I am a 21-year old tradie from australia. I am always up for a chat so don't be afraid to message me. I am strictly a straight man, i am not at all bi curious. I really enjoy the forums and finding out people's views on different topics especially sex (of course).I love all things medieval whether it be the fashion, how they built things, battle tactics or anything else in that period. I am looking into either studying that period or at the very least i am planning on buying as many trustworthy books as possible about that period. Especially on the Crusades.
No favourite stories listed.
If humanity hadn't been killing so many and were looking after Creation like God says to in the Bible then they wouldn't be going extinct in the first place.
I'm curious what sort of logic, scientific evidence (there is no plural) and terms you can use to support any sort of creationist argument other than 'it's written in the book' which is not evidence. For it to be a valid scientific theory it needs to be supported by evidence in the physical world and have an explanatory framework that will point to where we should be looking for more evidence for further confirmation or to highlight where the theory was wrong.Evolutionary theory has done this remarkably well with the original idea from Darwin (and those before, some of who had it partially right, but he put it all together in a remarkably coherent synthesis) pointing the way for all future work. For it to be correct every fossil must be found to be in a sequence in the sedimentary layers in alignment with evolutionary change over time and common ancestry - and this is indeed the case. Also, geology must not be static but somehow allow for mountain ranges to be created to leave fossils of sea creatures high and dry. Lyall had started this work in Darwin's time but the idea of plate tectonics and moving continents would have been so fanciful as to be considered ridiculous back then. But the evidence for it is staggering (we can actually measure them move with the all too destructive results seen in Nepal recently) and it all ties in with the fossil record beautifully.This doesn't mean that Darwin got it completely right. His idea on heredity was of a blending between parents which many pointed out couldn't work because it would result in a regression to the mean (everything becoming similar), and Mendel's (A friar BTW) work started to formulate the ideas on heredity realising that traits were in fact digital, either on or off. The search for the mechanism eventually resulted in the science of genetics and a further understanding of how new traits could arise through mutations. There was another problem with the theory. The time needed was staggeringly large and 19th century understanding of thermodynamics and the earth still having a molten core meant that it could only be a few hundred million years old at the most if it started molten and then started to cool, not thought to be enough time for evolution of all life to have occurred. Eventually they discovered radioactivity and the heat generated from it allowing the earth to be much much older. Our understanding of radioactivity also lead to radiometric dating which added an absolute dating technique of sedimentary layers to support the relative dating between layers that was all that was available before. All the data ties in. Radiometric dating allowed us to look for the oldest rocks on the earth which tie in nicely with the age of meteorites and our understanding of the age of the sun through nuclear fusion and in the wider field of cosmology. I mention all this to show you how the evidence of many fields of science all tie in to support the theory (I have really mentioned just a couple of examples amongst many), and indeed this is the case for all fields of science, all tying in with the rest. To not teach evolution would be to reject our modern understanding of biology and the wider sciences. Leave it out of science classes and I ask why teach any science at all. Implied in your post was also a belief in a distinction in the sciences between historical and observable sciences. This is a straw man argument created by creationists to try to discredit fields of science that disagree with their predetermined world view. It's a furphy. There is no distinction. Some fields do have a much richer and more detailed history to explore but this is a string in their bow to provide even more evidence. Events in the past can leave yet more evidence in the present some of which I've highlighted above. Take that approach and no detective would ever solve a crime. Good point. I need to work on my grammar skills. Thanks for the respectful approach to your response, I appreciate it.As a Creationist and a Christian, I believe that what I see around me in the world including animals and fossils etc., should agree with what the Bible says happened in history. If I didn't believe that the Bible is true in what it teaches from the beginning, then there is no reason to believe any of the rest of it is true. Which, as you stated, for a scientific theory to be valid it needs to be supported by evidence in the physical world and have an explanatory framework that will point to where we should be looking for more evidence for further confirmation or to highlight where the theory was wrong. Which is definitely where either side of this debate can agree.I don't claim to know all the answers to some of the things you brought up, but hopefully I can coherently bring the reasons why i disagree with evolution and accept Creation. As stated in my earlier post, I don't believe the evidence points to a clear side in this debate. To me it is clear that depending on what perspective you look at the evidence, one side can see a particular piece of evidence as showing proof for Creation and the other person will see it as evidence for Evolution. So to me it is a matter of which side is more consistent throughout all the evidence. Evolutionary theory has done this remarkably well with the original idea from Darwin (and those before, some of who had it partially right, but he put it all together in a remarkably coherent synthesis) pointing the way for all future work. For it to be correct every fossil must be found to be in a sequence in the sedimentary layers in alignment with evolutionary change over time and common ancestry - and this is indeed the case. Also, geology must not be static but somehow allow for mountain ranges to be created to leave fossils of sea creatures high and dry. Lyall had started this work in Darwin's time but the idea of plate tectonics and moving continents would have been so fanciful as to be considered ridiculous back then. But the evidence for it is staggering (we can actually measure them move with the all too destructive results seen in Nepal recently) and it all ties in with the fossil record beautifully. The fossil record does show a general order as we move from the lower geologic layers to the uppermost that fact is undeniable. Evolutionary geologists interpret this order as the progression of life from simple chemicals to single cells to zebras and eventually to humans. However, there are many fossils that occur out of sequence which then have to be explained to confirm the theory of an old earth and biological evolution. Evolution has to explain how these fossils came to be in rock layers way too 'old' for what type of fossil it is. E.g. In 2009, scientists discovered amber that had been made from angiosperm--or flowering--tree resin. The problem was that according to the evolutionary timescale, it predated angiosperms by 195 million years. With Creation what layers a fossil is found in does not affect the 'theory' at all.I am more comfortable and find it more consistent to believe the side that doesn't change constantly. I believe that the reason fossils of sea creatures are found high and dry on massive mountain ranges is because of a worldwide flood as told about in Genesis 7. If Genesis is true, it should not surprise us that fossils of sea creatures are found way up on mountain tops. I agree geology is not static and it is accepted by both sides that mountain ranges were formed but the plates pushing into each other. I believe that the plates clashed with great force during the flood and formed the mountains in a short time period not slowly creating them over millions of years. Fossils are a prime example of what we would expect to find after a worldwide flood. Fossils are found everywhere around the world which is consistent with a worldwide flood. There are fossils of one fish in the middle of eating another fish which suggest rapid burial as you would expect with the sediment that would be laid down with a massive flood. There are trilobite fossils so exquisitely preserved that even the compound lens systems in their eyes are still available for detailed study. There are also fish that were buried so rapidly that fine details of fins and eye sockets have been preserved. With these types of fossils being found all around the world it would seem to agree with a worldwide flood.On May 18, 1980 Mount St. Helens created a 25-foot-thick sequence of rock layers, with thousands of separate, thin layers, in just a few hours! It doesn’t necessarily take millions of years to form rock layers. It just takes a catastrophe like Mount St. Helens. Evolutionary geologists believe that it takes a river millions of years to carve a canyon (such as Grand Canyon). A mudflow caused by a later Mount St. Helens eruption cut the “Little Grand Canyon,” a large canyon 100 feet deep in just one day! That canyon now has a river in it. Canyons do not have to take millions of years to form. It just takes a catastrophe like Mount St. Helens. This eruption accomplished in seconds, hours, or days what most people believed took hundreds of thousands or millions of years. If that happened that quickly in modern times how can we assume that similar formations in the past took millions of years to form?The geological formations that we see today fits with what the Bible says about Creation and a worldwide flood too well for me to ignore. If the evidence showed evolution there should be millions if not billions of transitional forms. Why do we find so few supposed transitional forms? Even then there are some that have been found out to have been fakes. Why do we not see any transitional forms of animals alive today? Why is it that evolution isn't happening right now?For me there are too many things that just don't make enough logical sense with the evolutionary viewpoint to accept evolution as true.The first law of thermodynamics says that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. "Second Law of Thermodynamics. Heat cannot be transfer from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact of thermodynamics, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible. This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time. Entropy is the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system. Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. Perfect order in the Universe occurred the instant after the Big Bang when energy and matter and all of the forces of the Universe were unified ." http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e(I think i may have found a poor source but you'll get the idea i am trying to say hopefully.) Hang on a minute. Doesn't that mean that the big bang went against the first and second law of thermodynamics? It created energy and matter from nothing supposedly which is against these laws that have been observed. Which means we have to make an assumption about something, which has never been observed, and goes against the laws which have been observed to always be true. Implied in your post was also a belief in a distinction in the sciences between historical and observable sciences. This is a straw man argument created by creationists to try to discredit fields of science that disagree with their predetermined world view. It's a furphy. There is no distinction. Some fields do have a much richer and more detailed history to explore but this is a string in their bow to provide even more evidence. Events in the past can leave yet more evidence in the present some of which I've highlighted above. Take that approach and no detective would ever solve a crime. I do have to completely disagree here. I cannot see how it is a furfy. How is there no difference between the two? If something has never been observed by anyone ever and according to known natural laws is impossible how can it be proven true? To solve a crime a detective has to use what has been observed to be true in order to be able to catch the criminal. He knows that fingerprints are unique to each person and don't change unless someone has surgery. He also knows that someone's DNA doesn't change and so he can catch criminals by their DNA.He uses what he knows and has observed to form a conclusion from the provided evidence.To me both sides take a lot of faith to believe but there are too many unanswerable questions with evolution and I believe the evidence fits with creation better.I hope that what I have written explains why i believe creation and not evolution better than i feel it does. I have the feeling the main things i was thinking i needed to say at the start didn't get said. If you make it this far. Well done!!! Thanks for putting in the effort to read this epic.Cheers, JL.
I never said that all Christians are homophobes. What I have said is that many use their religions to reinforce their homophobia/bigotry. There is a difference between belief and action. i'm fine with people believing that pre-marital sex is wrong. I'm fine with people believing that homosexuality is wrong. the moment they act on it, though, that crosses the line. good example. someone believes premarital sex is a sin so they go around beating up anyone who admits to having sex outside a marriage or refusing to serve them dinner at a restaraunt. Or they picket their wedding or funeral. why aren't sins treated equally? funny, we have the ten commandments - they are etched in STONE. makes me fell they are IMPORTANT. Thou shall not be gay is not listed. Thou shall not take the lord's name in vain, is. Why aren't people getting up in arms about someone who break anyone of those 10, yet they are vehemently opposed to two people of the same sex who may even follow those commandments, to the point of discriminating against them. I very much agree. And all sins should be treated equally. It's very much a fault in Christian circles of seeing one sin as worse than another when in reality all lead to the same result.
I have been avoiding this forum but here a couple of my thoughts.1. The only one I know of AiG (Answers in Genesis) do not hold to the view that Creationism should be taught in schools. They know full well that it would not be taught fairly alongside evolution as an alternate view on history and so they do not and have never to my knowledge asked for it to be taught in schools.2. I am not sure of their views on this but personally i think neither side, Creation or evolution should be taught in schools. Children and teenagers should be able to look at the evidence for both sides and decide for themselves without being taught it. I believe that the science taught in schools should stick to what we can observe about biology and chemistry etc. now, because either way you believe the facts of observed science don't change. Whichever belief you hold, you have assumptions about the past that cannot be proven and have to be taken on faith.3. I personally believe the Bible and Creation as true historical fact because i have seen the evidence and it is logical for it to be true. And with the Biblical account the theory and age of the earth never changes, whereas with evolution the theory changes every few weeks about how old the earth is etc. I don't see any conclusive evidence for evolution same as there is no conclusive evidence for creation. Everything depends on which viewpoint you look at the evidence from. And i believe that the evidence fits in a lot better with what is stated in the Bible than with the theory of evolution.That's all i will say without getting into scientific evidences and terms for now.
So... sorry, not picking on you, but i need to make this clear, as someone who was experienced discrimination because of my sexuality. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of what it is based upon. i'm sorry that people have an issue with homosexuality, but it has nothing - zero, zilch, nada - do do with their religion - it's because they are bigots and homophobes.btw, does that mean some business won't allow women to enter unless they are wearing veils, headscarfs, etc, regardless of the women's religion? seems to me they'd have that right, according to your parameters. btw, the sectipn in Leviticus that says 'no man should lie with another man' also bans the cutting of hair and the trimming of beards as well as the eating of pork, among other things. Sorry. I did realize you weren't picking on me but it made me realize a few things.Firstly, i had better say that after reading The DevilsWeakness and ChuckEPoo's comments and sprite's additions too, I have been thinking about it a fair bit more. And to be honest in the light of these, and a bit more Bible study and thought, i am definitely starting to agree. It doesn't matter what a businesses moral convictions are, they should serve everyone with love and do their job. And if they are that concerned about a gay wedding they can pray about it.I still want to reply to a couple of things though. I really hate the term 'homophobe'. I would be called a homophobe because of what i believe but i am not homophobic. I do not have a fear of gay people nor do i hate them. I have no worries about being a friend with a gay person and wish i could say i had gay friends so i could back up that statement. As i have been brought up homeschooled and nearly all my friends are from church i haven't met any to become friends with yet. There are definitely so called christians who are definitely homophobic (e.g. God hates fags weirdos) but just because someone does not agree with homosexuality does not automatically make them a homophobe.The cutting of hair and beards stated in Leviticus is clarified a bit more in Deuteronomy and it is actually more specifically referring to a pagan practice of cutting the hair and beards and cutting themselves for the dead.With pork i have forgotten the reasons why that and the other meats were banned but there is specific reasons for that and in the New Testament Peter is told that all meat can now be eaten.And a lot of that same passage in leviticus also is the reason that incest and adultery etc are classified as taboo/wrong.With the woman caught in adultery, Jesus showed love and forgave her, but then He also told her to go away and sin no more. So he forgave her but didn't tell her that it was ok she didn't do anything wrong. (Always did find it interesting that they never brought the man before Jesus to see what he'd say. Seems that mysogony played a fair role with that :) )And further clarification, I am not trying to judge anyone here just pointing out what the bible says is sin. I myself have had sex before marriage (And I don't think i will be able to wait until i get married to have it with my future girlfriend/wife) so it's not like i have any right to judge or condemn anyone and I dont want to. But i have to sort that all out with God who has that perogative and can judge people. I hope that's not too confusing.
Personally i think an extrovert compliments an introvert like myself very well. Having never been in a relationship myself, i don't pretend to be authoritative on the matter. I much prefer the company of extroverts in many cases. I am perfectly happy to listen and then talk when i feel i have something worthwhile to say but if it comes to me having to try and run a conversation all hope is lost. Unless that conversation happens to be in the realms of christianity and the Bible or talking about how building work. Then i may be happy to run the conversation. :) As an introvert I get stressed out if i have to do all the talking and so being with other introverted people leads to long periods of awkward silence. :PThis is shyness mixed with introversion so i don't know where the introversion stops and its shyness or what it is. But it's my character anyway :)Disclaimer: Just don't be so extroverted that i can't get a word in when i have something to say. I have a friend who does that and it annoys the heck out of me when i have something to say for once and then can't say it cause he's talking all the time.
So, how would all of you feel walking into a diner and seeing a sign reading: No blacks allowed. That's cool too, right? Good point. No, not at all.My response definitely does need clarification. My first statement about the right to refuse anyone they want to is not right.But there is still a difference between refusing to serve someone because of a moral conviction that homosexuality is wrong and say what colour skin they have.What colour skin someone has isn't an issue of morality (how you treat someone based on their skin colour is a moral issue however)So what i am trying to say is that a business should be allowed to do business without fear of being sued etc. for not catering for something they believe is morally wrong. If that makes sense?I know people would still disagree with me in this, but that's what i believe.Thanks for that Sprite :)
I agree with Mrd. I believe businesses should have the right to refuse to serve whoever they want to.If someone believes that homosexuality is wrong he/she shouldn't be forced to go against those beliefs to make flowers for a gay couple's wedding for example.Though there are those over the top people who hate homosexuals (which is not what the Bible teaches), refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding etc isn't being hateful against homosexuals. It is actually that those business owners refusing to do this believe it is wrong for them to make something for something they believe is wrong.
As has already been stated. For Christians at least it is not something the bible says so this is just one of the many areas the RC church has rules that aren't biblical."1 Corinthians 7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."As Paul states in this passage there are people who are gifted with the ability to be celibate but if you don't have that gift it is better to get married.Sorry for the Bible passage but i like to show the evidence from which my position is based.My question is. What do i do in the meantime? Biblically i should not have sex until i am married but it is easily established that i need to get married cause I am very sexual and am often caught lusting. If anyone has any bible verses about the dating stage of things i'd love to know. Cause from what i have read that is an area where there isn't any specific commands about except for. "Don't have sex before marriage" "You should get married if you cannot control your lust" There's a whole phase of actually looking for and finding that lady that isn't mentioned as to how to go about it.
The FlashArrowGame of Thrones (Can't wait for the new season)VikingsJAGNCISNCIS: LA
It was a cool spring night and the trees whispered to each other in the wind. James listened as the fowl of the woods sang their beautiful song to the night. He loved going out into the woods at night and taking his bath in the stream while listening to the birds sing. Stripping off his blacksmithy’s clothing, he lowered his naked, muscled body into the water. It had been a long day at...
Added 26 Dec 2013 | Category Straight Sex
| Votes 6 | Avg Score 4.17
| Views 2,658
| 3 Comments
Attach a note to this member, which only you can see.
Please tell us why you think this profile page is inappropriate.