Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
65,021 - 65,040 of 115,232 Comments Last updated 7 min ago
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69243 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is provoking riots? This is news.
There are still laws banning gays fro participating in certain aspects of legal proceedings, some states still ban gay people from adopting, for example. Gay marriage is still a ban in most states. These are bans, they are not simply how people are treating them but how the government is treating them. If this goes unchecked then what if the government decides the Amish shouldn't be allowed to remain secluded how they are? What happens when the government decides that only men are allowed to vote again? What happens ....
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Martin Niemöller
I want people to stand for me when I need it, so I stand for them now. It's pretty basic logic.
You provoke a riot when you provide misinformation and when you start a fight that you won't get your hands dirty in. Show me any legal process that gays are denied except for the ones that involve marriage and the implied or specific act of raising children.

Otherwise, that's OK logic, but I consider it a lie. Personally, I don't trust the gay community to stand for anything other than the gay community. I don't trust the liberal community to stand for anything other than themselves, but they will throw a bone to those "with nothing to lose" who are willing to do their dirty work for them. They are just like the conservatives, only based on a different economy.

If you're content to live off of the table scraps of the liberal aristocracy, well, I don't see too much of a future in it, but I've seen it all before and I doubt that I'll change you. Just remember that you've crossed a line, one where I will not share personal things anymore. The two parties take and never give back. I have no interest in revealing my vulnerabilities to such buzzards. You claim to be a conservative but that angle was tried and it was a political loser. The liberals would ignore you and the conservatives won't have you while you endorse a liberal agenda.

You all collectively just don't see how completely everyone is quickly coming that some conclusion about political selfishness, but by many different paths. Someday soon there will be consensus builders again. They will deny gay marriage and they will defend abortion because those are THE litmus tests that define you. They will be insanely obsessive on the topics because you are insanely obsessive on the topics, but they will not be servants of doctors and lawyers and professors, nor will they be servants of corporate executives. They will be defined by their support for the working people who are sick of paying for "protection".
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69244 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a lot of hypothesis, but it's clear that they cannot choose to be anything other than themselves. You are also asserting it's a disease, which does not bode well for your entire position. Then you enter into a slippery slope fallacy, which destroys your entire position.
So when does getting rid of bans cause such things? Did getting rid of the ban that prevented black people from marrying white people make the ground split open and consume the country? Did getting rid of the ban preventing black people from voting cause our country to fall apart? Did stopping most of the anti-sodomy laws result in public gay sex?
The act of homosexuality is sex without reproduction. Yes, I call that a disease. It's harmful to biology. The slippery slope was always there. You just don't like the wording. That's not my problem.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69245 Dec 31, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Creativity takes many forms. It doesn't have to be displayed in sexual intercourse. That's why we have experts studying about the subconscious. You are not conscious of your own sexual desires. The fact that you try to look like a woman is a form of creativity. The fact that you wish you can grow breasts is proof that you have sexual desires. But you have suppressed for some reason. Perhaps you found other things that satisfied them such as eating eggo waffles. There are different degrees of sexual desires. lol
You assume I'm trying to look like a woman. You shouldn't assume, it's a sign of ignorance. I have breasts too, you made another assumption, but breasts prove nothing, as I pointed out, other than I am a mammal. Breasts are for food, not pleasure, also. The sexualization of them is due to infantile tendencies caused by the longing of "good ole days," it's actually a well understood psychological phenomenon. Not all living things, even in the inherently flawed binary reproduction system, have sexual desires of any sort. Nothing is sexual to me, and that's what you are missing. You are applying your own self image onto others around you, and thus become unable to perceive of anything different than you. Commonly it is called projection, the term in a psychological/anthropological sense is often misused, but you are exhibiting it in this post very clearly.

The only reason life thrives is because of it's differences, it's uniqueness, the traits that vary between offspring and parent. For any species to hope to last forever it must embrace these differences and incorporate them into their population, those that do not will, and have many times in the past, become extinct, some very rapidly. For it is not our similarities that make us alive, it is our differences.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69246 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a lot of hypothesis, but it's clear that they cannot choose to be anything other than themselves. You are also asserting it's a disease, which does not bode well for your entire position. Then you enter into a slippery slope fallacy, which destroys your entire position.
So when does getting rid of bans cause such things? Did getting rid of the ban that prevented black people from marrying white people make the ground split open and consume the country? Did getting rid of the ban preventing black people from voting cause our country to fall apart? Did stopping most of the anti-sodomy laws result in public gay sex?
As you can see, most of those laws are gone. Good politics.

Rewording marriage as as "between a man and a woman". Bad politics.

Getting rid of government subsidized breeding? Your call!

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69247 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
"Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
It is called CHRISTianity after all...based on the teaching of the Christ. Even Christ chastise their barbaric ways.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69248 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
The act of homosexuality is sex without reproduction. Yes, I call that a disease. It's harmful to biology. The slippery slope was always there. You just don't like the wording. That's not my problem.
No, a slippery slope is almost always a fallacy because until something happens, you cannot normally, reliably, predict the outcome of social policies.

Lots of straight people have sex "without reproduction," are they diseased as well? What about the sterile people, is that a disease as well? So you are saying that a pretty large chunk of straight people are in fact diseased, by your own logic.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69249 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
As you can see, most of those laws are gone. Good politics.
Rewording marriage as as "between a man and a woman". Bad politics.
Getting rid of government subsidized breeding? Your call!
People need to stop breeding anyway. So I fail to see your point here. Since gay people cannot breed, they're cheaper than straight people to allow to pair up.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69250 Dec 31, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I think homosexuality is in the genes. Some have them stronger than others and some more predisposed to it than others. Engaging in homosexual activities however is a choice.
More or less what I've been saying.

It doesn't have to be considered a "disease" but if it's a highly disruptive pattern of behavior, I won't contest the label. I absolutely do reserve my right to defend myself against advances by a homosexual without being accused of a hate crime. I like the idea that I can interact socially without behaving like a macho-man just to keep gays away. I don't feel the need to make timid girls feel special because they talk about such weighty issues, when it does not impact them personally.

I know! I'm just being cynical, right?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69251 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Hypocrisy. If you didn't have a choice, then the gay people didn't either. If the gay people did have a choice, then you did as well. That's how "choice" works.
Sexuality has something to do with the Id, Ego, and Super-ego

Homosexuality has something to do with the lust for their own body that they satisfy it by engaging in the same sex. Transgenders have something to do with personality. For example, a transgender male has deep sexual desires for a female that he wants everything that a female wants including her sexual desires. So the male switches his role to satisfy his sexual desires by playing the female role.
But I'm no expert. But we are all truly heterosexuals. It's why I think God condemns homosexuality because it's narcissistic and egotistical on many levels.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69252 Dec 31, 2012
Do you have some sort of Magic 8-Ball that you shake to get your responses? Because it often looks like it. It's as if you just shout out random words.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Challenge, remember!
Face that or back off( get behind)!
I'll take that response for a "yes".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69253 Dec 31, 2012
Not if you look at the Old Testament.
Charles Idemi wrote:
The prophecy of Jesus started from the old testament( Isaiah).
And was Isaiah the first book in the Bible?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69254 Dec 31, 2012
Which was politically expedient of him to do so.
Charles Idemi wrote:
There were nothing political there.
The Christians were never armed
And you know this because...?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69255 Dec 31, 2012
How did they prove it?
Charles Idemi wrote:
Do your research on the internet
No,*you* answer the question. It's not up to others to support your claims.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69256 Dec 31, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Jesus came to set all men free.
Free from what?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69257 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
More or less what I've been saying.
It doesn't have to be considered a "disease" but if it's a highly disruptive pattern of behavior, I won't contest the label. I absolutely do reserve my right to defend myself against advances by a homosexual without being accused of a hate crime. I like the idea that I can interact socially without behaving like a macho-man just to keep gays away. I don't feel the need to make timid girls feel special because they talk about such weighty issues, when it does not impact them personally.
I know! I'm just being cynical, right?
You are being "rational" when you try to reject homosexuality. It's your Super-Ego. Nothing wrong with that.

Personally though I tend to be attracted to less macho men. Maybe because real macho men intimidates me. lol

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69258 Dec 31, 2012
Dozerman wrote:
Question: evolution started somewhere
It started on Earth once Earth had life.
Dozerman wrote:
who or what put that item there to start evolution?
The chemicals present on Earth were the result of Earth's formation from the proto-planetary disk, plus anything that hit the Earth later on, such as asteroids or comets.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#69260 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you hate kittens?
I didn't notice any mention of global warming in his post.

Admit it, you are addicted to kitty whacking.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69261 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You assume I'm trying to look like a woman. You shouldn't assume, it's a sign of ignorance. I have breasts too, you made another assumption, but breasts prove nothing, as I pointed out, other than I am a mammal. Breasts are for food, not pleasure, also. The sexualization of them is due to infantile tendencies caused by the longing of "good ole days," it's actually a well understood psychological phenomenon. Not all living things, even in the inherently flawed binary reproduction system, have sexual desires of any sort. Nothing is sexual to me, and that's what you are missing. You are applying your own self image onto others around you, and thus become unable to perceive of anything different than you. Commonly it is called projection, the term in a psychological/anthropological sense is often misused, but you are exhibiting it in this post very clearly.
The only reason life thrives is because of it's differences, it's uniqueness, the traits that vary between offspring and parent. For any species to hope to last forever it must embrace these differences and incorporate them into their population, those that do not will, and have many times in the past, become extinct, some very rapidly. For it is not our similarities that make us alive, it is our differences.
No, I don't think the eroticism of breasts is about a longing for mother. That's Freud's personal sickness. If anything, it's a kind of a projected "erection" thing that gives men a feeling of mutual participation and exposure.

Freud's hangup with his mother was probably due to several things. It's almost traditional in Jewish communities to have hangups about your parents. I'd suspect that that is due to the relative isolation that is expected from within and without of the Jewish community and the confusion that it imposes on the young.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69262 Dec 31, 2012
Cybele wrote:
Homosexuality has something to do with the lust for their own body
And you got this pop psychology where?(I know many gay couples where each partner is attracted to someone who looks quite different from themselves.)

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69263 Dec 31, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Sexuality has something to do with the Id, Ego, and Super-ego
Homosexuality has something to do with the lust for their own body that they satisfy it by engaging in the same sex. Transgenders have something to do with personality. For example, a transgender male has deep sexual desires for a female that he wants everything that a female wants including her sexual desires. So the male switches his role to satisfy his sexual desires by playing the female role.
But I'm no expert. But we are all truly heterosexuals. It's why I think God condemns homosexuality because it's narcissistic and egotistical on many levels.
You are still projecting your personality onto others. You should consider finding a method of ending that habit, it's not healthy.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 36 min One way or another 172,517
Evolution Theory Facing Crisis 50 min Infinite Force 204
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr TurkanaBoy 136,259
Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered - live science (Sep '13) 12 hr TurkanaBoy 315
Science News (Sep '13) Thu positronium 2,848
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism Aug 27 Zog Has-fallen 343
Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Dri... (Jan '14) Aug 25 reMAAT 20
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••