Evolution vs. Creation

There are 20 comments on the Jan 6, 2011, Best of New Orleans story 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.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#69217 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
There were lots of people named Jesus, and many still have that name today. So?
Are there many people named Jesus of Nazareth?

Level 1

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#69218 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, you think they were joking?
Inkblots are seen time after time. As a matter of fact what you "see" in the inkblot is extremely telling in what type of personality, person, and belief system you have. It has proven accurate enough that even psychologists use it, not just the quack psychiatrists. What you report "seeing" in the inkblot is your subconscious, anthropomorphic, images based on what you imagine or even see in the real word, and enhanced by what your mind focuses on. When you focus on Rah a lot, you will see Rah in everything, when you focus on unicorns a lot, you will see unicorns in everything, when you focus on any mythology a lot, that will always be what you "see" in any random configuration of colors, even in agates. It's such a well understood phenomenon that there is a huge database of references for the responses to cross reference now and formulate an almost perfect profile of a person, with nothing more than random colors.
So no, your agates are no different than inkblots, you see what you want to see, or what you expect to see, even if it's not there. Post photos of them, without saying what they are, let us look. You won't because you know we'll not see what you see, if we see anything. Not seeing any imagery in the randomness is specific personality type, actually, one that we refer to as "skeptical."
The stone in my profile picture is a real Kentucky agate. I post using the name FREE SERVANT at times.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69219 Dec 31, 2012
xxxooxxx wrote:
True Christian make for bad soldiers...ask the Romans.
If the Romans were advocates of Christianity, they may have thought differently. You're demonstrating the chess game mentality that wasn't in early Christianity.

The second Vatican Counsel tried to break out of the Dark Age mentality and I see a growing urge to go back to the old ways. The church remains fundamentally unaware of the reality that people face in the modern, technological world.

Mostly, the Church and the world are finding democracy to be the desired place to be, yet have a hard time with protecting the democratic rights of those who don't serve their own agendas.

All authoritarianism is a dark path, and growing more volatile every day with new technologies. In this respect, yes, the state does not like the church. The state loves technology. The state hates to be bothered with creating an environment where technology flourishes.

As it is, both the state and the church are in a love-hate relationship with each other. It's up to the public to stop depending on both the church and the state for protection, and "protection" after the mobster definition, is about all they get.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69220 Dec 31, 2012
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
really?...show me the verse that Christ says...kill your enemies.
No, your god commands it.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69221 Dec 31, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Are there many people named Jesus of Nazareth?
Probably. My point was, no one is saying there wasn't some street preacher named Jesus, we're asking for evidence that supports your god, or at least some actual miracles.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69222 Dec 31, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Does that mean that sexual orientation is a choice?
Did you ever decide to become heterosexual?
When was that?
I didn't have a choice in the chromosomes I got from my parents.

I'll say it your way! Sexual orientation is a choice!

Do the semantics matter? If the "prejudice" induced by obvious biological strategy makes you feel defensive, then maybe you have issues with nature that you're not being honest about.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69223 Dec 31, 2012
Bible Belt wrote:
<quoted text>The stone in my profile picture is a real Kentucky agate. I post using the name FREE SERVANT at times.
For some reason I cannot see your profile pic. This isn't an excuse though you may feel tempted to say it is. It's a flaw in Topix, actually, or some server miscommunication. Perhaps a link to it would help.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#69224 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
I don't particularly recall a right or freedom being denied to homosexuals.
In 1977, Dade County, Florida passed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Pop singer Anita Bryant led a campaign to repeal the law.
She argued that homosexuality was a sin, and that it could be overcome through commitment to Jesus Christ.
Jerry Falwell took a trip to Florida to help in the campaign.
The law was subsequently repealed in 1977 and not reinstated until 1998.

In 1980, after preaching about healthy sexuality, Anita Bryant and her husband got divorced.
That was a gleeful day for the gay rights activists.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69225 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Choice or not, we allow straight people rights and privileges that gay people do not get. Equality is not treating people differently just because of who or what they are, and that's what us activists are pushing for, simple equality.
Oh, and I'm conservative, I just believe in less government.
It sounds like you're a libertarian then. Libertarians didn't used to be automatically linked with conservatives.

Activism is fine, but provoking riots isn't. At some point, revolution may be necessary, but no revolution is likely to succeed without consensus. No one groups is disposable over another group.

The essential element that is lacking here is that advocates for change must accept that they are up against a "majority" whose reason for allying may be over, but the comforts of the status-quo remain. Take away the comforts of the status-quo from one group for no other reason than to indulge the whims of another group and you clearly aren't respecting the sacrifices being made by all.

Gays have equal rights under the law, but enforcement is probably lacking. They are NOT alone in that inequity so the arrogance of sickofit's post claiming "Only thing left to do is get same sex people equal rights" deserves to be shut down while denying the metaphorical physical contact that is the tool of irresponsible liberal politics.

It's not my nature to bash, but I'll gladly call out rhetoric for what it is. Perhaps when people rely on it less, there will be less fear and less of a tendency for things to get prejudicially out of control. Until the witch hunts end, expect the worst in all human nature.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69226 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, your god commands it.
you have no proof then?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69227 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, your god commands it.
actually the only scam I'm seeing here is you trying to project the Christ as a warmonger and a killer.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69228 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't have a choice in the chromosomes I got from my parents.
I'll say it your way! Sexual orientation is a choice!
Do the semantics matter? If the "prejudice" induced by obvious biological strategy makes you feel defensive, then maybe you have issues with nature that you're not being honest about.
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.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69229 Dec 31, 2012
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
actually the only scam I'm seeing here is you trying to project the Christ as a warmonger and a killer.
Did I mention your Jesus person as the commander? No. I mentioned your god. You are playing dishonest word games again. If your Jesus was your god, then all the commands to kill given by your god are also by him. If he is not your god then my point still stands because I said your god.

God it?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69230 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
It sounds like you're a libertarian then. Libertarians didn't used to be automatically linked with conservatives.
Activism is fine, but provoking riots isn't. At some point, revolution may be necessary, but no revolution is likely to succeed without consensus. No one groups is disposable over another group.
The essential element that is lacking here is that advocates for change must accept that they are up against a "majority" whose reason for allying may be over, but the comforts of the status-quo remain. Take away the comforts of the status-quo from one group for no other reason than to indulge the whims of another group and you clearly aren't respecting the sacrifices being made by all.
Gays have equal rights under the law, but enforcement is probably lacking. They are NOT alone in that inequity so the arrogance of sickofit's post claiming "Only thing left to do is get same sex people equal rights" deserves to be shut down while denying the metaphorical physical contact that is the tool of irresponsible liberal politics.
It's not my nature to bash, but I'll gladly call out rhetoric for what it is. Perhaps when people rely on it less, there will be less fear and less of a tendency for things to get prejudicially out of control. Until the witch hunts end, expect the worst in all human nature.
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.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69231 Dec 31, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
In 1977, Dade County, Florida passed a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Pop singer Anita Bryant led a campaign to repeal the law.
She argued that homosexuality was a sin, and that it could be overcome through commitment to Jesus Christ.
Jerry Falwell took a trip to Florida to help in the campaign.
The law was subsequently repealed in 1977 and not reinstated until 1998.
In 1980, after preaching about healthy sexuality, Anita Bryant and her husband got divorced.
That was a gleeful day for the gay rights activists.
That's an anecdote, and it seems that there's a mean spirited message there. Why would you be glad to see a divorce? Did one of the two decide to come out of the closet, or was the glee really pure bile?

Now, discrimination based on sexual orientation. What is it? Are we allowed to discriminate against KKK members or people of another political affiliation? Yep! That's politics. You can't change your genes. You can change just about anything else, your religion, your political affiliation, your taste in music.

I'm against most social engineering. I accept some of it because discord is not in anyone's best interest. There is a point where the victim becomes a litigious crybaby who won't stand on their own feet. My solution is that if the majority won't live with you, do your best to befriend the minorities until you collectively become the majority.

Anita Bryant worked within the system as did the gay rights groups. Everyone's Constitutional rights were protected.

You haven't disproven my comment that sexual orientation is political at all. You've reinforced it!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#69232 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.
You haven't heard any new "gay gene" theories being published recently, have you? You like science and the word hypocrisy. You just don't seem to be ready to combine the two.

Government isn't there to indulge every gut feeling, whim, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. Give them something tangible like a genetic adaptation that is more than a random mutation, and they may see fit to protect it. The issue is between protecting against genetic cleansing or protecting the rights of the genetically handicapped, but NOT about providing a wildlife preserve for whimsical, gratuitous sex on the backs of the people.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69233 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Did I mention your Jesus person as the commander? No. I mentioned your god. You are playing dishonest word games again. If your Jesus was your god, then all the commands to kill given by your god are also by him. If he is not your god then my point still stands because I said your god.
God it?
XO wrote: really?...show me the verse that Christ says...kill your enemies.

KittenKoder replied: No, your god commands it.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69234 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, your god commands it.
Other Translations of Exodus 20:13

Thou shalt not kill.
- King James Version (1611)

"You shall not murder.
- New American Standard Version (1995)

Thou shalt not kill.
- American Standard Version (1901)

Do not put anyone to death without cause.
- Basic English Bible

Thou shalt not kill.
- Darby Bible

Thou shalt not kill.
- Douay Rheims Bible

Thou shalt not kill.
- Webster's Bible

You shall not murder.
- World English Bible

`Thou dost not murder.
- Youngs Literal Bible

Thou shalt not murder.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69235 Dec 31, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't heard any new "gay gene" theories being published recently, have you? You like science and the word hypocrisy. You just don't seem to be ready to combine the two.
Government isn't there to indulge every gut feeling, whim, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. Give them something tangible like a genetic adaptation that is more than a random mutation, and they may see fit to protect it. The issue is between protecting against genetic cleansing or protecting the rights of the genetically handicapped, but NOT about providing a wildlife preserve for whimsical, gratuitous sex on the backs of the people.
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?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69236 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you deny that female asexuals exist? Asexuality is simply having no desires for sexual activity, no sexual attractions, and no pleasure from sexual activity, it has nothing to do with male or female by definition. So if you classify female and male asexuals differently then it proves you are being dishonest, it also demonstrates you know nothing about sexuality as a whole.
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

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 6 min MrsGladToBeMe 836
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 16 min razz58 161,413
Dennys friends are all foreigners, old or just ... 25 min Hypocrisy Abounds 2
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 28 min TrapperJohn MD 18,167
motorcycle traveling stories 30 min Ferretman 556
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 31 min beatlesinafog 5,227
Things that make life eaiser... 31 min razz58 97
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 1 hr MrsGladToBeMe 8,337
News The trooper fired at the motorcycle, and then d... 9 hr El Gato 104
More from around the web