Skip to main content

quote:   Originally Posted by vplee123:
And Mr Gray I have a firm understanding of my Catholic faith. I assure you I do not need any documents copied and pasted from you. 

Hi VP,

 

The document I gave you came straight from your current Pope:


LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

http://www.vatican.va/roman_cu...xual-persons_en.html

 

Are you now telling us that you disagree with him, your Pope?   Or are you saying that because Bill Gray brought his document to your attention -- it is no longer valid?

 

If that is true -- then maybe I should bring you Vatican articles about the Eucharist, Mariology, etc., and we can make them all invalid also.

 

VP, either you believe what your Pope writes, or you do not.  It has nothing to do with Bill Gray.  And, if you do not believe what your Pope writes -- then, you deny that he is infallible in church matters.   Is that true?

 

It seems that you are trying to straddle the fence -- because you do not want to believe that God views the homosexual lifestyle as an abomination -- even when your Pope confirms that this is God's view.

 

On which side of the fence will you take your stand -- with the gay marriage crowd, or with your Pope and God?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote:   Originally Posted by vplee123:
And Mr Gray I have a firm understanding of my Catholic faith. I assure you I do not need any documents copied and pasted from you. 

Hi VP,

 

The document I gave you came straight from your current Pope:


LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

http://www.vatican.va/roman_cu...xual-persons_en.html

 

Are you now telling us that you disagree with him, your Pope?   Or are you saying that because Bill Gray brought his document to your attention -- it is no longer valid?

 

If that is true -- then maybe I should bring you Vatican articles about the Eucharist, Mariology, etc., and we can make them all invalid also.

 

VP, either you believe what your Pope writes, or you do not.  It has nothing to do with Bill Gray.  And, if you do not believe what your Pope writes -- then, you deny that he is infallible in church matters.   Is that true?

 

It seems that you are trying to straddle the fence -- because you do not want to believe that God views the homosexual lifestyle as an abomination -- even when your Pope confirms that this is God's view.

 

On which side of the fence will you take your stand -- with the gay marriage crowd, or with your Pope and God?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

_____

On this one, Bill, I have to be objective and that means that I will have to take your side this time.

 

The official document signed by then-Cardinal and now Pope Ratzinger is unequivocal in defining the Catholic Church's official position on homosexuality.  Just as with artificial birth control, many Catholics might fine ways to disagree with it or might elect to ignore it and do what they want to do, but it IS the Catholic Church's doctrine in this matter. It seems that there are a fair number of "Cafeteria Catholics" and their number appears to be growing.

 

One especially direct and unambiguous part of Ratzinger's discourse leaves no room for any kind of approval of homosexual behavior by Catholics:

 

In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote:   Originally Posted by vplee123:
And Mr Gray I have a firm understanding of my Catholic faith. I assure you I do not need any documents copied and pasted from you. 

Hi VP,

 

The document I gave you came straight from your current Pope:


LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

http://www.vatican.va/roman_cu...xual-persons_en.html

 

Are you now telling us that you disagree with him, your Pope?   Or are you saying that because Bill Gray brought his document to your attention -- it is no longer valid?

 

Bill, do you not comprehend anything people say? Because you have a

dislike for Vp, you put words into her mouth, she isn't telling "us" what you

want to hear her say, she doesn't care what bill gray bring to anybody's

attention, she doesn't care what you think.

And "I" personally know you are of no importance to me or friends of Vp. 

 

Has she asked your opinion on anything, much less the Pope? NO.

 

If that is true -- then maybe I should bring you Vatican articles about the Eucharist, Mariology, etc., and we can make them all invalid also

 

That is a very stupid, stupid remark, you believe very little of what the

Bible says in the first place, 90% of the Bible isn't symbolic like you think.

 

VP, either you believe what your Pope writes, or you do not.  It has nothing to do with Bill Gray.  And, if you do not believe what your Pope writes -- then, you deny that he is infallible in church matters.   Is that true?

 

Bill, Did your mother know you're homosexual? Is that your beef, is that

why you hate women?

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

 

This tells us that God has and does create everything -- right?   So, if, as you claim, God has created anything which is not perfect -- then He is not perfect.  And, if He is not perfect -- then, He is not God.

 

What the? How you come to that conclusion is beyond the Scriptures. God creates evil, yet He is still perfect.

 

Gen 2:9  And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

Isa 45:7  I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


You either will or will not believe God created humanity in weakness, vanity and corruption.

 

1Co 15:42  So also is the resurrection of the dead.It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:43  It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45  And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Co 15:46  Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

 

Rom 8:19  For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
Rom 8:20  For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
Rom 8:21  Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

 

So, who caused all the birth defects and illnesses?   The answer can only be MAN, starting with Adam.   Adam disobeyed God, bringing sin and death into the creation.  Physical death was not instantaneous, but, a process.   Man dies of old age.   Man also dies of illnesses and diseases -- which are the end effects of man's fallen life.  

 

Read the above Scriptures i posted. If that does not do it then you are the one in disbelief. You did not post any Scriptures at all to prove your point, its as if you just made it up.
 
For some good Scriptural teachings check out  www.bible-truths.com
quote:   Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
Bill, Did your mother know you're homosexual?  Is that your beef, is that why you hate women? 

Hi Vic,

 

Are you trying to claim that I have a vendetta against ALL YOU GIRLS?   Naw, I love and admire ladies.  Of course, I will admit there are a few here and there who are a pain in the behind.  But, if God loves them -- I love them.   And, that includes you, along with all the other girls.

 

By the way, I love your new avatar.  It really shows your feminine side.  Below is another one which seems to catch your essence.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Grumpy_Nurse

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Grumpy_Nurse
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi VP,

But, I would make an educated suggestion that 99.5% of homosexuals became homosexual AFTER birth -- like years after birth.  So, to what do we attribute these converts?  It can only be environmental, i.e., family, conditions -- societal pressures -- and peer pressures, etc.

V

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill finally admits someone can be born a homosexual it is a breakthrough.  So if someone can be born this way why is it ok for you to condemn them?  I am not gay nor do I like it shoved in my face but on the other hand they should not be persecuted.

Mr gray I have made myself clear In that I will not discuss nor debate catholic doctrine with you. Read my words. I am in complete agreement with our faith on this and all matters. And quite frankly my beliefs are not of your concern - you should focus on yourself and don't worry about me- I'm just fine and do not require nor desire your input on matters of which you have poor understanding . Kindly refrain from addressing posts to me, as I don't care to dialogue with you.

If two men want to open up to each other

and share a love more sweet and exquisite

than anything a man and woman could ever find together,

then that's their problem.

But when they try to bring a child into it,

I got to put my foot down!

Well, excuse me, but who are you to say

whether they should have kids?

A concerned American, Francine.

I've always said you can't raise normal children

in an abnormal environment.

You know what that'll do to society?

Girls playing with trucks, boys playing with dolls,

horses eating each other.

Yes, horses eating each other. Read the Bible!

 

Stan Smith-American Dad

@contendah, The article is about pastoral care of homosexuals- defining the acts as a sin and encouraging them to live in accordance. There is a difference between a homosexual person, and homosexual behavior. My stance on this has never wavered- Love the sinner, hate the sin. And, respectfully, I am nowhere near to be a "cafeteria catholic"...I do follow Catechesis to the best of my ability. Cheers , Veep. Xo
quote:   Originally Posted by vplee123:
Mr gray I have made myself clear In that I will not discuss nor debate catholic doctrine with you. Read my words. I am in complete agreement with our faith on this and all matters. And quite frankly my beliefs are not of your concern - you should focus on yourself and don't worry about me- I'm just fine and do not require nor desire your input on matters of which you have poor understanding . Kindly refrain from addressing posts to me, as I don't care to dialogue with you. 

VP, my Friend,

 

If you do not want to dialogue with others -- then, why are you on a public forum?   You could just as easily dialogue via Private Messages with only those you choose.  But, when you let fly on an open forum -- it is open season to anyone who wants to respond. 

 

Now, if you post a Roman Catholic doctrine or tradition which I know to be unBiblical -- I WILL refute it.  If you do not want to read my response -- not a problem.  But, at least others, besides your small cabal of friends, will have the opportunity to read the truth.

 

So, believe me, dear lady -- it is no skin off my back if you do not respond when I refute your statements.   As a matter of fact, I prefer that -- for it makes my task of refuting false teaching much easier.

 

This just might work out just fine for both of us.  But, your Pope does say that the homosexual lifestyle is not Biblical and is a sin lifestyle.  If you don't agree with him -- that is your choice.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Gimme A Hug

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Gimme A Hug
quote:   Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi VP,  But, I would make an educated suggestion that 99.5% of homosexuals became homosexual AFTER birth -- like years after birth.  So, to what do we attribute these converts?  It can only be environmental, i.e., family, conditions -- societal pressures -- and peer pressures, etc.

Bill finally admits someone can be born a homosexual it is a breakthrough.  So if someone can be born this way why is it ok for you to condemn them?  I am not gay nor do I like it shoved in my face but on the other hand they should not be persecuted. [/quote]

Hi Flyer,

 

Actually, I do not put any faith in the fact that anyone can be born homosexual.   I was just going along with the article which Crusty posted.  And, I do suppose that, possibly,  in 1 out of a million, maybe 1 out of a billion, births -- some strange birth defect might cause a child to THINK he/she had been born gay.  But, we have yet to hear of any "gay gene" being found.

 

My personal opinion, and from my observations through 75 years on this earth -- I still firmly believe that homosexuality is the result of family life gone wrong or societal/peer pressures. 

 

But, lets say, just for the fun of it -- that homosexuality could be caused by a birth defect.  Why should that birth defect have special laws legislated just for it -- and not for other birth defects or birth illnesses?

 

Gays have the same rights as you and me.  Every one can marry the person of their choice -- of the opposite sex.  

 

It still goes back to the same old tired logic.  If same-sex partners can marry -- why can't you or I have ten spouses?  If same-sex partners can marry -- why can't Farmer John marry his pet sheep or heifer?  If same-sex partners can marry -- why can't the pedophile marry the young child he/she loves and adores?  Why?  Because all of these are unnatural and are abominations -- in the eyes of normal society and in the eyes of God.

 

Should anyone with a birth defect, homosexual or not, be persecuted?  Absolutely not!

 

But, on the other hand, they should not have special laws and privileges given to them -- based upon their lifestyle.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by vplee123:
Mr gray I have made myself clear In that I will not discuss nor debate catholic doctrine with you. Read my words. I am in complete agreement with our faith on this and all matters. And quite frankly my beliefs are not of your concern - you should focus on yourself and don't worry about me- I'm just fine and do not require nor desire your input on matters of which you have poor understanding . Kindly refrain from addressing posts to me, as I don't care to dialogue with you.

______________

Pay no attention to that old man. He is a liar, a fool, & a wolf in sheep's clothing. If he can cause anger & hard feelings, he has done what the Devil wants him to do. This forum & our conversations would be much more enjoyable if Bill Gray is ignored. Let those that love to argue with him & read his nonsense, have at it but it would be best if you just ignore his post & not read them. I read around his post, & enjoy the forum much more.

quote:   Originally Posted by House of David:
There's no sin in having same-sex attraction.  The sin is when one physically acts on that attraction.

Hi David,

 

I could not agree with you more.  What you have said agrees with what VP wrote earlier -- love the sinner, hate the sin.   And, this is what I have been writing here for almost six years.

 

But, I would go one step further.  Yes, it is a sin when one gives in to homosexual desires; but, if that person has become a Christian believer -- that person is still be a believer, a child of God.  But, he/she is a person who needs to acknowledge and own his/her sin and seek forgiveness from the Lord.  And, to seek  strength from the Lord to overcome those desires.

 

Yet, the person who chooses to live an active homosexual lifestyle -- is following the world and not Jesus Christ -- and is not a Christian believer.

 

There is no sin that God will not forgive -- if a person repents, turns from that sin lifestyle, and turns to follow Jesus Christ.  Will that person who has become a believer commit that sin again?  Possibly, for turning from that lifestyle does not necessarily remove the desire.  As a matter of fact, I would say that, for many, the desire never dies.  However, acting upon that desire can be brought under control.

 

And, that is what I believe your Pope was suggesting in the letter/article I posted -- that it is up to the churches, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, to minister to those lost in an unBiblical lifestyle.   And, that lifestyle does not necessarily have to be the homosexual lifestyle.  It could be a lifestyle of any sin -- adultery, fornication, stealing, cheating, any number of sin lifestyles.  And, as the Pope suggested to the Bishops -- the churches need to minister to these people.   I agree with him, and you, completely.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

My personal opinion on the matter is one which considers what I believe the Bible/Scriptures teach about what it is to be Human.  Man/Woman/Mankind/Human is to be born from flesh and also a created inner spirit/soul.  The flesh is sinful and born imperfect and corrupted, stained if you will, but the flesh also dies yet the spirit/soul remains.  This, I believe, is but one aspect of what it means to be made in the "image" of God for I believe and scriptures teach that God is Spirit.  

 

That said I also believe that after physical death our inner spirit/soul will be our eternal state and although we will be given a glorified future state body I do not believe those bodies will incorporate a sexual orientation, neither male or female.  Homosexuality, I believe, as Scriptures teach, is sinful and against God's will but is a sin the same as any other sin with one difference.  The difference is the same as any other sexual sin such as adultery in that it involves the human body which is, for the Christian, the temple or container of God's Holy Spirit therefore the Christian who engages in a sexual sin sins against his own body, the temple of the Holy Spirit so in that respect, and that respect only, sexual sins, including homosexuality and adultery are potentially more damaging sins, to the Christian and with regards to the Christian.

 

As to whether a person is born a homosexual or not, again my own opinion, is that they are not born that way.  I do not believe any of us have any sexual orientation or knowledge at birth but we become sexually aware later on in our life in the same way that I do not believe people are born racist or born thieves or born murderers.  It is but an opinion but then so is everyone else's statements based upon their own basis or circumstances.  Sexual attraction is a function of the human flesh and apart from the inner soul/spirit which, again I believe, God makes/creates and places within the human body at some point after conception.  Therefore I cannot accept, myself, anyone who says God made me this way for those things of the flesh are made and inherited of the flesh and fleshly nature whereas the inner spirit/soul comes from God and is a special creation and makes us separate and different from the animal, insect, plant or other species and groups of life.


Scriptural references available upon request


I realize that those who advocate evolution would think differently and although my objections to evolution don't lie or are not based in Religion I do find it interesting that among all life forms humans are the only ones that seem to have and are driven by a conscience.  It is the human creation that looks to clothe it's nakedness and defines a moral code dealing with our own nakedness whereas none of the other animals do this.  Monkeys who many say are man's closest evolutional link don't do this, they don't go looking for leaves to cover their nakedness.  If you believe in evolution how does this inconsistency and difference occur?  I realize that's another deviation from this topic but one which I none the less thought of in the context of thinking about human sexuality therefore I included it with this post but below a separation line to isolate it from the other thought regarding this particular topic/thread.

The humans "habit" of clothing themselves first began for protection against the cold, and other elements/"things", after they lost their "coats of fur/hair" and long before "man" deemed the naked body "sinful". It certainly had nothing to do with morality. Sometimes even a little "learning" could go a long way. 

                                                     **********

 

Chimpanzees learn, perform cognitive and creative tasks, and have a better memory then any other animal. They can perform sign language to communicate with humans. Chimps have been observed using advanced knowledge of tools - building what they need from what they have in creative and adaptive ways. They have show ability in thinking ahead by using tactical attack maneuvers, such as flanking their prey. They often use mental manipulation within their families. In 2006 it was shown that chimps share 98% of the same genetic DNA as humans. Recently, chimpanzees have been seen teaching sign language to their infants without human interference.

 

http://www.ranker.com/list/the...earth/analise.dubner

We/ humans never lost are "fur".  If, and thats a big "if", humans evolved from apes, we would not have lost are fur.  

evolutionary changes should help a species survive, losing fur didn't help the human. As soon as we supposedly lost our fur, we had to run around killing furry animals to put their fur on our backs to stay warm and survive...... 

BTW,  people that have kept/raised chimps in their homes, say the chimps take on "human" characteristics, almost to the point of "becoming human", and do almost everything their human "family" does, including "communicating" with their human family. As stated before, even a tiny bit of "learning' on some people's part would go a long way.

Originally Posted by House of David:

We/ humans never lost are "fur".  If, and thats a big "if", humans evolved from apes, we would not have lost are fur.  

evolutionary changes should help a species survive, losing fur didn't help the human. As soon as we supposedly lost our fur, we had to run around killing furry animals to put their fur on our backs to stay warm and survive...... 

Excellent point David.   IF Evolution or the process of evolution is a process of adapting to the environment in order to survive and advance the species and from what evolution seems to teach that man came from ape form then we certainly had fur/hair over our bodies at one point yet somehow through this evolutionary process the human evolution decided it didn't need this covering exposing us to the elements so much more.  Surely evolution of the human didn't just happen in warm climates where mankind would not need a fur coating so a reasonable question to the evolutionist would be to explain this process and occurrence given the thought of Natural Selection of the fittest and strongest through time.  Why did man/human end up as he/she did losing all the hair while still having the elements to contend with so that we would have to find and develop clothing?  

 

I personally think clothing was not just created or fashioned in order to provide protection from the elements but to conceal man/woman's nakedness and there was some innate thought of morality or right and wrong associated with man/woman being naked.  Again I'm not trying to argue God or Religion but rather IF a person advocates evolution then that is one question that they need to reconcile and be able to address.  To say that mankind fashioned clothing for the sole purpose of protection from the elements and then to accept evolution and/or natural selection as a process whereby mankind or species adapt and better itself based upon the elements and environment it's in should explain why man even had to fashion clothing as protection from the elements when he/it supposedly had hair/fur to start with.   Maybe now the claim will be that man didn't descend from apes but if not then what did he descend from and where is that fossil record?   Also how is it that mankind/humans alone were able to fashion or feel the need to clothe themselves as additional protection from what nature had equipped them for?  

 

One may argue that other species were better equipped than man to contend with the elements they were in but in doing so they are insinuating that man is the only species that did not "evolve" into a more competent form.  In other words we evolved backwards in this respect.  Yet another question for advocates of Evolution that feel so sure in their theory, to answer or explain.  In my opinion mind you.

 

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
 

 

If you do not want to dialogue with others -- then, why are you on a public forum?   You could just as easily dialogue via Private Messages with only those you choose.  But, when you let fly on an open forum -- it is open season to anyone who wants to respond. 

 

To dialogue with others and to avoid some are two different ways to go.

If someone doesn't want a conversation with you, you should respect

that wish. You also have the same PM privileges as everyone else.

The privilege you don't have is control of this public forum, the way

you treat people is total harassment.

 

The evil verbiage that drools from the slit in your face shouldn't be

 tolerated by those that refuse your habitual lying substandard fiction. 

 

Now, if you post a Roman Catholic doctrine or tradition which I know to be unBiblical -- I WILL refute it.  If you do not want to read my response -- not a problem.  But, at least others, besides your small cabal of friends, will have the opportunity to read the truth.

 

I wish you had the sense to know the different between Biblical and unBiblical,

but you aren't Bible savvy, you're ignorant for Bible interpreption and you've

shown that repeatedly.





 

 

 

 

 

Originally Posted by House of David:

We/ humans never lost are "fur".  If, and thats a big "if", humans evolved from apes, we would not have lost are fur.  

evolutionary changes should help a species survive, losing fur didn't help the human. As soon as we supposedly lost our fur, we had to run around killing furry animals to put their fur on our backs to stay warm and survive...... 

===========

Yes, humans did indeed lose their "fur".  The need to wear "clothes" or animal furs came about because humans lost their protective covering. It had nothing at all to do with "morals". And "creationists" are the only ones that makes the (false) claim that people that study/teach evolution believe humans evolved from apes. 

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolut...brary/faq/cat02.html

 

***********************************************

As far as evolution supposed to make things "better", I'd say just do some research and read for yourself just what evolution is. Things change, either other things adapt to those changes, evolve, or they die off.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faq...tion-definition.html

Originally Posted by House of David:

 

Also, did humans alter the amount of melanin in their skin as a result of shedding all this hair? After all, with less hair, these ape-like creatures would be much more susceptible to skin damage from the Sun.

==========

 

There is no need to have me put in the links, when all you have to do is read it yourself. If you did, no offense intended, you would have the answers to your questions. NO ONE is saying man came from apes. That is a lie the creationists keep spreading. 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

BTW,  people that have kept/raised chimps in their homes, say the chimps take on "human" characteristics, almost to the point of "becoming human", and do almost everything their human "family" does, including "communicating" with their human family. As stated before, even a tiny bit of "learning' on some people's part would go a long way.

___

Those allegedly domesticated chimps also have from time to time, been reported as chewing off the faces of humans and ripping humans literally limb from limb.  You seem very eager to accept without question what  people who have raised chimps "say" about their hairy house guests.  That does not seem consistent with the way you normally raise questions concerning these kinds of claims.

 

The DNA "similarity" between humans and chimps is not as "similar" as some think.  Though the gene patterns of two species may similar, the biochemistry of gene expression can vary considerably.  It is an  oversimplification to assert a particular degree of similarity based solely on conventional DNA test results.  

Those allegedly domesticated chimps also have from time to time, been reported as chewing off the faces of humans and ripping humans literally limb from limb.  You seem very eager to accept without question what  people who have raised chimps "say" about their hairy house guests.  That does not seem consistent with the way you normally raise questions concerning these kinds of claims.


==============

Eager to accept what exactly? First of all they have video after video after video of the chimps doing what they claim, along with all sorts of witnesses (friends, neighbors, vets, other family) to the actions of the chimps. And if I remember correctly, plenty of scientists will tell you the same thing. Of course you, like bill and a couple of others, think you know more than the experts that have worked with the chimps all their working lives. Secondly, I NEVER said the chimps "became human" and wouldn't attack a person. I said "ALMOST to the point of becoming human". See the difference einstein? That would be silly since we read about attacks happening all the time, and I certainly wouldn't take one into my home. What questions have I raised about people that have chimps? What's wrong now? Do you want to start slaughtering chimps because someone's home isn't their "natural habitat" and they might attack those people? Take that up with the ones that own the chimps. Oh, and by the way, you might want to be careful if you have children or grandchildren, because there have been thousands of reports of children attacking their parents/grandparents, killing them, sometimes even cutting them into tiny pieces.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

 

Actually, I do not put any faith in the fact that anyone can be born homosexual.   I was just going along with the article which Crusty posted.  And, I do suppose that, possibly,  in 1 out of a million, maybe 1 out of a billion, births -- some strange birth defect might cause a child to THINK he/she had been born gay.  But, we have yet to hear of any "gay gene" being found.

 

 

Bill

_________________

Bill, whether or not you put your faith in the fact, it is indeed a fact.  That you seek a single "gay gene" as proof is the same misguided, and ignorant idea that there is a single "missing link" in evolution.  In the case of homosexuality, no "strange birth defect" is involved, only simple, yet complex, changes in hormones along with a genetic propensity.  And the number is more like 10-15%, not 1 in a billion.

 

Your stupidity knows no bounds. 

Originally Posted by House of David:

We/ humans never lost are "fur".  If, and thats a big "if", humans evolved from apes, we would not have lost are fur.  

evolutionary changes should help a species survive, losing fur didn't help the human. As soon as we supposedly lost our fur, we had to run around killing furry animals to put their fur on our backs to stay warm and survive...... 

_____________

You slept through biology class, right? 

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by House of David:

We/ humans never lost are "fur".  If, and thats a big "if", humans evolved from apes, we would not have lost are fur.  

evolutionary changes should help a species survive, losing fur didn't help the human. As soon as we supposedly lost our fur, we had to run around killing furry animals to put their fur on our backs to stay warm and survive...... 

_____________

You slept through biology class, right? 

*****************************************

No, I took biology in college and did very well.

Humans do not share a common ancestor with apes.

Originally Posted by House of David:
Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by House of David:

We/ humans never lost are "fur".  If, and thats a big "if", humans evolved from apes, we would not have lost are fur.  

evolutionary changes should help a species survive, losing fur didn't help the human. As soon as we supposedly lost our fur, we had to run around killing furry animals to put their fur on our backs to stay warm and survive...... 

_____________

You slept through biology class, right? 

*****************************************

No, I took biology in college and did very well.

Humans do not share a common ancestor with apes.

________________

Your whole post shows a complete lack of understanding of how evolution works.  Time for a refresher course.

 Maybe now the claim will be that man didn't descend from apes but if not then what did he descend from and where is that fossil record?

 


==============================


Maybe NOW the claim will be that man didn't descend from apes? Sheesh! NO ONE said man descended from apes to start with. 


Where is that fossil record? Really dude? I mean, really?? Ever heard the expression "needle in a haystack"? Try needle in the entire world.

==================================

FOSSILIZATION AND ADAPTATION:
ACTIVITIES IN PALEONTOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

AS THE concepts of time, past life, and fossils are often difficult for children to comprehend and as many of the National Parks and Monuments have important paleontological resources, Fossil Butte National Monument developed a fossil education curriculum guide designed to aid teachers presenting these principles to students in the second and third grades. The following activities are modified from that guide (Leite, M. B. and Breithaupt, B. H., 1994, Teaching Paleontology in the National Parks and Monuments: A curriculum guide for teachers of the second and third grade levels: National Park Service, Fossil Butte National Monument, Kemmerer, WY 103 p.). For more information on this curriculum guide distributed though the National Park Service, please contact Ms. Marsha ***nant, Fossil Butte National Monument, P.O. Box 592, Kemmerer, WY 83101. 

 

 

OVERVIEW

How does a living thing become a fossil? The mysterious processes by which evidence of past life is preserved are explored in these exercises. By thinking about and participating in some simulated sedimentary processes, children will be able to remove much of the mystery behind fossils and fossilization. These exercises introduce the concept that fossils are remains or traces of ancient living things.  They will also begin to think about how RARE an event fossilization is.

 

Message: Not all parts of animals become fossilized. It may not be possible to know some details of what an ancient animal or plant was like because many parts of the anatomy may not become fossils.
Materials: Drawings of horse and Stegosaurus skeletons. (Figures 1 and 2)
Discussion:  Fossilization is a RARE event. The chances of a given individual being preserved in the fossil record are VERY SMALL. Some organisms, however, have better chances than others because of the composition of their skeletons or where they lived. This also applies to the various parts of organisms. For example, plants and vertebrates (animals with bones) are made up of different parts that can separate after death. The different parts can be transported by currents to different locations and be preserved separately. A fossil toe bone might be found at one place and a fossil rib at another location. We could assume that they are from different animals when, in fact, they came from the same one.

 Much information is LOST in the fossilization process. Think, for example, of a vertebrate (such as ourselves). Much of what we consider important about our own biology is in the soft tissues, such as skin, hair, and internal organs. These characteristics would usually be unknown in the fossil state, because most of the time only bones and teeth are preserved (there are exceptional cases where soft parts are preserved). Bones and teeth are not always preserved together. This exercise is designed to get children to think about the quality of information that comes from the fossil record.

 

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/fosrec/Breithaupt2.html

Originally Posted by SeniorCoffee:

Man did not evolve from apes. Man and apes had a common ancestor. The lines diverged thousands of years ago. You people are just too ignorant for words.

Such short and dogmatic statements that it seems you have diverged from our past contributor Jimi Hendrix.  Then again a simplistic remark like that is surely warranted when you cannot adequately address a question regarding the basis of your belief or a challenge to it such as was stated.  

Originally Posted by gbrk:
Originally Posted by SeniorCoffee:

Man did not evolve from apes. Man and apes had a common ancestor. The lines diverged thousands of years ago. You people are just too ignorant for words.

Such short and dogmatic statements that it seems you have diverged from our past contributor Jimi Hendrix.  Then again a simplistic remark like that is surely warranted when you cannot adequately address a question regarding the basis of your belief or a challenge to it such as was stated.  

_____________

Often, the truth is short and dogmatic.  If you want reams and reams to read, it is readily available in textbooks, and from rep utable sites online.

....sometimes when things seem incompatible with a faith, it is wise to just concede that we are not supposed to know and have a full understanding. If we did, we'd be God. It's enough for me to know that God is a Pre existing Diety who had a hand in creation. I can readily admit that I don't know how , when ( although clearly > 2000 years) or under what circumstances. It really doesn't matter to me. I think of course, there are times when science and faith seem incompatible. That's ok- because both are important in MY life, and I'll just have to accept the fact that not all things make perfect sense. Is that a cop out? Maybe. But it is what gives me peace, and allows me to live the life I choose. cheers

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×