Evolution vs. Creation

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

Franklin, PA

#69529 Jan 1, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
There *is* no higher court than the United States Supreme Court. When the USSC decided in the case of Loving v. Virginia that states did not have the right to prevent interracial marriages from being recognized, then all state laws (including amendments in state constitutions) that were intended to prevent interracial marriages were automatically rendered null and void.
<quoted text>
You've never heard of organ donation?
<quoted text>
Why the need for a "civil union" when a *marriage* already deals with it?
<quoted text>
Nope. If a person has two medical options, and money isn't the issue for the two options, then the decision is made on some other basis (such as the likelihood of success or failure). The married partner may be the one making that decision.
<quoted text>
Neither is heterosexuality. So what is your point? Who here was claiming that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage would lead to "social engineering programs"?
<quoted text>
People choose to enter into marriage. And they can choose to leave a marriage. And you call this "slavery"?
<quoted text>
Tell that to the USSC judges who decided the Loving v. Virginia marriage case on the basis of how they interpreted the U.S. Constitution.
<quoted text>
What state I am from is irrelevant, since the results of Loving v. Virginia were nationwide. It invalidated any and all state laws that barred interracial couples from marrying and having their marriages given legal recognition by every state.
If you've never heard of the case, then you're not exactly sufficiently prepared to debate the USSC's history of legal cases involving marriage.
Yes, you've obviously built a spin around your mythology and you're just going to go on thumping your bible.

Two things: first, even though the 14th Amendment is over a hundred years old, obviously it was not being enforced at a state level. This was a situation where existing law was being violated, otherwise it would never have gone to the Supreme Court where the judges were required to interpret existing Constitutional law, not just speculate on how to apply it to something that nobody had considered addressing in the past.

Second, you're obviously trying to use the "Equal Protection" clause, but marriage isn't a civil protection. From the State's point of view, it's a financial arrangement. Remember that other right, the one about freedom of Religion? The State virtually can't interpret marriage as anything but a financial arrangement.

Now, you can fight against subsidized breeding as unconstitutional, but you won't. We all know that. You're trying to craft every word to legitimize vigilante authority to judges. Everyone knows the strategy by now. That's why it's important to NEVER allow the word "marriage" enter into legal documentation concerning gay contractual relationships. Everything else is a reasonable fair treatment issue but not that word.

I think I've fully demonstrated what I've said right from the start, and as far as I'm concerned, that is the only forum function worth pursuing. It's politics! It just so happens that I'd rather that they stop giving bribes to married people as well, but I've got bigger fish to fry.

Fairness is important to you so get rid of tax breaks for married people, make sure that civil unions are available to everyone, regardless of any and all sexuality, and maybe even try to get Constitutional protection for privacy in the home, which doesn't really exist either, and you've got a plan! Not going to budge, are you?

The liberals let you into their midst. It's not my job to help them boot you out. They can get their own monkeys off of their back.

On that note, don't bother me. I really don't want to go chasing organ donation laws, but I'm fairly sure that you can't carve the dead up like a Christmas turkey without their pre-authorization! You're just being an obsessive-compulsive like so many others in this forum.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69530 Jan 1, 2013
anonymous wrote:
Yes, you've obviously built a spin around your mythology and you're just going to go on thumping your bible.
I don't have a "mythology" nor a "bible".
anonymous wrote:
Two things: first, even though the 14th Amendment is over a hundred years old, obviously it was not being enforced at a state level.
The 14th Amendment was not 100 years old at the time of the Loving v. Virginia decision.
anonymous wrote:
Second, you're obviously trying to use the "Equal Protection" clause, but marriage isn't a civil protection.
The USSC, in several cases, has stated that marriage is a basic human right.
anonymous wrote:
From the State's point of view, it's a financial arrangement. Remember that other right, the one about freedom of Religion? The State virtually can't interpret marriage as anything but a financial arrangement.
They interpret it as a *contractual* arrangement, which has ramifications beyond "finance".
anonymous wrote:
Now, you can fight against subsidized breeding as unconstitutional
How is breeding being subsidized?
anonymous wrote:
That's why it's important to NEVER allow the word "marriage" enter into legal documentation concerning gay contractual relationships.
Because heaven help us if same-sex couples are granted all of the exact same rights and responsibilities of marriage enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, right?
anonymous wrote:
It just so happens that I'd rather that they stop giving bribes to married people as well
Who knew that the marriage penalty was a "bribe"?
anonymous wrote:
Fairness is important to you so get rid of tax breaks for married people, make sure that civil unions are available to everyone
Fairness is important to me, which is why I won't settle for anything less than marriage law to apply to same-sex couples in the same way as it does for opposite-sex couples. We don't need some second-class institution of "civil union".
anonymous wrote:
I really don't want to go chasing organ donation laws, but I'm fairly sure that you can't carve the dead up like a Christmas turkey without their pre-authorization!
If you're claiming that the next-of-kin, such as a spouse, cannot donate the deceased spouse's organs without pre-authorization, you would be sadly mistaken. Unless the deceased has left documentation refusing donation, then the absence of any such documentation means that the spouse or other next-of-kin makes the decision.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#69531 Jan 1, 2013
Creation of life on earth now is brought about by systems that are patterned which follow outlined pathways and these are cyclic in nature.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#69532 Jan 1, 2013
mee wrote:
nope.... I am still NOT convinced that we came from apes. I don't know how we all came about, but it can't be from apes.
They cannot be my ancestors,NO WAY !!!!!!!
My heart and mind is my scientific evidence on this subject,until I see real proof in the future.
The Truth IS out there....

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#69533 Jan 1, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
"I know this world is ruled by infinite intelligence. Everything that surrounds us- everything that exists - proves that there are infinite laws behind it. There can be no denying this fact. It is mathematical in its precision."
Thomas A. Edison
You do know that Mr. Edison was an atheist, don't you??

“The Devil in details ”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69534 Jan 1, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me ask you something.
If religion says it's a sin, science says it's a disease, and art says it's talent, then what is it?
I give up...what?(lol)

“The Devil in details ”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69536 Jan 1, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know that Mr. Edison was an atheist, don't you??
I'm sure he thought along the same lines as Einstein, when it came to the concept of God... incomprehensible.

“The Devil in details ”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69537 Jan 1, 2013
That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

Albert Einstein
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#69538 Jan 1, 2013
A pattern by its very nature is a design and an intended template or scheme. The pattern or motif in natural systems could also be a plan or purpose for specific project. Life is brought about by a system which makes a copy or close duplicate anew by the reproductive propagation of past patterns.

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

butler, pa

#69540 Jan 1, 2013
IReasonablyI wrote:
Is there any truth to this rumor I once heard?
I heard Darwin had a woman read from the bible outside his window in his final days.
Why would he have done that?
Did he really believe what he convinced so many others to believe?
Thats only rumor.

"Why would he have done that?..."

Comfort in pain and uncertainty.

I don't doubt that he would want something to be read that comforted him in his final days.

My dad wanted to be read the bible.

I would have read him anything he wanted, keates, yates, anything he wante.

He wanted the bible, psalm 19 was his favorite.

But in the end it was just having family closeby that mattered.

As far as WHAT Darwin believed when he was on his deathbed, it doesn't really matter, he was just a man looking for comfort in his final days, and was blessed to find people who cared for him.

“The Devil in details ”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69541 Jan 1, 2013
The Observer Effect(quantum physics)... basically implies that the Universe could not have come into existence with out an Observer being present.

If this indeed be the case...then where is the Observer now?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#69542 Jan 1, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, being an inventor makes him an authority on God. I've heard that logic before. Sounds fundamentalist to me.
Well, Edison's efforts are verifiable and repeatable.

How's your deity doing on those?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69543 Jan 1, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I give up...what?(lol)
I don't know either.

Next question: Is it right to prose-cute a sinner?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69545 Jan 1, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
The Observer Effect(quantum physics)... basically implies that the Universe could not have come into existence with out an Observer being present.
If this indeed be the case...then where is the Observer now?
it's a subtle light

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69547 Jan 1, 2013
mee wrote:
<quoted text>
I am just expressing my opinion on this subject. I did not contradict myself or am I a liar.
Now you are a liar or extremely ignorant.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69548 Jan 1, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
cool videos...excellent.
Thank you.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69549 Jan 1, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Even stones are examples of patterns and the agate stone is an aesthetic pattern of crystal cells which impose a recognition of a motif like art in many of the stones that can be seen by most who study them. The design is there to behold.
Still waiting for evidence to suggest that they are "directed" by anything beyond the physical and natural laws of the universe, as outlined and predicted by scientific inquiry.

Again though, anthropomorphizing is a very well understood act of the mind. You will see a pattern even where there is none, and the pattern will always look like what you imagine it to.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69550 Jan 1, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for evidence to suggest that they are "directed" by anything beyond the physical and natural laws of the universe, as outlined and predicted by scientific inquiry.
Again though, anthropomorphizing is a very well understood act of the mind. You will see a pattern even where there is none, and the pattern will always look like what you imagine it to.
ya and you are a mushroom

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#69551 Jan 1, 2013
IReasonablyI wrote:
Is there any truth to this rumor I once heard?
I heard Darwin had a woman read from the bible outside his window in his final days.
Why would he have done that?
Did he really believe what he convinced so many others to believe?
There have been a few of these lies throughout the years. We KNOW them to be liars for Jesus and ignore them. His wife was at his bedside and wrote about how he died.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#69552 Jan 1, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure he thought along the same lines as Einstein, when it came to the concept of God... incomprehensible.
No, we have quotes from Edison...he was a total atheists, unlike Einstein who was a deist or mild agnostic. Look him up and read about him.

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
Topix Talk 8 min Bree_Z 61
The BIZARRE reasons why men rape in India 10 min Iruth Bausec Algz... 659
Why? 10 min Spirit67_ 3
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 13 min Jennifer Renee 6,680
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 14 min gladys 23,913
Spirit's Good Bye Thread 14 min Crazy Beautiful 70
Come on...Tell me a joke (Jan '08) 15 min tattoo 7,056
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 18 min Wolftracks 150,953
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 32 min Mega Monster 7,927
Bill Cosby 1 hr Dr Wu 143

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE