Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216943 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#69393 Dec 31, 2012
Dozerman wrote:
<quoted text> ok so what started the natural process were did it come from i mean if humans evolved from chimps or whatever were did the the chimp come from and why are they not still evolving
A long time ago our DNA threw out an anomalous gene that had two parts joined and we ended up with 46 chromosomes instead of 48 like the chimps and great apes. That along with our hox p2 gene and hyiod bone that is necessary for speech and here we are.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#69394 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Churches aren't necessary for marriage. State doesn't have to give a fig about any morality issue, it just needs to legally recognise the marriage and whatever legal benefits/detriments that go with them. Religion only enters in to play if those who are getting married give a fig about religion. Then they can work out all the religious details to their hearts content.
That's a stealth tactic to begin with. Recognizing gay marriage implies that you recognize homosexuality as normal behavior. That leads to the hate crime laws, the Affirmative Action agenda, and all of the silly things that the state doesn't want to get tied up with, like dealing with like unwanted advances, and so on.

The state should provide civil unions that have no bearing on sexual relationships. That's it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#69395 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a stealth tactic to begin with.
Nope, just a recognition of equal rights without religious interference. Of course those who WANT religious interference still have that choice.
anonymous wrote:
Recognizing gay marriage implies that you recognize homosexuality as normal behavior.
It occurs in human communities, it occurs in animal communities. Hence, normal.
anonymous wrote:
That leads to the hate crime laws, the Affirmative Action agenda, and all of the silly things that the state doesn't want to get tied up with, like dealing with like unwanted advances, and so on.
If you don't wanna be hit on by a gay man just tell him. If you don't wanna be hit on by a black person just tell them. If you don't wanna be hit on by a woman just tell her. Any potentially illegal responses from either party are dealt with in the normal way.

Note how your concerns are just as equally addressed whether we're talking about homosexuals, blacks or women.
anonymous wrote:
The state should provide civil unions that have no bearing on sexual relationships. That's it.
And marriages that have no bearing on sexual relationships. Girl/guy? Same marriage laws. Guy/guy? Same marriage laws. Girl/girl? Same marriage laws. Black/white? Same marriage laws. Simples. The only reason NOT to allow this to happen is a desire to impose unequal restrictions on a particular group. This is very potentially unConstitutional.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69396 Dec 31, 2012
Even atheists marry.
anonymous wrote:
Or they can have a civil union.
Not and still be assured of being treated legally the same as married couples.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69397 Dec 31, 2012
Dozerman wrote:
it all started somewhere everything comes from something they don't just appear
At this point, the evidence allows us to push back the history of the Universe to the hot dense state that preceded the Big Bang. More than that, we can say only "We don't yet know". It certainly doesn't allow us to conclude "It was poofed into existence magically by a god".

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69398 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
Recognizing gay marriage implies that you recognize homosexuality as normal behavior.
It *is* normal behavior, for gay individuals.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#69400 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I need gay sex! Will he fill that need for me? Or just more of that placebo nonsense?
:-/
I need sunshine, but hey you know...there are days, where there sure isn't much.

And sometimes on those types of days, Lord give me strength!
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#69401 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, just a recognition of equal rights without religious interference. Of course those who WANT religious interference still have that choice.
<quoted text>
It occurs in human communities, it occurs in animal communities. Hence, normal.
<quoted text>
If you don't wanna be hit on by a gay man just tell him. If you don't wanna be hit on by a black person just tell them. If you don't wanna be hit on by a woman just tell her. Any potentially illegal responses from either party are dealt with in the normal way.
Note how your concerns are just as equally addressed whether we're talking about homosexuals, blacks or women.
<quoted text>
And marriages that have no bearing on sexual relationships. Girl/guy? Same marriage laws. Guy/guy? Same marriage laws. Girl/girl? Same marriage laws. Black/white? Same marriage laws. Simples. The only reason NOT to allow this to happen is a desire to impose unequal restrictions on a particular group. This is very potentially unConstitutional.
Now you're being simple. Blacks and women are not being denied marriage nor do they have any interest in hitting on me. Blacks and women are what they are by genetics. What is the recognition and what is the religious interference that you talk about? It sounds rhetorical, not real.

If gays want the government to dictate to churches, that's wrong. They can always make their own church. The recognition isn't morality, it's a legal prejudice. It's recognition with a money angle, as all politics is. I'm not lifting a finger to help them blockade my political agendas or harass me with legal vigilantism.

I suppose you haven't ever worked in government and seen how people abuse discrimination laws either. Social engineering is a sloppy, last-chance effort to prevent riots at best. At worst, it buries the problems until they blow up in everyone's face.

I have a sister who ran on and on about how bad ol' business didn't hire minorities. We were at a scientist convention of hers and I asked her why no minorities (OK, mostly Blacks, and in Washington DC, 80% or so Black!) were in attendance. She blamed it on bad ol' business and wasn't even slightly interested in the fact that these were all university eggheads who probably never punched a clock off-campus in their entire lives!

The social problems are EVERYONE'S problems. You can't cherry pick the ones that fit your political pose and toss out the rest. Get rid of the tax breaks for married people and the inheritance breaks. See if anyone cares about recognition when you've eliminated the prejudicial treatment that married people get in their favor.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#69402 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Even atheists marry.
<quoted text>
Not and still be assured of being treated legally the same as married couples.
Then that should change, but not just for gays, and not to the detriment of single, tax paying citizens.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69403 Dec 31, 2012
Not and still be assured of being treated legally the same as married couples.
anonymous wrote:
Then that should change, but not just for gays, and not to the detriment of single, tax paying citizens.
And the legal recognition of marriage is detrimental to single, tax-paying citizens how, exactly?
rushlimbaughdotm e

Titusville, FL

#69404 Dec 31, 2012
www.rushlimbaugh.me
get your very own rush limbaugh email address

[email protected]

get yours today

write on the Rush Limbaugh Forum and more!

www.rushlimbaugh.me
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#69405 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
It *is* normal behavior, for gay individuals.
....Who make up a minute portion of the population. Most estimates, about 1 or 2 percent, liberals always claim about 7 percent and gays think Lincoln was gay. I don't have time to waste on the statistics.

Normal is also biological normal, where sex is about reproduction. Anything else, is your personal thrill and not anything that the state needs to protect.

Our Constitution allows people to pursue happiness. It doesn't guarantee happiness. At what point do we pack it all in on freedom and wad everything up into a ball do be dispersed in quotas? If that's your idea of government, have at it. Most of us are willing to give freedom a chance as long as we really are getting that chance. Quotas aren't freedom and they aren't a chance to improve one's place in the world.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#69406 Dec 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, just a recognition of equal rights without religious interference. Of course those who WANT religious interference still have that choice.
<quoted text>
It occurs in human communities, it occurs in animal communities. Hence, normal.
<quoted text>
If you don't wanna be hit on by a gay man just tell him. If you don't wanna be hit on by a black person just tell them. If you don't wanna be hit on by a woman just tell her. Any potentially illegal responses from either party are dealt with in the normal way.
Note how your concerns are just as equally addressed whether we're talking about homosexuals, blacks or women.
<quoted text>
And marriages that have no bearing on sexual relationships. Girl/guy? Same marriage laws. Guy/guy? Same marriage laws. Girl/girl? Same marriage laws. Black/white? Same marriage laws. Simples. The only reason NOT to allow this to happen is a desire to impose unequal restrictions on a particular group. This is very potentially unConstitutional.
Oh, yes. Animals have diseases just like people do! Will you accept "recognition" of a mentally handicapped status?

Didn't think so. Politics!
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#69407 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Not and still be assured of being treated legally the same as married couples.
<quoted text>
And the legal recognition of marriage is detrimental to single, tax-paying citizens how, exactly?
Unequal taxation....or are you just going to deny that obvious truth. SOMEone has to pay for all those social engineering programs.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69408 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
Who make up a minute portion of the population.


The percentage of the population is irrelevant when it comes to human rights. Even if 99% of the population were Christian and only 1% were non-Christian, the state would still not be allowed treat the Christians more favorably than the non-Christians.
anonymous wrote:
Normal is also biological normal, where sex is about reproduction.
Even people who know that their sexual activities will not result in offspring still engage in sex. So no, sex is not merely about reproduction.
anonymous wrote:
Anything else, is your personal thrill and not anything that the state needs to protect.
On the contrary, the state protects every adult's right to engage in consensual sexual behavior.

Oh, and we weren't discussing quotas when it comes to homosexuality. I guess you missed that.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69409 Dec 31, 2012
And the legal recognition of marriage is detrimental to single, tax-paying citizens how, exactly?
anonymous wrote:
Unequal taxation
Ever heard of the marriage penalty? Unequal for *married people*.

“Pancakes and eggs...”

Level 4

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#69410 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's what you missed, it's not the possibility of a god existing that is the problem, it's the claims of specific gods existing that are fallacious. Until evidence is provided the only sane, and intelligent, thing to do is to dismiss it until evidence is provided. Believing in something without evidence is called delusion.
That kind of reasoning is like waiting for a hurricane or tornado or tidal wave to hit...ignoreing all signs that say one might be approaching...

I'd rather be safe and evacuate...than to stand there on the beach front, and get washed away, or sucked up into the sky by a typoon...

Better to evacuate, take action, and there not be a storm, than to stand there waiting for evidence to hit you in the face...cause then when you are aware...it's to late...whooosh...now what?

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#69411 Dec 31, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
First you have to learn the ALFABET and then learn real language. Retard.
You are right.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#69412 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The percentage of the population is irrelevant when it comes to human rights. Even if 99% of the population were Christian and only 1% were non-Christian, the state would still not be allowed treat the Christians more favorably than the non-Christians.
<quoted text>
Even people who know that their sexual activities will not result in offspring still engage in sex. So no, sex is not merely about reproduction.
<quoted text>
On the contrary, the state protects every adult's right to engage in consensual sexual behavior.
Oh, and we weren't discussing quotas when it comes to homosexuality. I guess you missed that.
You were speculating on what is normal. I gave you a realistic answer. This isn't a "rights" issue because nobody has taken anyone's rights away. They just aren't subsidizing everyone's choices. It's about money, and it's about the vote. You've done absolutely everything but name the beast you serve.

The results are what they are. Recognition means money. The voters say no.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#69413 Dec 31, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
And the legal recognition of marriage is detrimental to single, tax-paying citizens how, exactly?
<quoted text>
Ever heard of the marriage penalty? Unequal for *married people*.
There's always ways around that. Separate filing etc. Married people are crying because they can't both claim dependents and/or dodge higher income bracket status. Boo-hoo!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 56 min Aura Mytha 179,755
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr scientia potentia... 154,864
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Brian_G 23,592
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 hr scientia potentia... 48,864
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 10 hr GoTrump 1,050
Evolution in action (May '16) Dec 7 Thick cockney cha... 36
Richard Dawkins tells the truth Dec 5 Timmee 9
More from around the web