Zafur

Hurrhurr. I'm only a train ride away. :wink: I agree, from what I can see of your face, you're kinda cute. Feels odd saying that, though.

Try to keep swearwords at a minimum as I think my school's proxy blocks things with too many swearwords. Couldn't access page 12 Rofl. Try not to over react so much either, please. Trust me, it's kinda hard hard for me to be purely logical with my responses also. According to Christianity, yes, it should only be used as a binding contract... Women don't always get pregnant, and I don't see some cells without a conscience or mind yet as a human. If homosexuality creates more offspring or not is irrelevant. It happens in nature, in the wild. You really can't get more natural than that... And sex isn't only to create babies in humans. Married couples have sex for only pleasure all the time. And just because they "accidentally" got a baby, doesn't mean they didn't want it. What do you want as proof? Fossils of every single variation between man and ape? Wicca stuffs: Wiccans don't worship the earth directly, from my knowledge of it. They worship their Goddess which had created the earth, and the things they do that looks like worshiping the Earth is a way to pay homage to the creator, probably. Like how you don't worship the ceremonies or the bread and wine at Church, you make ceremonies around them to worship God. Edit: Didn't God banish Satan to Hell? I doubt he "rules over" anything. He's there, wherever Hell is, suffering. The only "power" he has is that we have free will, thus we can choose to sin or not. Most of those scripture quotes appear irrelevant aside from the one that directly mentions sorcerers, etc. Also. Remember... You have free will. Reading that website isn't going to make you convert into a Wiccan. You still have the choice to believe what you want to. ... I see this as a possible reason you're so adamant against any evidence for evolution being actual evidence? Does proving evolution absolutely mean that there's no God for you? Healing/Cursing isn't that different from Christianity. Free will. If you want to curse, you curse, but it's still bad. I'm sure there's consequences for that, like karma as Kuoleva mentioned. The religion isn't all about the "powers". It's about worshiping the Goddess. [Only the Goddess, or only the God. Or even both the God and Goddess as two gods, or you can see them as one and them being male and female attributes of one true god, similar to the Christian Holy Trinity.] I was specifying that it's the species as a whole, or a group of that species becoming a group of a new species. Not just one ape spontaneously becoming one man. Evolution is the whole process of series of generations changing because of their genes, so the creation of dog breeds are the results of evolution, or more specifically, selective breeding. A mule and a liger are hybrids... This is one generation of offspring. I'm not sure if mules can breed out to horses or donkeys, but ligers have bred with a tiger, I think, and produced t-ligers. The hybrids were just one step in evolution, for this example. I don't see twisting the Bible.He's looking at the Bible in it's least translated, thus purest form, and looking at what it says. He even goes back to look at the Greek version. He's not twisting the Bible itself. You may think that he may be stretching some things out of context, but I don't think I've seen that in his arguments for homosexuality.

I need to read it to read the others, though... I like reading in order. I linked to this thread, from your comment I suppose you didn't read it? http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/extended-discussion/homosexuality-is-not-a-sin-what-christ-said-and-more/t.22055569/ I'd like you to read over the replies to the arguments you use to say homosexuality is bad to see if you change your mind about God's opinion on the matter. Note that the person uses The Bible to answer almost everything, so you should find it interesting. I'm not sure why you brought up sleeping around, unless you're suggesting gays are more prone to it than straights. Yes, hello! How are you? An ape becoming a man is unrelated to evolution. Evolution is change in several individuals through breeding and several generations, not one individual. I say Velociraptors are an example of a transitional species. Even if God decided to reuse designs or not, that doesn't make velociraptors illegible to be an example of a transitional species. In fact the similarities make it seem more like they were somehow related. How can you say a dinosaur didn't undergo a mutation, or a series of mutations of scales to sprout feathers? That fits within your belief of micro evolution, correct? I mean, dogs and cats are randomly born without fur, a change like that doesn't seem unrealistic. If some change in their environment favoured smaller specimens of their species, the smaller specimens would live to breed and the larger ones would die out. The smaller ones would pass on their genes, then the next generation would go through the same until eventually they became bird sized. Velociraptors are only the size of a medium to large dog. It's not THAT much of a difference in size to birds of prey, such as eagles and hawks. I'm under the belief that the Bible's explanation was not to be taken literally... And the whole point of the debate is to use evidence to outweigh another's evidence. Yes, it is. Evolution is change in the genetics of a species overtime, not that one species turns into another. The changes may be so drastic over the millions of years, and billions of generations of offspring that we feel a need to call them different species, but evolution does not say one species is going to turn into some other already existing species. A new fur colour doesn't mean a change in species, but it can be the start of one... Do you understand my point? Evolution = Little changes over time that eventually makes a group of animals so different from their ancestors that we decide to classify them as a different species, or subspecies, or breed... Transitional species = Velociraptors are one because they show when dinosaurs first gained feathers, before going through more changes and eventually becoming birds. Birds have left over genetics from their reptilian ancestors, like scales. To the whole sex for pleasure thing: I'm pretty sure that most animals lack too much intelligence to know they're creating babies when they're going through the reproductive acts. Even if they DID know, why should they care? Most animals care only about their own survival. Several species leave their young to fend for themselves after laying the eggs. Mating requires coming out from hiding to risk your life in finding a mate. Instincts can explain a lot of things, but why would animals ACTIVELY risk their lives in finding a mate when they won't find pleasure in it? Surely if I found no pleasure in having sex, I would not do it. If it hurt, I definitely wouldn't do it. Just because animals find pleasure in mating does not make them impure. There's not so much proof in them not finding pleasure in it, and a lot for it. Such as witnessing animals pleasuring themselves, which surely can't be to make more babies. Note: Homosexuality is seen in animals in the wild. It's natural. Also, be respectful of other's religions here. I'm assuming Kuoleva is a Wiccan. Wicca isn't Satanic... I honestly don't see the relation but this is more unrelated than animals finding pleasure in sex. How is it made to mimic the Church if sex has been happening since before the Church even existed? I agree sex can be used as a binding contract but people don't always use it as such, and I find no reason why God would discriminate against homosexual or polyamorous couples. If people love more than one person, then they should be able to make binding contracts with all of them. First off, not everyone wants kids. Second, if the man wants to split up, he'll do that regardless of whether he's married or not. I am NOT going to marry someone without complete trust in them. I do not believe the second before "I do." I can lack trust and true love, then the second after that, something magical happens and makes complete trust and love. God may send his help to strengthen newly wed couples, but he can't make them love each other. I honestly don't know why anyone would marry without already being in such a serious relationship that they have complete trust in one another... I think you're making an assumption that most sex before marriage is teenagers doing it before they think things through, but if they DID and have reached such a state in their relationship that they have devoted the rest of their lives to each other, marriage would make no difference in it and I see no reason, besides religious reasons if stated in the Bible, to not have sex at that point. ...Errr, back on the main topic everyone!

I've read the book before watching the movie, and am currently trying to find time to read The Horse and His Boy. But, assuming evolution is correct, wouldn't the first apes born as human be considered as God creating humans? If I were a god, and forced animals to evolve into a species, I'd consider it me creating that species. For the whole "Bible saying no" thing, I suppose you're not wearing clothing made of a mixture of two clothes or have your sideburns shaved, right? The most commonly used verse against homosexuality is in Leviticus, which present day Catholics/Christians do not follow. For this argument about homosexuality being a sin, I'd like to link you to this one written article that should have explanations against most of the points brought up against it. Link I hope you don't let anything negatively affect your morals... Also, I'm pretty sure the STI transfer rate from high to low is Gay Male Couples Straight Couples Lesbians If anything, males are the ones who foster and spread STIs. Sauce I don't see how lack of self propogation is a perversion, please explain. Especially how this is harmful. Lack of it helps a species if they are currently going through a period of overpopulation. Less mouths means more food to be "shared", meaning less animals dying of starvation. I don't suppose you're against asexual humans also just because they don't find the need to engage in reproductive acts and are thus unlikely to reproduce? There has been a mouse born of two eggcells... Homosexuality is just a sexuality. If people choose to protect themselves or not from STIs are their personal choice, which has nothing to do with their sexuality. For the whole abortion thing: ... I'm pro-choice, but I don't think abortion is always right. I think that if you're gonna abort it, then do it when it hasn't developed a brain yet. I agree that people should protect themselves and should be held responsible for it but things like accidents, condoms breaking, and rape happens. I could go more in detail about how I view abortion should be dealt with but I don't think that's too important for this side debate. I just view if it doesn't have a human brain, which holds a human mind, it should be legal to abort. Otherwise, it's not more alive than perhaps a plant. It never experienced being alive so it can't miss it. I don't think a "would be life" should have the same protections as a life. I read somewhere that a while ago Jews didn't consider babies to have a soul until about a month old, but I don't have evidence of that on hand at the moment. Please try to remain mature, for both sides... This debate really doesn't need anything like that. Not only for right now, but there has been some iffy statements in past posts. It's true that it goes in circles but that's just because new people to the debate probably didn't see it had been brought up already. And well... You kind of need to use logic to debate this, and that statement is rather odd. If it turns into logic vs opinion, it's usually pointless since one can only attack the basis for an opinion, and even if a person's opinion has lost all its legs, they might still hold onto it, going into denial. Opinion doesn't have much room in debates anyways... Like debating if blue or red is a better colour for purely aesthetic reasons. Ugh. I'm confused now. Continuing long posts with an hour in between is hard when trying to keep things consistent. xP

I don't see it being so bad if you just shake it if you happen to really need the experience/happiness quick. It's still physical, even if you're only shaking your arm... Better endurance might be a side effect? Humans suck at holding up their arms so... Either way, since it'll be something to do just because I'm able to, I'll just stick it on me all day while not going out of the way to get more steps. I don't think it really needs to be related to excercize... It could just be for the following around idea and having your favourite Pokémon be with you. It'll just suck if it makes random noises like Tamogotchi without being able to be disabled because then I won't be able to use it at school. Bringing up the Wii Fit, you could use it while doing that jogging minigame.

If it came bundled, I'd probably just wear it all day to school. No point walking repeatedly up and down three stories and across a block if I don't get a bonus.

Numbers shouldn't matter if you come up with good points. It'll probably end with either agreeing to disagree, whether that means disregarding evidence or not, or having someone have a change in their beliefs. For example going from believing Creation or Evolution only to maybe believing in both. Doesn't need to be drastic. Good to see you make another post. I've been waiting for a comment from you.

Mind giving an example about the evidence going both ways? Or they were using metaphors and their parables, etc were to be taken for their meaning only, and not as 100% fact.

I'm sorry I haven't been posting... I figured I should avoid it for a while. This has been mentioned before... If you can believe in evolution, or change in the genetic make up of a species at all, (especially if you believe that genetic mutation exists and does cause change in individuals that can then be passed down) then you should be able to believe that it could happen on a larger scale over billions of years. I see no reason for you not to believe that this is possible. There doesn't seem to be a genetic "stop" in a genome of any species that stops it from mutating so much as to be considered a new species. People shouldn't be asking about proof of a god when debating about Creation Vs Evolution. You have to assume that an Intelligent Designer exists if you're debating over what he does and if it clashes with a scientific theory. We're not debating about a Creator itself, it's irrelevant. Also, I find your answer to be rather ironic... Darwinism... It's theory, is founded on evidence, proof. It's what Science is, proving a theory or hypothesis by using established fact and finding evidence to support it, rather like a court using evidence to prove someone guilty. If there's not enough evidence, it won't be accepted, the theory, or the guilty sentence. It's based on facts and proof. Religion, on the other hand, uses faith. Faith is belief in something without needing evidence. The blind following the blind. You have to trust that you'll end up in the right place. Darwinism is simply not a faith. I'm a "follower" or "believer" in Evolution, but if new evidence comes up that thwarts the theory, I will end my belief in it. This proves that it cannot be a faith, as faith requires trust regardless of proof. Our origins doesn't need to affect our morality... I see no reasoning in this. Belief in evolution doesn't mean you can't believe in your religion anyways... This could only possible apply if you were an Atheist, and decided to throw away your morals and do whatever you want because there will be no after life consequences. [Another edit:] Wait... You're saying you have no reason to hold onto your morals if there was no prize? Is that really true belief in God, or are you just God-fearing? Even if I was an Atheist, I would continue to be civil and hold onto my morals, as I don't take pleasure in other people's misfortune or being a jerk. Even with religion causing so much violence, it might just even out if it causes people to not go on killing rampages. Bwah. This debate would make me feel like an Atheist if it weren't for me constantly mentioning that you can believe in both a religion and evolution at the same time...xP Edit: I think we should make a list of points brought up and full responses to them to stop them being brought up repeatedly without any new ground.

It was probably asked because... Well. It isn't uncommon for people to make stuff up all the time on the internet... Plus the fact that this is on some random Pokémon forum rather than a website that helps with things like this. And that we had a similar one a while back... Not saying that this particular situation is fake. You just need to be wary of things on the intarwebz.

I don't plan to go into this discussion too much, at least for now... But Okami, why is the youngest considered a risk taker? I understand the other two... ...Ugh, I feel like I'm post stalking you. ><

I doodle on my body a lot, but I don't think I'd get something permanent... Not sure. Anyways, I hope that you guys make sure that when you get tattoos, that everything is anatomically correct, unless you specifically want them stylized... I just get bugged when I see something that was designed to be realistic yet has incorrect wing structure or something... Edit: An example of this, thought not exactly anatomy, is flame.... The brighter the colour of fire, the hotter it is... Which is why it should have a yellow or white center, not red. Not dissing on your tattoo or anything, Okami. :3

Yeah, I don't think they should tell us how many should be owned. If they're not suffering, it shouldn't matter. I also dislike how they're trying to limit what kinds of pets we can own. I understand that not allowing dangerous species to be kept as pets, maybe except with a permit, is a good thing, but they're also trying to limit reptiles and other exotics. Even hamsters, which aren't exotic at all. O_o

Isn't that another theory in itself? Even if they aren't helping anyone by trying to solve everything, why stop them? Most theories are based around fact, and theories that aren't supported enough are generally not shown as truth, but as what they are, theories. Science is based on fact. Saying all of science's theories lack fact is practically an oxymoron. I don't think the textbooks actually teach The Big Bang as truth, from what I've seen, just as a popular possible explanation, and there's no harm is giving possible explanations and labeling them as such. People shouldn't get upset about "possible explanations" anyways. If they're worried about the kids, parents just need to remind their kids the theory isn't 100% proven. It doesn't need to be so complicated. Scientists DO save the world, at least with medicine. I haven't seen any cockiness with them. All because of scientists? I need to see examples of this. I have constantly seen so much war and death caused by conflicts in religious differences that sometimes I think the world would be better without it; especially if people aren't capable of being civilized about differences. There will always be people disagreeing with anything. I honestly don't see why scientists discovering Truths should be enough to cause a war. If they prove the Big Bang theory, even if I was an orthodox in some religion, I doubt I'd be offended enough to want war. Since I believe God is behind science, I see no contradictions, and plus, most religions are out there to try and help people and to be used as moral guidelines... People seem to ignore that though, when they cause so much wars because of it. I like doing that, but I find people get too annoyed when I do. xP And I get particularly frustrated when people just "don't make sense", if you know what I mean.

If God set a purpose for you, that's potentially going against your free will. Of course you could choose not to do God's purpose, but if he punishes you for it,I think that might still be going against your free will. (It's like saying a horse has free reign, but whipping it when it goes somewhere you don't want it to go) Of course,we don't know if he would or not.

Mm. People who won't believe probably wouldn't even with someone on the internet telling a story about it. But for debates like this, you have to at least pretend he does when you're talking about it. Edit: Since, you know. It's Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, not Existence of God Vs Evolution. Slightly different. You're into psychology, do you find yourself constantly examining people's minds?

I'd upload pictures of them if I could. I think I just have one of my dog and my older dragon. Maybe I'll do some picture taking.

Wait... So you're saying your belief in Intelligent Design has to do with you being still alive after going through negative events, and how good Jesus was/is? I agree with the things you brought up about Jesus being all über awesome and stuff, but I don't see how it relates. "God let me live through a car accident, (and Jesus PWNS, yo!) so that means Genesis is true and should be taken literally." You surviving can be used for why you believe in God, not for why you hold that part of the Bible with greater value than Evolution and its evidence. o-o

Aw. Kitties. If only I didn't have asthma.D: I think they say Sphinxes have less dander, even though dander is in the skin and not the fur... I love randomly petting and hugging fluffy pets, so I don't know how well it'll be to have a cat, who are infamous for their attitudes.

I've never had a cat, but I want one. Relatives have owned cats though, not that I ever got to be near them, even though they were in the same house... My family had a lot pets. I personally own one dog, a papillon, but there's the family dog. Used to be two, both chihuahuas. Then there was another dog that we kept in the yard that belonged to my dad's side of the family, but he died also. I think he was a Basset Hound. I have four lizards. Two Bearded Dragons, an "armadillo lizard" which is really a tropical girdled, and an Argentine Blue Tegu. A snake, which is a bloodred cornsnake, and a Chilean Rose Haired tarantula. I HAD millipedes, but they died.D: Various ones, including the African Giant that grows about a foot long. Used to have other pets throughout my childhood too. Had two other pink corn snakes, two hamsters, a teddy bear and a dwarf, two guinea pigs. Four parakeets, two fire bellied salamanders, and two crayfish... Not sure what's with the thing for two. Had a few fish also. My family has owned other dogs, and a duck. A quaker parrot and some cockatiels. My dad apparently at some point owned a monkey, and at one point we owned a raccoon, before I was born. Oh, and my brother owned a Green Iguana... At one point another brought his ball python and milksnake over... But that should be everything that's been in MY house. O_o;;

I consider humans part of the animal kingdom, regardless of our intellect or mental abilities. We have the same systems of life and such... We do not fit in as plants, bacteria, or fungi. But that's another debate, I guess. Oh, and I'd like to apologize if my previous post seemed a bit stingy. The way this discussion goes in circles because of evading questions was getting a bit annoying.

Okami... It seems that you think that believing evolution is a fact would negate your spirituality, thus stripping you of your purpose in life, and chance of peace in heaven. Because of this, you're rather reluctant to believe that evolution is true, and believe in Genesis as total fact... Why do you just choose to follow Genesis? Unless you're extremely orthodox, I doubt you follow everything in the Bible. I bet you wear clothing that is made of a mixture of clothes, and disregard most other things in Leviticus. Why is it that if you can go so far as to believe that God caused the Big Bang, but you cannot believe that he's also behind evolution? It doesn't just simply have to be one or the other, as has been repeatedly stated. Believing in evolution does not negate God, just shows a different possibility of how he controls the universe. God is not a sole source of purpose in life. You can find purpose in almost everything. Of course if you believe in God, God created those things you can find purpose in, thus purpose can be traced back to him, but removing him from the picture does not remove the things you find inspiration and purpose in. Humans are part of the animal kingdom. We have enough intelligence to not "act beastly", most of the time, but since removing God does not remove purpose, which you claim to cause beastliness, that part is irrelevant. This is also the case for heaven. Evolution does not mean heaven doesn't exist. You can still have your eternal peace with believing it. Do you have a real reason that you cannot believe in both at the same time? Do you have proof that evolution in itself is impossible, backed up by only scientific evidence? Only scientific, since I've explained that your beliefs so far do not explicitly negate evolution.

Magikarp pwning Piplup + Pikachu (Bad language in title, by the way. In case it matters. And in the music.)

I'm pretty sure that the majority of people against evolution are against it because of a religion and that the majority of the scientific community accepts it as fact. Either way, you know what I meant... Buy more ink? Or type up the notes, put it on a portable hard drive, and print it out at a library.

Even though I started on Crystal, I really liked R/S/E. Maybe because it was the first "new" gen to me... The story line in them was very nice, I really can't think of anything bad about Hoenn, besides the annoying surfing routes. Only thing that I can currently think people may dislike is that the Pokémon started to get a bit different. It's not as drastic as gen IV, but it still seems different compared to the first two gens. I never really noticed when I was playing it through the first time, and I don't mind most of the third gen Pokémon, only the fourth gen bugs me.xP