Evolution vs. Creation.

[Dan]

Exctaly tony.

And since you compley ingonred my question about aucataly knowing any gay copeles that you never have. And from your coments in your last post i am beting you have never been in a real realtionship if you think that about love. Poleop of any sexual orination can love and be loved just as much as any other peoleop.

I think you are very mistaken about what love is. Love is not geting marryed. Love exists in many forums and many ways and none of them a bound by marrage or what the church says. You can not tell poeleop how they feal witch is what you are doing above. There is a difrence between love and lust but that dose not mean everything is lust but marrage. Think that is foolish and i blive that even most churchs and presits whould agrea with me that marrage dose not make love but only repsents existing love between two peoleop.

I am extreamly prowed to be canadain becuses of the rulling tony talked about. And i think that it is extermaly impornt to up hold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Also marrage is hardly a chirstion invention. The conspect of bonding peoleop in love has been around long before the exsistance of chaloisium. And in our socity due to overwellming exmeame bisased to chirstainin in the past the word marrage has come to repsent any of thess bonds. And is also been used in legal terms and threw out the goverment and other parts of scoity. However this dose not make it somthing that church has power over and is why the goverment ruled the way they did.

Also you keep saying i am confusing the point or saying blind things but never back that up. For example in your last post you side that affter a qoute form me that has nothing to do with that. And you basickly just restated the point i was saying. You are simpley playing with words to make your point. The only one conufsing the point here is you.

I mean you say the church has all say in what is ture in faith and it sometimes but not allways invals morality with the church is some times wrong in tho some of the faith invals morality and that they don't claim to be always....That makes abuslite no scenses and if you aucataly go threw it, what it comes down to is that they are just pulling shit out of there ass and excpeted peoleop to blive it on the gorunds that they are the church and then jusifying there mistakes by saying there are only humman but they are still right about everything eltes.

For example by saying that eveltion is a vaild theroy it underminds the bible saying the erath was made in 7 days. The only thing prolonging this topic is your almost personal atacks witch have nothing to do with the debate.

[Martin]

rizzix wrote:

Hacker Dan wrote:

Eh? So they are righ about faith and only some times about morality? That seems prity convliuded to me. Esptaly since there faith ushely talks about morality.

Not sometimes, but usually! But they don't claim to be _always_.

Hacker Dan wrote:

Cleary you have never realy know some one who is gay or a gay couple if you can turly blive that there is no love between them. A gay realtionship is just like any other in terms of love and lust. So unless you are going to say that all relationships are about lust and not love you are very wrong and going on to a very dangures tangent.

Most relationships here are based on emotions, love is more than a mere emotion, it is a bond... Such bonds aka "love" is so great that one may even give up his life for the other..

Relationships based on emotion are relationships that never last and most relationships here, (ooh these so-called love relationhips) are really based on emotion. It is basically two individuals trying to statisfy their own needs.. The need to be wanted, the need for company, they need a companion, the need for someone who cares (all this so they can feel less lonely, or simply so they feel great!).. not that there's anything wrong with this, but if both are just trying to satisfy themselves, there is no real love..

Hacker Dan wrote:

The truth is that marage in the real world is or at least should be about love not reproduction. The chruch may see it this way but it dose not make it so.

In a marriage the husband is _required_ to love his wife. And i think i've given you the glimpse of what this love actually is.

Hacker Dan wrote:

Marage or at least the idea of it exists in many difrent relgiones and clutoruls and is hardly just uninque to the chirstion faiths.

Yea, most of these religions have a very similar idea of marriage as christianity... It's only recently that things are being redefined, because people have been greatly exposed to materialism. The materialistic society has plagued the minds of the people, because of this people have been objectified to the extent, just like these materials..

So Rizzix, would you support a law that would make it so that infertile people or people over the age that was healthy to have children weren't allowed to get married? I know a gay couple that has been together since the late 1980's. Nearly 20 years - no children, but if that's not love I don't know what is. And here's kicker - if one of them were to die, the other doesn't have the same rights as a married couple. How can you say that's the right thing? And how are you, the church or anyone else allowed to tell people what is or isn't love? What makes the church so high and mighty that they're allowed to pass a judgement as extreme as that on people? "Oh, you can't have kids so it can't be love." That's the most pretentious statement that I have heard in a while. Last time I checked the Catholic Church didn't exactly have the best track record on doing the right thing.

I think that the solution to the whole issue would be to get rid of marriage altogether as a legal definition and make it completely a religious thing. People would be able to get married, but it wouldn't mean anything to the courts. At the same time, make civil unions the new "marriage" for people of any genders and the problem is solved.

[rizzix]

Martin wrote:

I think that the solution to the whole issue would be to get rid of marriage altogether as a legal definition and make it completely a religious thing. People would be able to get married, but it wouldn't mean anything to the courts. At the same time, make civil unions the new "marriage" for people of any genders and the problem is solved.

Funny that's pretty much what the church proposed

[rizzix]

Hacker Dan wrote:

For example by saying that eveltion is a vaild theroy it underminds the bible saying the erath was made in 7 days. The only thing prolonging this topic is your almost personal atacks witch have nothing to do with the debate.

Do I have to repeat myself? There is no debate in Evolution vs. Creation. Evolution is a theory. PERIOD. Is creationism a theory? NO.. Cornflake and others have proved it likewise. The debate was closed. You can't scientifically use Creationsim to prove anything! Creationsims is purely based on belief (not science).

My attacks have gotten personal because the real _deal_ behind this stupid extended debate is the _bashing_of_all_those_who_believe_. The actual debate had ended a while ago. This is pretty pathetic, cuz this is pretty much compsci's hottest topic, i.e: so long as you can bring in believers into an arguement and attack them, preferably in a disguised manner (like this foolish topic), then it is ONE HOT TOPIC. Relish it, cuz hey these believers are _blind_ fools! And organised religion! Oh my! That's a crime! Those poor fools. IT's soooo sad that they can't think for themselves! Bunch of drones....

Again, for the last time, there is no debate. If some idiot brings up this topic trying to ressurect it, show him the proof.

[Martin]

rizzix wrote:

Martin wrote:

I think that the solution to the whole issue would be to get rid of marriage altogether as a legal definition and make it completely a religious thing. People would be able to get married, but it wouldn't mean anything to the courts. At the same time, make civil unions the new "marriage" for people of any genders and the problem is solved.

Funny that's pretty much what the church proposed

The thing is though that that would lead to gay marriages, because there are a lot of chuches out there that think it's okay. So the end result is that we have some legal documents with a few words changed around and the exact same situation we had before. So my question is - why do people care so much about gay people not getting married now?

[Tony]

here's an alternative to consider:

"There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live."

[Dan]

rizzix wrote:

Do I have to repeat myself? There is no debate in Evolution vs. Creation. Evolution is a theory. PERIOD. Is creationism a theory? NO.. Cornflake and others have proved it likewise. The debate was closed. You can't scientifically use Creationsim to prove anything! Creationsims is purely based on belief (not science).

That is so but it dose not stop them from overlaping.

Also you have not awsered any of my qouestions to you from the last 3 or 4 posts i have made so i will assume that you are unable to debate thos points.

This debate is not about bashing all thos who blive, and as i have side before many times in this topic that i have nothing agisted peoleop who blive but only agisted thos who blive and try to convice others using false facts and try to make others less. Witch you are doing, at least to gay peoleop by saying they can not love.

I have also stated that if you ingore parts of the bible, witch i highly recomend doing since they conflick and/or are poorly trasalted at best. That both creatiusme and evletion and coexists in that god could creat the unvieres and then elvetion brings it to where it is now.

Also i realy don't get your point about how the church in question says the theroy of elvetion is ok but then dose not blive in it. Dose this mean that for a theroy to exist the church has to say it can?

Hostly i do not understand why peoleop need a gorup to decied what they should blive. You seem to talk down on thos who call them selfs a spficect kind of christion but do not blive everything the church says, on the other hand i whould complemnt such peoleop for having there own blifes. There is no faith invalined in just going with what every one eltes blives in. What takes faith is to go agisted the norm and blive in what you think is right. You have free will so use it.

Hostly i feal that all the things you are accusing us of doing you are doing your self but just in a difrent direction. You are making masive assumptions about our faiths and what we blive in. You assume that i blive in nothing witch is absultey unture and the issues i have are agisted orgainsed relgion not an indviaduals relgion.

Orgainsed relgion as a hole has only lead to negtive things. It leads to genrealiations and hate. From the cursades to peruating gay hate. I realy do not think induvales bliving in the same thing whould come to the conlsutions or acactions that orgasinesed relgion whould. And more imporntly i do not think it is realy nessary. One should find there own turths not just say you blive in what gorup x says.

[rizzix]

Hacker Dan wrote:

Also you have not awsered any of my qouestions to you from the last 3 or 4 posts i have made so i will assume that you are unable to debate thos points.

Yea I kind of found it irrevalent to the Topic. It was getting astary.. And i'm not in the mood.

Hacker Dan wrote:

This debate is not about bashing all thos who blive, and as i have side before many times in this topic that i have nothing agisted peoleop who blive but only agisted thos who blive and try to convice others using false facts and try to make others less. Witch you are doing, at least to gay peoleop by saying they can not love.

No it isin't, but if we persue an answer when one was already given, it becomes just that. So, its nice you finally locked it

Hacker Dan wrote:

I have also stated that if you ingore parts of the bible, witch i highly recomend doing since they conflick and/or are poorly trasalted at best. That both creatiusme and evletion and coexists in that god could creat the unvieres and then elvetion brings it to where it is now.

Not everyone takes the bible so literally The fact is the bible includes a lot of literary devices that are non-existant today. For example the numbers 3 and 7 etc, they all have special meanings.. And you're right both can co-exist.

Hacker Dan wrote:

Also i realy don't get your point about how the church in question says the theroy of elvetion is ok but then dose not blive in it. Dose this mean that for a theroy to exist the church has to say it can?

Well, see here's the thing, theory of evoltion is not really a matter of belief (especially when the church it self says it isin't ) There are lots of other things that are not a matter of belief, does that mean the church needs to make it a matter of belief just make it exist? It does not need to do that, and neither does it do it.

Hacker Dan wrote:

You have free will so use it.

And we use this free will to follow the church and it's teachings. If you say we musn't, that basically means you rather have us deprived of our free will.

Hacker Dan wrote:

You assume that i blive in nothing witch is absultey unture and the issues i have are agisted orgainsed relgion not an indviaduals relgion.

Nope, I never made that assumption. And organised religion is a religion (It's not another corporate "company"). Flaming an organised religion means to flame everyone who follows it.

Hacker Dan wrote:

From the cursades to peruating gay hate.

Mind you, watch what you say. Even though the church does not agree with gay marriage, it does not provoke hatered towards these people. Infact it asks you to pray for them.
And the crusades was a battle to protect christianity from being completly replaced with Islam. It's either that or the fact that europeans could not accept being conquered by the Eastern world.

[Dan]

rizzix wrote:

And we use this free will to follow the church and it's teachings. If you say we musn't, that basically means you rather have us deprived of our free will.

Indeed it whould, and what i mean is that you should not choices to fallow the church just becues your parents or socity dose but becues you came to blive in the same things. But even then i think it is impornt to think about what the chruch says. Becuses as both you and they have side they have been wrong in the past.

rizzix wrote:

Nope, I never made that assumption. And organised religion is a religion (It's not another corporate "company"). Flaming an organised religion means to flame everyone who follows it.

I think that my issues with organised religion are more falming the orgainsational parts of them (ie. the church in some cases) and the conspect of giving your blifes over to an ograsation. I in no way mean to falme peoleop that do falow such relgions and hope my coments are not take in that context and am sorry if they seem that way.

For example i offter flame M$ but i do not mean to be falming the empolyes that work for them.

rizzix wrote:

Mind you, watch what you say. Even though the church does not agree with gay marriage, it does not provoke hatered towards these people. Infact it asks you to pray for them.
And the crusades was a battle to protect christianity from being completly replaced with Islam. It's either that or the fact that europeans could not accept being conquered by the Eastern world.

I know the church dose not directly promot hate to homsexuals, i whould be exteramly worryed if it did. However alot of the misguided peoleop that claim to fallow the church in question blive that they do mean to be anti-gay and atack on this. Understabaly this is not directly the churchs falut and thess peoleop are not aucatly do what the church says but i still think they could do a better job of acpecting peoleop for who they are.

As for the crusades we can areaga to disagrea since it whould start a new debate unrealted to this topic in any real way.