Blog of the Danmmed

Monday, February 07, 2005

Here we go again

I know this is going to provoke a lot of conflict, but that's what I'm going for. I have another debate topic for us to battle out: homosexuality. I see nothing wrong with it, it's not like homosexuals can help that it's genetically wired into them. Let the battle begin!

posted by The_Tractor at 4:58 PM

75 Comments:

  • Whoz da wutz wit da t-dogg

    By Blogger Neon, at 5:03 PM  

  • Ok, then....
    Gay marridge should be allowed and such because, as the Quakerly Westtownian, every person has the inner light of God (or whoever you would like to insert there). Homosexuals are people too. I have many friends who are gay and they're some of the nicest people in the world. They're just the same, no big deal.

    By Blogger Gabo, at 5:04 PM  

  • TRACHT D0GG: if a "discussion" about homosexuality with Quiggy escalates into a huge argument, would you take the "homosexuality is not wrong" side?
    eepedeep: i don't see anything wrong with it at all
    eepedeep: it's just Quiggy supports Bush and therefore thinks all his views are correct
    TRACHT D0GG: THANK YOU
    eepedeep: grood

    By Blogger Gabo, at 5:06 PM  

  • wut reprezent gabrielle

    Iz be o' da 'pinion dat da gayz shud hav equhl reits.

    wut.

    By Blogger Neon, at 5:07 PM  

  • Thanks, Ben. Thanks a whole lot.<bitterness>

    1.) I don't think it's genetically wired. If you can find the gay gene (insert Toby Keith joke here), I'll believe you.
    2.) It is natural. Animals do it. People do it. Boom.
    3.) Into (Christian) religion: God created man. He created man to be imperfect. God is all-powerful, and infallible; therefore, He could have created man to be perfect, but He did not.
    4.) Despite purposely creating man to be imperfect, God still gave dominion over the beasts in the field to man.
    5.) Rinse and repeat.
    6.) God is as God does.
    7.) God is forgiving, so you can always repent.
    8.) Baboons!
    9.) Oh, right. Man is as God created him. If he be gay, gay be he!

    By Blogger Dougie, at 5:08 PM  

  • There's a reason this topic is controversial. Probably because secular thinking has no right answer. And I do not oppose gay marriage because I like Bush. Unrelated. I oppose it because I believe that God opposes it. I don't hate gays. I just think that its a sin. Not to say that I don't sin. I think that gays should have equal rights as everyone, except for gay marriage. I think that gay partners should be recognized by the government, receive the same benefits as married couples, but not go through the religious ceremony known as marriage. And please give me one good scientific proof that gays have their homosexuality hardwired into them.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 5:12 PM  

  • I meant </bitterness>, thank you.

    By Blogger Dougie, at 5:14 PM  

  • If homosexuality is a sin against God, why did God create people that way?

    By Blogger The_Tractor, at 5:15 PM  

  • He doesn't.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 5:33 PM  

  • ok now dudes your all kinda wrong. Quiggy, i think you actually have a good point but i believe that this is a free country and just becuase YOUR God thinks it is wrong to have gay relations does not mean all people believe in the same God. Marrige is not entirely Christian you know. So what about the Jewish gays, should your and the presidents religious views effect what they do? NO! Also as for proof about the "gayness" being hardwired into the person, it is not, kinda. It has been determined that a persons sexual preference is decided at around somthing like 13 months of life. that is determined by how his parents interact, and the world around him/her in general. so, while it is not a gene or "hardwired" is is also not the persons choice, iut is dtermined by thier environent at to young an age to do anything about it, and scientist do not yet know what it is in the enviroment that does that, so it cannot be prevented by locking them up or whatever.

    By Blogger Ransom, at 5:56 PM  

  • I think being gay is perfectly normal it is just finally coming out into the open, the only reason it seems unatural is that atomically (sp?) it doesnt make as much sense ... and i beleive in gay marriage becuase its wrong to aleinate people in the way the catholic church has (such as banning gay people from churchs!!!???) but u cant force the church to allow it... also i beleive that gays should at least follow the same socail romance rules as everyone else, so more licking and tickling on the couchs in the middle of a party... thank u

    By Blogger taco, at 6:00 PM  

  • You raise an interesting point. The government recognizes some couples as "married". They don't have to be Christians. And true, there is a law seperating church & state. But quite frankly, it doesn't work 100% of the time. Since Bush was sworn in on a Bible, does that render him jobless? Since a supreme court justice has on their paychecks the words "In God We Trust", shouldn't they not be getting any money? My point here is that we can't seperate them completely. And I'm really more against the religious recognition of homosexual marriages than the political recoginition. In other words, they should be married politically, not religiously. See my last point. And Ransom, no one knows why gays are gay. We're not even gonna go down that road until someone can prove their viewpoit.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 6:01 PM  

  • Tucker, I'll address your comment, since I didn't see it there originally. The church should not ban gays from services or positions of power. After all, if homosexuality is a sin, then (horrors!), gays are sinners. So's everyone else. The reason I oppose gay marriage is that the bible defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. And for all y'all atheists out there, the bible obviously doesn't matter.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 6:03 PM  

  • Ok, if we're bringing up the bible then i have to point back to my prevoius post about outdated bible rubbish... for all we know gay marraige may catch on and soon that term in the bible will be explained away as meaning, filling the roles of a woman and man, creating a normal household, not literally, much like our explaination for many things in the bible that dont make sense today.

    By Blogger taco, at 6:30 PM  

  • ok quigg there is proof of what i said about the cause of "gayness" duh! ask our school scinence and religion teacher and this person that came in and tlaked to our class about abortion and gay marrige. see wat they say. Second, i will say it agian nicely NOT EVERYONE HAS THE SAME RELIGION AS YOU!!!!!! should the bible stop a jewish gay from getting married? hmmm NO!

    By Blogger Ransom, at 6:31 PM  

  • Ransom, nice job saying it nicely. Yes, I know that not everyone is Christian. That's why I say that the political union should be allowed by not the specific Christian religious union. And no offense, but I don't consider your science teacher or the person who came in to talk to you a definitive source.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 7:14 PM  

  • Look, not everybody has to be Christian and follow their beliefs. Even Christians don't have to follow the Bible word for word...hmmm, let's see...
    In the same section where it says that homosexuality is a sin, it also says that if you eat shellfish, you're a sinner; women are a sin because when they are having their period it's a sin; if you have sex with an animal it's a sin (not that I want any of you chasing dogs or horses around or anything, but where do you think evolution started? Species cross bred) So Taco has a point saying the Bible's an outta date crazy book. They're more of guidelines...not something to take literally, but everyone can have their own oppinion on what they should and shouldn't take literally.

    By Blogger Gabo, at 8:02 PM  

  • I know that the Bible says that eating shellfish is a sin. I'm aware of this, that refers to back before God made eating animals clean again. (see Acts 10:9-23) I have no idea where this "having a period is a sin" idea comes from. The Bible says, clear and simple, macroevolution didn't happen, so don't use that as an argument. And when was the last time you saw a horse doing a monkey? Zoophilia is just nasty. Saying zoophilia is okay is like saying necrophilia is okay. *shudders*

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 8:58 PM  

  • Just to clarify: some animals had been "unclean", or not meant to be eaten. God revoked that, and now we're free to eat whatever animal we want.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 9:12 PM  

  • Um, Gabo, species can't cross-breed. That's pretty much how species is defined. I mean, you get mules and ligers (bred for their magical properties), but they're infertile.

    Also, Quiggy: Serious question. Common-law marriage?

    Bonus question: Regarding creationism, why do guys have nipples?

    By Blogger Dougie, at 11:04 AM  

  • Not only nipples, but why do people have appendices and coccyces?

    By Blogger The_Tractor, at 11:44 AM  

  • Um...you took my statement a little too extreme...species do cross breed, that's how evolution works...I'm not saying like a monkey and a horse, dude...I'm talking about animals that are more closely related (ie in size), ex: donkey and horse, or fox and dog...
    And just because the Bible said that evolution doesn't exist doesn't mean it's the correct book above all other beliefs/facts. It'd take 669 pages to express clearly what needs to be said and have some clear proof, so read Darwin, to get the idea.

    By Blogger Gabo, at 1:15 PM  

  • Gabo, you're missing the point here. Well, two points actually. One: species cannot crossbreed. They just don't. The Theory (emphasize that word) of Evolution works by having animals undergo mutations. If it is a good mutation, the old ones die out and the mutated ones survive. If it is bad, the new ones dies out. Two: no one knows for sure whether the Bible or Darwin is correct. That's why there's an argument. If there was 100% solid proof in either direction, there would be a lot fewer Christians or a lot fewer Darwinists.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 3:00 PM  

  • And Doug and Ben: why not?

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 3:01 PM  

  • A) the appendix used to be used to digest raw meat. After Cro Magnons discovered fire, they had no need to eat raw meat, and therefore made the appendix inferior. It is now a vestigial structure because it used to be used but has no use anymore.

    B) a coccyx (or a tailbone for all you immature people out there) was once a tail. After homonids came out of the trees, they didn't need it anymore, so it also became a vestigial structure.

    Scientists at Michigan State University have duplicated evolution with computers. Yes, I know what you're going to say: "They're just computer programs." But these programs were designed to "reproduce" thousands of times per seconds and have programming similar to that of DNA. They let these programs run, and saw that they changed to adapt to their environments. Some of them mutate, and depending on the mutation, thrive or die. All of them compete with each other. It's natural selection. I encourage everyone to download the program, Avida, here and find flaws with it. And Quiggy, just so you know, I found this in Discover Magazine. It's a pretty damn reliable source.

    By Blogger The_Tractor, at 4:09 PM  

  • Isn't the point of evolution to gain new things in order to be able to survive in a wide array of climates and whatnot? Then what's with losing the appendix and the coccyx? Who says God didn't put them in there for some other reason? Like when people get lost in mountains or something? And that program is not 100% reliable. Computers are not 100% reliable. And just because a program can create a world in which CELLS ALREADY EXIST doesn't mean anything. I was thinking back to the monkies argument. Say the typewriters only had the letters on them. To spell "quiggy" would be 1 out of 26^6. That number is over 300,000,000. Just ask Google. Typing at 1 letter a second, it would take an average of 13 seconds to get a q. 13^2 for qu. 13^6 for quiggy. That means that it would take over 55 days just to get the six-letter word "Quiggy". Now let's factor in numbers for the next bit. 36 characters. 18^(characters) for anything. To get my 100 facts from the 20th century projects, san spaces, would be (get this): 18^30122 seconds. I find the chances of getting that to be much more likely than the correct molecules just so happening to be in the right spot, then just so happening to all of a sudden decide "I'm a living cell!" and for it to know how to reproduce and evolve. I can't give numerical probabilities for God, but its much higher than cells. Where does Avida's first cell come from? It's a given. In evolution its not a given.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 5:01 PM  

  • Dear Quiggy,
    How old is this planet?
    Days mean nothing.
    And our appendix was developed to digest raw meat, and since we no longer need it to do that, it's become useless and could not perform that service anymore. Now, if you dont do something for a really long time, you forget how to do it, right? Imagine not doing something for a thousand years. There's your reverse evolution right there.
    Love, Neon

    By Blogger Neon, at 6:09 PM  

  • Evan, those numbers add up much faster than you think. To get the first 6 characters in my 100 facts, at the rate of 1 random character a second, takes over one year. Double the number of characters. 36.6 million years. Wanna stick around little more? Just two more letters take you to longer than scientists estimate the earth has been around. And frankly, I think that its a lot harder to get a large number of molecules to form a single cell than to get the first 14 letters of my hundred facts.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 6:32 PM  

  • Miller and Urey experimented about cell creation. In 1953, they created an apparatus to simulate what we think the Earth was like those billions of years ago.

    They boiled water. They mixed methane, ammonia, and hydrogen gasses in with the water vapor. That simulated the primordial soup. Then they shocked the mixture, simulating lightning. They then condensed the water using a condenser, collected the cooled water, and found amino acids and other organic compounds in the mixture. That proved that the basis of cells was easily created from water, a mixture of gasses which were very prevalent in yestermillenia's atmosphere, and lightning.

    So it wasn't just a bunch of chemicals randomly interacting until the right ones came along. It took the main components of the day and shocked them, creating amino acids (amino acids make up DNA).

    For a clearer explanation and a diagram, look here.

    By Blogger The_Tractor, at 6:46 PM  

  • Horses and donkeys can breed, but the offspring (mules) cannot. Foxes can't breed with dogs.

    Actually, evolution has been proved. It's been around long enough that studies have proven it.

    Why, what's this? Z0mg! It's relevent!

    By Blogger Dougie, at 6:53 PM  

  • hey, um...not that it isn't interesting but havent we gotten off the "gay" point? also, did anyone notcie that..yet again it is us vs. Quiggy...dude we cnt all be wrong, and if you say we, how bout playing the percentage chacnes on that one! also, while my teachers are aparrently not what you personaly would call a "reliable" source, they are one hell of a more reliable source than you have to prove me wrong. lasty talk about a reliable source the priest that teachers my religion and my history teacher (who happen to be teaching at one of the best schools in the state...and no not by accident) both say that the Bible is more like...rough guidlines, the morals are real, but not necisarily the "stories". JUst for the funny papers, do u think the Moses really parted an entire sea (that part of the Bible was a misstranslation by the way) or the Jesus fasted in the desert for however long the say he did? ok then.

    By Blogger Ransom, at 7:18 PM  

  • Ben, interesting point, but, as a for instance, did all those things happen at one specific part of the primordial soup? Not likely. And could those scientists make real cells simply mixing those chemicals? I doubt it. And also, did you notice how there was a person involved in all this? Ever hear of "intellegent design"? It's another term for creationism. Ransom, I do indeed believe that Moses parted the Red Sea. Why? Because I believe that the Bible is truth. Do you realize how incredibly accurate the modern-day copy of the Bible is? (see this site.") And please, please, pleeeeeeeaaaassseee give me a source where the parting of the Red Sea is a mistranslation.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 7:38 PM  

  • hey uhh quigg first of all u didnt answer how my religion teacher is wrong and u arent, but that aside, the mistranslation, was revealed to me by my history teacher, but the real proof lies when it was said in a history chanel documentory...stick that in ur pipe! apparently it should be the "reed" sea, and looking at the geography of antcient egypt, it makes more sense too and is in the realm or possibility. also u do realize that by saying that the bible is complete truth, u would be really in aplication no different than those people waiting for aliens, or more relevent, the bombers over in IRaq and so on, cept, ur religion doesnt want u (or is not manipulated) to make u kill your self.

    By Blogger Ransom, at 8:06 PM  

  • Ransom, you really don't get the whole point of this argument. This argument has been around for thousands of years. Why? Because no one knows the answer! Your religion teacher obviously doesn't believe the Bible to be true. The Bible is not a set of "guidelines". It is meant to focus your eyes (and life, for that matter) on God. And here's a proof of your incorrect thing about the Red Sea vs. Reed Sea. The Dead Sea Scrolls clearly say that it is the Red Sea. These were translated in the 20th century. Aramaic, the language in which these were written, do not have Red and Reed as similar words. Therefore, the Red Sea and Reed Sea are not switched. English is not the only language in the world.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 8:28 PM  

  • This is Rachel. As 90 percent of you know, I am bi. And I think that its not wired into you. I think that yes, g-d loves everyone. So why should he care. I mean g-d created me to like both. Girls and guys. And I sure know that its not a thing that can be impressioned into someone, your just born liking one sex or the other one. Sometiems both.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:43 PM  

  • Rachel again. So Quiggy, do you think that the government should be run by your religion? Do you think that your morales should have to govern everyone? If you wanted to outlaw sin, everything would be outlawed.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:46 PM  

  • Good comment sporko, but im sorry Quigg i clearly forgot that u are the foremost authority on everything. i actually thought for a second that my history teacher (who had been teaching for like 40 years) and the history channel (full of hundreds of paid and knowlegable historians) were right, and had more info than you. but again i say im sorry for forgetting that u know everything. and for the record were we in person the amount of sarcasm contained within my message would probly be enough to kill you.

    P.S. i noticed you conveniently didnt answer the whole "religious fanatic" thing i mentioned...interesting

    By Blogger Ransom, at 8:58 PM  

  • Oh and Matt, i forgot to mention that for the record while you may be smart a great arguer you are not. i am, ask people that i argure with if you want a source. and you should notice my whole "verbaly tearing you apart thing" because you fail to recognize that while i am hitting ur point with many arguments...you keep saying one thing only...that one thing can be translated into this "i am right because i belive in this one god and he says so...or an ancient book does that not many others believe is literal except me"...take this comment anyway you like.

    By Blogger Ransom, at 9:04 PM  

  • Note, Rachel, that I had said things like that religiously, they shouldn't be allowed to marry, but politically, they should. Were it not for the fact that I believe that the Bible is the right way to go (that is sort of assumed for Christians), I'd be so for the seperation of church and state that you wouldn't know me apart from..... a seperation of church and state activist? And Ransom, half the time I can't even tell what you're saying. You ought to learn to spell. Like, I can't find the "religious fanatic" thing anywhere. And generally, when someone doesn't respond to something in a written debate that's like 6v1, don't assume that they're ignoring you. Assume, however it may be incorrect, that they didn't see that. I do have a life beyond this debate. And I'm taking your comment to mean that you'd rather give Darwin a blowjob then admit that maybe you've done wrong things and that you need a higher power to help you.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 9:30 PM  

  • I'm going to keep this one short and sweet. Quiggy, if you're so sure that creationism is true and evolution is a load of crap, why don't you get God to tell us that in person?

    By Blogger The_Tractor, at 9:31 PM  

  • ok quigg well with regard to spelling, maybe you should learn to read the way..oooo about 95 of kids type.
    if you dont see the religious fanatic thing the apparently you cant read well in the first place. also, can you site the time i said anything about creationism? i cant. what i did however say is that my sources on the mistranslation thing seem to be more plausible than your sources, or lack therof.
    Also, you say that gays should not be allowed to partake in the Christian service or marrige? let me remind you that marrige is not soley a christian thing, and i again raise the point of "what if a gay jew wants to be married? whould they not be allowed becuause a different religion tells them not to?" it is last i checked a free country founded on the basis of religious freedom. That statment is despite what you darling president is trying to do. And about good ole' Bush: If his campain all about "freedom" why is it all he has really done is try to tell people what they cant do (gay marrige, abortion, and dont get me started on Iraq)

    P.S. If you honestly missed my "religious fanatic" thing, i will gladly restate it, if you think the bible is literal, what makes you that different than those people waiting for the aliens to come as read in the prophecies? or those runing into building with bombs on the chests? The thing is that they take wat is put down in the religious writings literaly, while most of us living on this planer do not.

    P.S.S read your own blog rules, would not "blowjob" be considered inappropriate language? and then should not your post be removed. Just a thought.

    By Blogger Ransom, at 9:40 PM  

  • ok quigg well with regard to spelling, maybe you should learn to read the way..oooo about 95 of kids type.
    if you dont see the religious fanatic thing the apparently you cant read well in the first place. also, can you site the time i said anything about creationism? i cant. what i did however say is that my sources on the mistranslation thing seem to be more plausible than your sources, or lack therof.
    Also, you say that gays should not be allowed to partake in the Christian service or marrige? let me remind you that marrige is not soley a christian thing, and i again raise the point of "what if a gay jew wants to be married? whould they not be allowed becuause a different religion tells them not to?" it is last i checked a free country founded on the basis of religious freedom. That statment is despite what you darling president is trying to do. And about good ole' Bush: If his campain all about "freedom" why is it all he has really done is try to tell people what they cant do (gay marrige, abortion, and dont get me started on Iraq)

    P.S. If you honestly missed my "religious fanatic" thing, i will gladly restate it, if you think the bible is literal, what makes you that different than those people waiting for the aliens to come as read in the prophecies? or those runing into building with bombs on the chests? The thing is that they take wat is put down in the religious writings literaly, while most of us living on this planer do not.

    P.S.S read your own blog rules, would not "blowjob" be considered inappropriate language? and then should not your post be removed. Just a thought.

    By Blogger Ransom, at 9:41 PM  

  • "You'd rather give Darwin a blowjob then admit that maybe you've done wrong things and that you need a higher power to help you." Resulting to personal insults, are we Quiggy? This is a really obvious instance of ad homonym, attacking the person instead of the argument. It's a really bad debate tactic, just so you know.

    Why didn't you answer my question? Oh, you mean you completely missed the comment asking that one question? Are you wearing your glasses? I'll repeat it for you: if you're so sure that creationism is true and evolution is a load of crap, why don't you get God to tell us that in person?

    And if you believe that the Bible is literally true, why don't you sacrifice animals and follow all of those traditions?

    By Blogger The_Tractor, at 6:34 AM  

  • "You'd rather give Darwin a blowjob then admit that maybe you've done wrong things and that you need a higher power to help you."
    Actually, I've believed in evolution for quite some time and I do admit that, if there is a Christian God, I am going to Hell. And you know what? I'm fine with that. It's my punishment for being wrong, but as of right now I'd rather believe what makes sense to me. Don't assume that by denying the existance of a God that we're cowering behind Darwinism in fear of our sins.

    By Blogger Neon, at 3:06 PM  

  • as im sure qiuggy is going to say.. it says in the bible not to test god, which is a perfect example of the way that religion is designed to run you around in circles.. basically the bible says dont think, just beleive, which sounds kinda inspiring and dramatic, BUT IS REALLY JUST IGNORANT. imagine if thats how government worked, dont question us, just give us money and we'll kill people for you... we've grown out of that kind of government becuase we realized its bullshit, so now we need to grow out of these ignorant religions (literally, IGNOREant) and adapt as a religion i call divine influenced science, which what i beleive... and will explain in another post since this one is already getting long...

    By Blogger taco, at 3:46 PM  

  • also... back to the marriage thing... if rachel decided to marry a girl, in all serouisness.. would u really say no, get out of my church ur making it up just to fill out some sick fantasy and ur going to hell for it? i no i wouldnt...mainly just to see the preist studder when he gets to the "do u take this.." part and forgets what to say/ cant figure out who to say it to...lol

    By Blogger taco, at 5:04 PM  

  • Let's see, Ransom, if 95 of kids type the way you do, then with a more than reasonable estimate of, say 1.5 billion kids, you're part of.... a very small number. Seriously, please learn to type. I know that not everyone is Christian! For the 500th time: they should be allowed politically, but not religiously, according to my religion. Sorry, I must confess I left off that last clause. My apologies for not including every tiny detail. Ben, I know I personally attacked Ransom, but he had done that to me a good number of times. And if you think Darwinism is so real, why don't you get Darwin to say that? Sorry I didn't answer that before, I WAS ASLEEP. Besides, "Do not put your Lord God to the test". Yes, I hear you Tucker, I know that that could be considered circular. But I believe that God doesn't want you to test him. It shows that you do not believe in him. If you were to pray, he'd answer you. It might not be "Tucker, this is God, believe in me!", but you'd understand the logic behind Him. Ben, I don't sacrifice animals because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice that paid for our sins once and for all, as opposed to animal sacrifices that were a one-time fix dealy. And finally ('cuz I think I've covered everything), I wouldn't be against Sporko marrying a girl politically, in other words a political union called "marriage", but not a Christian union called "marriage".

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 6:22 PM  

  • Ok matt, that a god start...and by the way, for someone who says/thinks they are very smart, i would hope you knew i mean 95%%%%...duh! Also, while some of your answers are valid...meh kinda. You failed to answer a few important question (like skipping the religious fanatic one...ya that one. so just scroll back and find it, im sure in your infinite knowlege you can answer somehthing simple like that.

    By Blogger Ransom, at 6:37 PM  

  • o but wait Matt, if i pray and say that god never spoke to me or gave me a sign or w.e, ull say well u just didnt understand the sign, becuase god doesnt want to prove himself unless u beleive... so basically i have to beleive to get the signs i need to beleive... sounds pretty circular to me...

    By Blogger taco, at 6:49 PM  

  • Ok, here we go.... the religious fanatic thing! Umm.... most, and I do realize that not all, but most suicide bombers are not Christians. I'll get back to that in a sec. Also, I don't see how people can think that the Bible refers to UFOs and whatnot. Now, here's the thing: the Bible, if you twist it this way, can be open to interpretation. These days, most Christians believe in the same general things. However, different denominations exist because people believe different minor details. That's why some people see the Bible as an invitation to kill people, such as the popes of old who ordered the crusades. Or how some people think that God is going to come along in his spaceship and beam us up. Tucker, I know what you're saying, and lemme tell you this: God doesn't only listen to Christian's prayers. You become a Christian by praying, with all your faith, and proclaiming that Jesus is the only way to heaven. So yes, if you ask to show you, he will.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 7:05 PM  

  • Wow. Not having been here for quite some time (actually, I haven't turned on my computer in quite some time...) I just read all of those comments at once. Intense. I love it.

    Statistics say that 1 out of 10 people are gay. But then again, who knows how many other gay people are out there who, whether because of their families, location, etc. haven't come out. Just something to think about.

    I believe and support many morals and lessons that different religions teach, and I believe that humans need something to believe in to function properly, but I don't necessarily support (notice I said 'support' - not believe - because whether or not I believe in something doesn't make it true)religions entirely if they say things I don't agree with. I mean, I obviously believe in the existence of my parents, but I don't always believe in what they have to say. I find it hard to comprehend how something like the bible can have so many mistakes and still be considered what is right and true. WE define what is right.

    And, on a closing note, I will leave you with some words from Magical Thinking by Augusten Buroughs-
    "being straight is the new gay"

    By Blogger Tor, at 8:09 PM  

  • This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Tor, at 8:12 PM  

  • UMmmmm, Matt, did i ever say anything about being a religious fanatic meant you have to be christian? Yes i know that most of the people i used as examples aren't chritian, i am pointing out that those are the kinda people we laugh at for taking faith literally (as most people, especially chritians, don't).

    By Blogger Ransom, at 8:27 PM  

  • "And if you think Darwinism is so real, why don't you get Darwin to say that?" I'll tell you why I can't get Darwin to say that: he's dead! But he actually existed, people knew him, and instead of him, we have his notes. So I ask you again: why doesn't God come down here and straighten things out?

    By Blogger The_Tractor, at 7:57 AM  

  • Because God is dead.
    <3<3 Nietzsche

    By Blogger Neon, at 12:58 PM  

  • "But he actually existed, people knew him, and instead of him, we have his notes." Jesus, the person, existed. You cannot deny this, Roman scrolls and whatnot speak of a man calling himself Jesus going around preaching that he was the Messiah and starting up a fair amount of unrest. People knew him. We have his notes. The question here is if he is who he said he is. This is only possible if you believe in God to begin with. And I was thinking more about all my probability math, and it dawned on me- those exponential equations shouldn't have a base of 18. They should have a base of 36. For comparison, 18^5 is almost 2 million, while 36^5 is about 60.5 million. I don't see how anyone can reach the conclusion that the universe is an accident.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 3:11 PM  

  • Ok quigg here is what i think, There is a God, the universe is not an accident, but i think God put the earth into place put the possibility for life there and kinda...went somwhat hadns off for the rest of the time. If you take the bible literally take this into consideration, if it is all true, how is Genisis posssible? How would it explain the dinosaours? Also if the timing of Genisis was correct it would mean that the earth just appeared here around 10,000 years ago, which we know is not true, humans were around for longer than that for gods sake (no pun intended)

    By Blogger Ransom, at 3:32 PM  

  • ok well techinally the universe is kinda an accident.. i beleive in my own religion as i mentioned before, my theory on the beginnning of the universe is basically the big bang theory, well actually the little bang theory but most people understand the big bang better, its a tiny pinprick of matter that explodes the second its created and is forever expanding, the heaveir particles pulling at space time creating small pockets of gravity that collect of passing particles that get more and more gravity until they explode into a star or are sucked into the orbit of another star, the one problem with this from a purely scientific veiw is were did the matter come from in the first place, my answer, something, not somewere. I dont beleive in a god in the traditional sense as a giant being that shoots thunderbolts or cast humanity to hell at the beating of an eyelash, i beleive in a small concoiusness that makes tiny adjustments to the world, just as creating a tiny particle of matter that created the universe, or making tiny brain cell adjustments to cure disease (such as the healing of girl with screwed up spine who i met, all that "god" had to do was change one tiny little nuetron and the pain "turned off" thus allowing her to walk, it didnt completely fix her spine) iv pitched this idea to my religion teacher for the sake of arguement and so far i havent found a single flaw in my religion... and it fits in with sceince, for example, the chances of humans being formed from space dust, actually pretty likely but for the sake of arguement all that needs to happen is my 'god" steps in and changes a single acid of DNA and boom, evolution takes it way and humans are born... im thinking of writing a book ;)

    By Blogger taco, at 3:37 PM  

  • wow tucker nice religion..its kinda like mine actually...'cept mine makes the god within it more powerful, but he still only put the pieces for the creation of evything in place...and gave them a little,..nudge. I mean there has to be an "uncaused cause" if the big bang thing was a huge chain-reaction of events there has to be somthing that started the chain, or an "uncaused cause" as i said before.

    By Blogger Ransom, at 4:29 PM  

  • Noah's ark takes care of all of those prehistoric problems. Noah would have taken 2 of every type of dinosaur onto the ark. However, the world was (understandably) a very different place after it was completely flooded. The dinosaurs could no longer survive. Similarly, hominids could either have been creatures similar to humans which died out because of this, or they could have been the unbelievers, which I believe more. They're all buried so deep because of all of the silt that got moved by the flood. And interesting fact: did you know that every civilization has a flood story in which a god tells a man to build a big boat and stick animals on it 'cuz the world is gonna flood? Oh, and interesting beliefs. Ransom, you believe the "Great Clockmaker" theory, which says that God created the world, then sat back and watched it tick. I see no reason for God to bother if he did that. And Tucker, you're sort of pantheistic: there is some force that controls everything, like in Star Wars. And one more thing. The Big Bang theory. One of you science people out there please explain to me how, from one point in space, all matter can come. Law of Conservation of Mass clearly disproves the Big Bang theory.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 4:43 PM  

  • Quiggy, you still didn't answer my question. I'm not denying the existence of Jesus whatsoever, what I asked was that if creationism is true and evolution is false, why doesn't God say so? So far, all you've said in response to that is "Get Darwin to say evolution is true," and "Roman scrolls prove Jesus existed." So answer my question.

    By Blogger The_Tractor, at 4:44 PM  

  • ok matt a couple of things you fail to see. 1. With regard to the flood thing, how is it that there is proof of an ice age, but not one of a great flood? 2. all you just said still doesnt explain how with adam and eve theory thing the world can be as old know it is, the bible being true would make it about 10,000 years old, clearly incorrect. and lastly, yes there is the law of conservation of mass, but supose there is one exception, the exception that allowed us to exist to make that law true? and if somday they find out how to prove if there is a big bang, they may have to un-law that thing. and how dare you bring up science in this mr. "science is nothing..god made everything just the way his book tells us"

    By Blogger Ransom, at 5:04 PM  

  • FLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME!!!!!1111

    Hi. Tusz here. I lost track of the number of ad hominem attacks here, from just about everyone.

    To the "universe can't be an accident, look at the statistics" argument: keep in mind that assuming you needed an event with a 1 in x chance of happening, with one happening every second, the odds of such an event not occuring are (1-1/x)^s, where s is the number of seconds listed. As time goes forward (and s approaches infinity), this approaches zero, meaning a universe is probable even without god.

    As a side note, whoever quoted Nietzsche should find out what he meant. He was referring to the fact that society no longer needed religion to exist.

    By the way, I think the reason that the debate keeps shifting to evolution is that nobody here seems to have a problem with the government allowing secular gay marriage.

    In case you're wondering, I've decided to play devil's advocate rather than stating my own opinion, on account of it's much more fun.

    By Blogger Tusz, at 5:30 PM  

  • matt the whole entire idea of the big bang is based around conversation of mass, since this "ball of matter" is equal to the entire mass of the universe, and since its mostly empty the entirety of mass can be squeezed into a tiny ball, also since most of the universe is dark matter its possible that this ball worked as a type of stem cell for the universe assembling itself from the negative mass of dark matter therefor balancing the equation... also the principle of the conservation of mass shouldnt make sense in catholic religion becuase of 1) god created something from nothing, 2) its based off the idea of multiple dimesions and the balance of matter and anti-matter, something the church certainly doesnt beleive...

    By Blogger taco, at 7:43 PM  

  • Ben, I honestly don't know why God doesn't just send a really obvious message to everyone that He is God. He has some plan, and I don't know what it is. Just because He says nothing doesn't mean he doesn't exist. If you think that's the way the world works, then I will sign off of IM, and never again post to any of the blogs. Therefore, I will no longer exist, by your reckoning. Ransom, science is something. I support science in almost all areas, other than evolution. There is indeed information about a great flood. The fact that a great flood is in the mythology of every single civilization ever to walk the planet is information enough that its at least based in reality. Science has not proven when the world began, that's still up for debate. What you neglect to realize is that God could have created a world that had evidence of being much older than it was. Look at reproductions of civil war buildings and whatnot. Or Monty G. The new buildings are meant to look like the older ones. Tusz, I did some research on Wikipedia. The smallest DNA molecules have 10,000 pairs of A,C,T, and G. As I'm sure most of you know, A and T always bond and C and G always bond. So, one connection a second, you have 4^10,000. Fine, that doesn't count entirely. There's more than one combination, like if you wanted to spell "gray" or "grey". So I'll be nice and go for 3,000 possibilities. 4^7,000. For those who can't do it in their heads, lemme put that another way. Oh, wait, I can't, Google Calculator can't go that high. Also note that if a single thing went wrong, and you created an order that wasn't possible in any of those 3,000 possibilities, it would be ruined. Completely. And yes, I'm aware that this would be happening all around the world. But the chance of this happening, and also all of the other necessary components of cells to be present in just the right places for the cell to randomly decide that its alive and able to reproduce and eat (by the way, how would that first cell eat without chloroplasts? Prokaryotic cells, the cells scientists say were first out of the primordial soup, do not have chloroplasts, an there was certainly nothing else to eat) and all that jazz. And Ben, you didn't answer my question either. How can you ignore the Law of Conservation of Mass when science is king?

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 7:45 PM  

  • Who says I believe in the Big Bang theory? I honestly don't know how the universe began, and frankly, the Big Bang theory does seem a bit absurd. And no, I don't think God created it.

    By Blogger The_Tractor, at 8:13 PM  

  • ok quigg heres the thing, there really is no proof of a great flood, and while its true that cultures have myths, they are just that, myths. most have been handed down from civilizations that were origionally river valley civilizations, when the rivers flood anually, taking that into acount great flood myths become more like exagerations. and since when was tucker the foremost authority on this stuff? oh well, he is right...it is specualted that from a small ball of dark matter explanded to create the universe, and it is still expanding, supposedly it will eventually reach its limits and rapidly contract agian, and then we do the whole damn thing over agai n

    By Blogger Ransom, at 10:55 PM  

  • Again - this is Rachel. Oh come on now guys. Please stop. Your fighting over things that will not change. I am roman catholic, I go to church, I am part of the youth group. And it hurts me that I cant tell my church that I am bi. You know why I cant? Because in their eyes that is wrong. That it is wrong to love who I love. That it is wrong and that god will not accept me into heaven because of whome I chose to love.

    What so wrong? My church wont accept it. They would try to change it. They consider homosexuality a sexual crime. Do you have any idea how much it hurts when you say that. I mean if I chose to marry a woman, I wont be able to get married in my own church.

    Please, please, please stop fighting. Its a good argument. And sure.. it might be an argument for the sake of arguing. But Quiggy and Ransom and everyone else - no matter how hard you try, and no matter how many facts you can produce, you will not change what the other side thinks.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:09 PM  

  • Can we still fight about evolution and universe creation and stuff like that?

    By Blogger The_Tractor, at 3:26 PM  

  • Spork, I see where you're coming from. And I hate to tell you, but the bible does say multiple times that homosexuality is wrong. Sorry. Notice how I'm for a political union of gay couples, but not a spiritual union. Just the way it is. And Ransom, myths are, at least loosely, based on reality. All myths have some sort of history. King Arthur is based on a real king called Arthur. The fact that every civilization has this myth ought to tell you that there is history enough that something like that did once happen. And dark matter is not completely understood yet. But one thing that is known is that if it touches matter, the two cancel each other out. Therefore, dark matter cannot create matter. Nothing can, unless you were able to reverse E=mc2.

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 3:47 PM  

  • well quigg tho i thought i made it clear, all the civilizations that started the "flood myth's" are all near rivers...large rivers, there is the loose proximity duh!
    Next, i have no idea what your talking about unless you think E=Mc2 is too advnaced for all us because i kno that it actaully pertains too the speed of light..but thats ok. and yes your right that no one knows about dark matter, but it is possible, because we know little about it, that it has properties that could make what tucker and i said true. also supose it isnt dark matter we should be talking about, suppose it is some other type of matter, or negative matter that we dont even kno about?
    Sporko, that sux, and im sorry, and matt your not really correct, agian. just because they are not married in a christian curch does not mean the are not spiritually connected, if two people love each other, they already have a certain level of spiritual connection in my book. And, supose you are jewish, then what, they dont really care about you sexcual preferences last time i checked, the christian church is not the only one you know.

    By Blogger Ransom, at 5:57 PM  

  • Spiritual meaning relating to God, not supernatural and suchlike. All civilizations arose near rivers. That's why they arose there. No rivers = no food = no civilization. They all say that a god came, told someone to build a boat, he did, and the entire world was destroyed. True, no one knows much about antimatter, but that doesn't mean that its open for interpretation, that anyone can use it how they feel. Also, I read a book called E=mc2 last year. It talks about the equation and its impact. E means energy. m is the mass of the object involved. c2 is the speed of light squared. What the equation says is that when you split atoms, the energy released is the mass of the atom times the speed of light squared. The instrumental part here, believe it or not, is the =. It means that the atom actually turns into energy. This is not reversable as yet known, so until science proves me wrong, there is no way that energy could be turned into matter. (And even if there was, how could all of the energy in the universe be contained in one tiny point? Big Bang makes no sense)

    By Blogger Quiggy, at 8:21 PM  

  • There's no limit to how dense something can be, or how large the initial particle(s) was. Of course the law of conservation of mass has to be obeyed, and who's to say that the big bang theory ignores it? It wouldn't be a widely accepted theory if it didn't. I don't know as much about it as I should, so this is all I will say.

    By Blogger Neon, at 8:43 PM  

  • matt of course and atom can be split and turned into energy, um.. atomic bomb... and dont insult us with einstein lessons i think we all knew that, and the reason that this whole eqation makes sense is that the energy of an atom is equal to its potenial energy a la newtons laws, which explains why the atoms can have so much energy since they have so much potenial energy...

    By Blogger taco, at 10:53 PM  

  • E=MC^2 describes mass as trapped energy. A small amount of mass contains a tremendous amount of energy. Let's say one ounce. The energy it exerts is equal to one ounce time the square of 186,000. A rather HUGE number. But this doesn't have anything to do with this discussion because the Big Bang theory did not create energy from mass or anything like that, it was just a superdense particle exploding.

    By Blogger The_Tractor, at 6:42 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

·