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
65,221 - 65,240 of 113,227 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“Pancakes and eggs...”

Level 4

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69414
Dec 31, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a different matter entirely. The wiki gives a pretty good description so I won't repeat that part.
Let's take something we all know on here well enough, I will refrain from referencing specific persons or posts though:
Take someone who is overly sexual, either because that's how they are or because they have been brainwashed into thinking that's how they should be. The brainwashing version is actually quite typical of women in the US, they like to fill our heads with this "women should be sensual" bull and give us "baby" dolls as young girls to enforce it.
So they become overly sexual and deep down feel shame for that as well, a side effect of religious doctrine. Thus they over sexualize everything, to them everything has to be about sex because that's all they believe they should think about, but they struggle with the "teaching" that it's wrong to think about it so they feel guilty in some way.
Along comes someone who shows no sexual urges, no drive at all, so they try to find anything they can to call sexual, even when there is nothing sexual about it, as a way to say, in their mind, "that person likes sex a lot so I must be 'normal'." Even though outwardly they'll say things like "that's a sin and you should be ashamed of it." I also call it "forced common ground," because they are trying to bridge a gap that's not even there by using their own traits completely ignoring any possibility that the other person has different traits.
I hope I explained it well and didn't ramble too much. Psychology is a fascinating subject, and seeing such a strong case of any psychological trait in a single person spikes my interest in them.
You are preoccupied with ignorance. You never had a sexual life.......get over it, it's not important. You were no doubt abused as a child......get over it. You are a hateful person who only sends hate. Get over it all. Every message you send is filled with doubt, sour opinion and total ignorance in everything.........GET A LIFE.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69415
Dec 31, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
You were speculating on what is normal. I gave you a realistic answer.
You gave me *an* answer. The problem is, the word "normal" has more than one meaning. That something is common or usual is one of those meanings. But it isn't relevant to human rights.

So what else do you mean by "normal"?
anonymous wrote:
This isn't a "rights" issue because nobody has taken anyone's rights away.
If one couple has their marriage given legal recognition, and another couple does not, and the only difference is the genders of the individuals involved, then yes, it's a rights issue.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69416
Dec 31, 2012
 
Ever heard of the marriage penalty? Unequal for *married people*.
anonymous wrote:
There's always ways around that. Separate filing etc.
So what, again, is the detriment here to single taxpayers?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69417
Dec 31, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You gave me *an* answer. The problem is, the word "normal" has more than one meaning. That something is common or usual is one of those meanings. But it isn't relevant to human rights.
So what else do you mean by "normal"?
<quoted text>
If one couple has their marriage given legal recognition, and another couple does not, and the only difference is the genders of the individuals involved, then yes, it's a rights issue.
Exactly, normal can mean many things, but in a court of law, only the voting majority and the biological "normal" matter. Homosexuality does not meet either criteria.

Now, legal recognition means what exactly? Marriage is voluntarily entered into. If you want a contract, you're talking about a financial contract. Anything else, is political. The state has not explicitly gotten involved in enforcing contracts of marriage for the children but it is somewhat implicit. After all, us single people have our rights too, don't we? No, actually we don't, but we're supposed to be grateful because we were kids once too.

All that's left is the real victims, the single parents who have the full burden of raising kids, the stigma of not keeping their contract, and more often than not, the victims of prejudicial treatment against females.

EVERYONE has rights. You're handing out privileges.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69418
Dec 31, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
Ever heard of the marriage penalty? Unequal for *married people*.
<quoted text>
So what, again, is the detriment here to single taxpayers?
Inheritance taxes, plain and simple. I won't waste too much time on the prejudicial treatment by insurance agencies, no safety net when unemployed, and let's face it, unequal pay. Go ahead and deny it. See if I care.

There's probably income tax loopholes for them to exploit too but yes, in recant years most have been shut down.

So anyway, what's the recognition that one must have that civil unions can't provide? Granted, in their current form, they don't carry the same weight in some states. But if they did, that wouldn't be enough, would it? Politics.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69420
Dec 31, 2012
 
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are preoccupied with ignorance. You never had a sexual life.......get over it, it's not important. You were no doubt abused as a child......get over it. You are a hateful person who only sends hate. Get over it all. Every message you send is filled with doubt, sour opinion and total ignorance in everything.........GET A LIFE.
I think she'd pretty much said that she had gotten over it. What's your point and why is it hateful to be reclusive?

I can lust after the young girls but never pursue them. I can tune out religious dogma that expects me to breed by their rules. What I'd like to know is what's YOUR issue, or are you just putting on a new hat to carry on an old cat fight?

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69421
Dec 31, 2012
 
English Sprichst Du das auch dann?

Ok well I am thinking to what there is to a debating...A solution this would be the time of a making hu a new in a Year to one thing?

Can someone think of a millions a Thousand at least or not?

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69422
Dec 31, 2012
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
I think she'd pretty much said that she had gotten over it. What's your point and why is it hateful to be reclusive?
I can lust after the young girls but never pursue them. I can tune out religious dogma that expects me to breed by their rules. What I'd like to know is what's YOUR issue, or are you just putting on a new hat to carry on an old cat fight?
Dogs cats and rats and Birds too GOD I hope they keep it together and don't steal each other's pet food...

Well theer are always treats though ...

So what's easy to tune out? It's new years dare and share...Truth ...

Hey there's a guy in the other thread he swears by truths...

“I be me, and you are...”

Level 6

Since: Dec 06

in a city...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69423
Dec 31, 2012
 
GET A LIFE that was a cream wow...

Spells mom backwards...upside down or west ost west...

Level 1

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69424
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Tinka wrote:
GET A LIFE that was a cream wow...
Spells mom backwards...upside down or west ost west...
I think that I could hit on you and score..........are you my babe in 2013?
Too slow

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69425
Dec 31, 2012
 
Bored much?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Mohenjo Daro

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69426
Dec 31, 2012
 
Too slow wrote:
Bored much?
Do you have 'Kodak Moments' in Kodak, TN??

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69427
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

anonymous wrote:
in a court of law, only the voting majority and the biological "normal" matter.
In a court of law, the opinion of the court is all that matters. They don't have to base their decisions on what is "biologically normal". They base their decisions on human rights.
anonymous wrote:
Marriage is voluntarily entered into. If you want a contract, you're talking about a financial contract.
Marriage is more than merely a financial contract. It comes with a set of rights and responsibilities, effectively making each partner in the marriage the legal next-of-kin.
anonymous wrote:
EVERYONE has rights. You're handing out privileges.
Nobody is "handing out" anything. When two people marry, they alter their set of legal obligations toward each other. You have the right to marry. If you don't want to exercise that right, nobody is forcing you to do so.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69428
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

So what, again, is the detriment here to single taxpayers?
anonymous wrote:
Inheritance taxes, plain and simple.
And this has what to do with marriage, exactly?
anonymous wrote:
I won't waste too much time on the prejudicial treatment by insurance agencies, no safety net when unemployed, and let's face it, unequal pay.
And this has what to do with marriage, exactly?
anonymous wrote:
So anyway, what's the recognition that one must have that civil unions can't provide? Granted, in their current form, they don't carry the same weight in some states. But if they did, that wouldn't be enough, would it?
If you've already got a legal institution of marriage, please explain why it would be beneficial to create *another* legal institution, called "civil union", that has the same recognition. For what purpose? What's the problem with using the *existing* legal institution?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Mohenjo Daro

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69429
Dec 31, 2012
 
I want to wish a SAFE, happy and prosperous New Year to all of you...It's been fun arguing with everybody.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69430
Dec 31, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
To the citizens of the United States of America, in the light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy.
Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP, for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.
To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:
You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium." Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour', skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters. You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z'(pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix "ize" will be replaced by the suffix "ise." You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary."
Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed." There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary then you won't have to use bad language as often.
There is no such thing as "US English." We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of thereinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize."
You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to cockney, upper-class twit, or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents -- Scottish dramas such as "Taggart" will no longer be broadcast with subtitles. While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon." If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.
Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters. British sit-coms such as "Men Behaving Badly" or "Red Dwarf" will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness.
You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", But only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.
Hehehe.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••