case each person needs to really check themselves and the real reason why it is so important to them for others to agree with them or see what they see.

 

It is almost a chicken-egg question. People who believe in ghosts see them often, people who don't never do. You must have the pre-disposition of belief in order to experieince them. That in itself shows that they aren't real, but are a manifestation of something else going onin the human psyche.

 

It is the sae with intense religious experiences. Members of all cultures experience these, and they are always described within the context of that cultures understanding of spirituality. For example, Hindus have intense religious experiences that are unshakable and which they believe "prove" thier faith.

 

How can that be? How is it that the same experience can validate two opposing religious views so concretely?

 

It would seem that in order to have the experience one must have the belief in the first place, and then the experience is explained by the belief. The fact atht this is not rational doesn't make the experience any less real for the person experiencing it, of course.

[wizdom]

Human sexuality is a complex thing. While there are certainly people who seek satisfaction from the same sex and don't find it, it does not follow that all gay people are the same way.

 

I find it curious that gay people are such a focus as far as this goes, but the straight people who are into things that are far more disgusting or dangerous (IMHO) are given a free pass, simply because their perversion involves both sexes. And I say that in the sense that what they are into is not for me--as long as nobody is getting hurt what people do in their bedroom is none of my concern.

 

 

 

Right there you are imposing your belief on everyone. You have no idea what we will find out when we ie. It is simply your beleif that everything is revealed upon death. It is very probable that no knowledge is imported when our bodies expire.

 

 

 

Man tampers with the Theory of Evolution all the time. Thatis the whole point. The theory explains the fact. Evolution stays the same, our undertanding of it changes.

 

Committing on your last response here the same holds true for God.

[newbby]

It is the sae with intense religious experiences. Members of all cultures experience these, and they are always described within the context of that cultures understanding of spirituality. For example, Hindus have intense religious experiences that are unshakable and which they believe "prove" thier faith.

 

How can that be? How is it that the same experience can validate two opposing religious views so concretely?

 

It would seem that in order to have the experience one must have the belief in the first place, and then the experience is explained by the belief. The fact atht this is not rational doesn't make the experience any less real for the person experiencing it, of course.

 

or that the experience is felt, because of something real, but that people still try to hold on to a story around it, or invent a story around it or look for evidence of. like some may feel within a church, some within a mosque and others within nature, etc. everybody is looking for evidence, some in science and some in the bible, there isnt much difference in that.

[wizdom]

i did not bring up the discussion of gays frankly i do not care who is gay that doesn't effect me. i don't mind debated with anyone. Just b/c i will not be shaken in what i believe does not mean i am presenting myself as a know it all. there is alot about the universe that i don't know yet soon i will.

 

this is something i meant to comment on way back and now i am not sure who said it. They said that man was living longer b/c of the evolution of toliet paper and medicines etc. People used to live to hundreds of years even thousands. That wasn't b/c of evolution.

 

Newby i never compared murder to being gay except to say that there is no sin greater or lesser than another they all are created equal:eek:

[newbby]

Newby i never compared murder to being gay except to say that there is no sin greater or lesser than another they all are created equal:eek:

 

i understand that saying although i may interpret it differently to you. however, gay being a sin is a matter of opinion.

[wizdom]

Just curious newby what do you believe? i can't quite get where you stand. do you believe in God or do you believe in evolution? i don't want to argue i am simply asking a question

[newbby]

i believe in god AND i believe in evolution.

[wizdom]

do you mind elaborating on that for me. I think I can see how you can believe in both but i want to see you opinions. Thanks if you respond

[a4a]

If you do not believe any one bit in evolution = you therefore cease to evolve.

this would explain much of the attitudes of Wizdom and AT

 

could not help it. I just cannot see using a religion of any sort to oppress people of any group or individual for that matter. I certainly do not mind religious people in general until they force their beliefs onto me, my life, and freedom.

 

a4a

[Moai]

Please explain his postition then. I ONLY cut and pasted so you could see what i was talking about.

 

[FONT=Times New Roman]Well, you could have just asked me to explain irreducible complexity and use the bombardier beetles as an example, but so be it.[/FONT]

 

Did you ever notice how sometimes big surprises can come in little packages? Well, such is the case of the surprising little bombardier beetle. The bombardier beetle is a small insect that is armed with an impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this spirited little beetle blasts irritating and odious gases, which are at 212ºF, out from two tailpipes right into the unfortunate face of the would-be aggressor.

 

Hermann Schildnecht, a German chemist, studied the bombardier beetle to find out how he accomplishes this impressive chemical feat. He learned that the beetle makes his explosive by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, this clever little beetle adds another type of chemical known as an "inhibitor." The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store the chemicals indefinitely.

 

Whenever the beetle is approached by a predator, such as a frog, he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes, and at precisely the right moment he adds another chemical (an anti-inhibitor). This knocks out the inhibitor, and a violent explosion occurs right in the face of the poor attacker.

 

[FONT=Times New Roman]Actually, the explosion happens inside the beetle itself. It would be nice if for once these people would actually understand the organism they are discussing. How can someone argue for design of something and not understand the design itself, I wonder?[/FONT]

 

Could such a marvelous and complex mechanism have evolved piecemeal over millions of years? The evolutionist is forced to respond with a somewhat sheepish “yes,” but a brief consideration of this viewpoint will reveal its preposterous nature.

 

[FONT=Times New Roman]This isn’t a tentative yes, this is a most definite YES. There are may scenarios that show how such a thing could develop. [/FONT]

 

According to evolutionary “thinking” there must have been thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually, we are assured, they arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the other hand, if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such an arrangement would never arise apart from intelligent foresight and planning.

 

Nevertheless, let us assume that the little beetle somehow managed to simultaneously develop the two chemicals along with the all-important inhibitor. The resultant solution would offer no benefit at all to the beetle, for it would just sit there as a harmless concoction. To be of any value to the beetle, the anti-inhibitor must be added to the solution.

 

So, once again, for thousands of generations we are supposed to believe that these poor beetles mixed and stored these chemicals for no particular reason or advantage, until finally, the anti-inhibitor was perfected. Now he is really getting somewhere! With the anti-inhibitor developed he can now blow himself to pieces, frustrating the efforts of the hungry predator who wants to eat him. Ah, yes, he still needs to evolve the two combustion tubes, and a precision communications and timing network to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the explosion. So, here we go again; for thousands of generations these carefree little beetles went around celebrating the 4th of July by blowing themselves to pieces until finally they mastered thier newfound powers.

[FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Here is a possible scenario, as asserted by Mark Isaak:[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT]

1. [FONT=Times New Roman]Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=#800080]Dettner, 1987[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman]][/FONT]
   
2. [FONT=Times New Roman]Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=#800080]Eisner, 1970[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman]])[/FONT]
   
3. [FONT=Times New Roman]Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.[/FONT]
   
4. [FONT=Times New Roman]The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=#800080]Holldobler & Wilson, 1990[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman], pp. 233-237])[/FONT]
   
5. [FONT=Times New Roman]A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.[/FONT]
   
6. [FONT=Times New Roman]In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=#800080]Eisner, 1970[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman], for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.[/FONT]
   
7. [FONT=Times New Roman]Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.[/FONT]
   
8. [FONT=Times New Roman]The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ. [/FONT]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman]This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in their suborder. [[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=#800080]Forsyth, 1970[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman]][/FONT][/COLOR]

1. [/url][FONT=Times New Roman]Muscles adapt which close off the reservior, thus preventing the chemicals from leaking out when they're not needed.[/FONT]
   
2. [FONT=Times New Roman]Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, becomes mixed with the hydroquinones. The two react slowly, so a mixture of quinones and hydroquinones get used for defense.[/FONT]
   
3. [FONT=Times New Roman]Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases appear along the output passage of the reservoir, outside the valve which closes it off from the outside. These ensure that more quinones appear in the defensive secretions. Catalases exist in almost all cells, and peroxidases are also common in plants, animals, and bacteria, so those chemicals needn't be developed from scratch but merely concentrated in one location.[/FONT]
   
4. [FONT=Times New Roman]More catalases and peroxidases are produced, so the discharge is warmer and is expelled faster by the oxygen generated by the reaction. The beetle Metrius contractus provides an example of a bombardier beetle which produces a foamy discharge, not jets, from its reaction chambers. The bubbling of the foam produces a fine mist. [[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=#800080]Eisner et al., 2000[/COLOR][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman]][/FONT]
   
5. [FONT=Times New Roman]The walls of that part of the output passage become firmer, allowing them to better withstand the heat and pressure generated by the reaction.[/FONT]
   
6. [FONT=Times New Roman]Still more catalases and peroxidases are produced, and the walls toughen and shape into a reaction chamber. Gradually they become the mechanism of today's bombardier beetles.[/FONT]
   
7. [FONT=Times New Roman]The tip of the beetle's abdomen becomes somewhat elongated and more flexible, allowing the beetle to aim its discharge in various directions. [/FONT]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Times New Roman]Note that all of the steps above are small or can easily be broken down into smaller steps. The bombardier beetles' mechanism can come about solely by accumulated microevolution. Furthermore, all of the steps are probably advantageous, so they would be selected. No improbable events are needed. As noted, several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in living populations.[/FONT][/COLOR]

 

But what would be the motivation for such disastrous, trial and error, piecemeal evolution? Everything in evolution is supposed to be beneficial and have a logical purpose, or else it would never develop. But such a process does not make any sense, and to propose that the entire defense system evolved all at once is simply impossible. Yet, nature abounds with countless such examples of perfect coordination. Thus, we can only conclude that the surprising little bombardier beetle is a strong witness for special creation, for there is no other rational explanation for such a wonder.

 

[FONT=Times New Roman]No, that is not what we must conclude. Typical of irreducible complexity arguments, it paints a distortion of how evolution works. Any change that is beneficial, no matter how small, will be selected for. Having a secretion that tastes bad is better than not having it.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman]All evolution is trial and error and haphazard. More organisms fail to survive than live to produce viable offspring. Saying that special creation is the only way to explain this is again, an assertion with no evidence. The “steps” needed to arrive at the bombardier beetle exist in other arthopods and other beetles. Special Creation is not the only explanation at all, and certainly not the most rational one.[/FONT]

 

Themotivation would be survival (duh) and it isn't as if the beetle is thinking about morphological changes and implementing them--as implied by the above.

 

[FONT=Times New Roman]Special Creation is not obvious, and beyond that it is just an assertion for which there is no evidence. What Hovind or Gish is saying here is “because I can’t figure it out therefore it cannot be true.”[/FONT]

 

The water beetle is also equipped with an impressive—although different—defense mechanism. He manages to escape his enemies by secreting a detergent substance from a gland. Ejecting the detergent accomplishes two things. Firstly, it serves to propel the beetle forward quickly so that he is out of the immediate danger. Secondly, the detergent causes the surface tension of the water to break down, and the pursuing insect sinks into the water. How true are the words of the psalmist who wrote: "O Lord, how manifold are they works! In wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches" (Ps. 104:24).

 

 

[FONT=Times New Roman]If by we go by sheer numbers of species God loves beetles the best, as there are at least 54,000 different species with more being found every day.[/FONT]

[a4a]

i understand that saying although i may interpret it differently to you. however, gay being a sin is a matter of opinion.

 

It is way way beyond a matter of opinion. This minor opinion takes away the rights of individuals who are gay in many aspects of Real Life..... not opinion life. Many Religious "Opinions" do this to different groups of people and cultures.

 

If it was not for the screaming of GOD SAYS GAYS ARE SINNERS AND WRONG..... do you think the whole gay marriage thing would even be an ordeal? Health decisions, property,hate crimes, and so many things gay people have to deal with are affected by this Opinion...... Yet they continue to pay taxes and even contribute to society...... again basic rights that straights have denied because of an opinion. I think that is amazing.

 

a4a

[newbby]

do you mind elaborating on that for me. I think I can see how you can believe in both but i want to see you opinions. Thanks if you respond

 

i believe in god, but i am not christian or any other religion.

[wizdom]

not tying to be rude but you really didn't explain anything to me.

 

second to who ever said it i have not pushed my beliefs on to you i have expressed my mind. also what about my right to pray in school people who don't believe in God are the reason why i can't. So non-believers have influenced my rights as well.

[newbby]

It is way way beyond a matter of opinion. This minor opinion takes away the rights of individuals who are gay in many aspects of Real Life..... not opinion life. Many Religious "Opinions" do this to different groups of people and cultures.

 

If it was not for the screaming of GOD SAYS GAYS ARE SINNERS AND WRONG..... do you think the whole gay marriage thing would even be an ordeal? Health decisions, property,hate crimes, and so many things gay people have to deal with are affected by this Opinion...... Yet they continue to pay taxes and even contribute to society...... again basic rights that straights have denied because of an opinion. I think that is amazing.

 

a4a

 

you are correct. i meant it was the opinion of wizdom that it is sinful. it is wizdoms opinion, undeniably so. perhaps i used the wrong choice of words. i do not believe that it should be a matter of opinion and i agree with you about the screaming that it is wrong affecting gay people. i am as passionate about that as you are. i meant it was wizdoms opinion, that is all.

[Moai]

not tying to be rude but you really didn't explain anything to me.

 

Is this addressed to me? It is easily explainable in the light of evolution how the bambardier beetle could have evolved. There are excellent websites about it if I was unclear.

 

second to who ever said it i have not pushed my beliefs on to you i have expressed my mind. also what about my right to pray in school people who don't believe in God are the reason why i can't. So non-believers have influenced my rights as well.

 

You can pray in school. You can pray anywhere you want. Organized prayer (on the part of the school system) is not allowed, for obvious reasons.

[wizdom]

so what do you believe. I am not a religion I believe it is about a personal relationship with God not doing religous rituals.

[Moai]

Sorry about the wckiness in my post about the bombardier beetle. I tried to write it first in Word and then paste it so Loveshack wouldn't log me out and I'd lose all my work (which has happenend, sadly).

 

I tried to edit out all the html that isn't working but I couldn't. BUmmer.

[newbby]

not tying to be rude but you really didn't explain anything to me.

you see believing in god and believing in evolution as opposites because you believe in a christian version of god. i dont. other than that, my beliefs arent important to you, because you are very happy with your own beliefs.

second to who ever said it i have not pushed my beliefs on to you i have expressed my mind. also what about my right to pray in school people who don't believe in God are the reason why i can't. So non-believers have influenced my rights as well.

if you wanted to pray in school, would anybody stop you?

[a4a]

not tying to be rude but you really didn't explain anything to me.

 

second to who ever said it i have not pushed my beliefs on to you i have expressed my mind. also what about my right to pray in school people who don't believe in God are the reason why i can't. So non-believers have influenced my rights as well.

 

public schools are paid for by all types of people.... of all or no religion.

If you want to pray in school..... join a religious school. No person says you cannot pray to yourself silently.. it would be disruptive in general lets say if you start your pray, the muslim next to you started theirs, the voo doo guy sacraficied a chicken two seats over, and a pagan started lighting candles behind you. Thus the word "public" school. paid for and attended by the public. Plenty of people have prayed in school... mostly around Finals time.

 

a4a