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 (Page 3,268)

Showing posts 65,341 - 65,360 of111,909
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69516
Jan 1, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
The system makes more money promoting hatred and violence...it's just a matter of economics...sad but true.
Hense the term "dirty (germy) money"

Rather than honest earned, decent ones.:-)

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69517
Jan 1, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
now that's a scary thought.
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?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69518
Jan 1, 2013
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
In a court of law, yes.
<quoted text>
Who do they think makes decisions in a court of law, if not the court?
<quoted text>
As in having the right to make medical decisions.
<quoted text>
*What* "social engineering" programs?
<quoted text>
So you see marriage as "enslavement"?
<quoted text>
When did Idemi do that?
<quoted text>
But other things that have an impact on marriage law are.
<quoted text>
You would have lost that bet in the case of Loving v. Virginia.
A judge's legal opinion is not an opinion. It's professional interpretation of the law. What matters is the law, not a vigilante opinion. Otherwise, it will just get overturned in a higher court and the vigilante judge will eventually be dismissed.

You can't make medical decisions for a dead person. If you're talking about making medical decisions for someone who is unable to make them for themselves, I don't see that as a problem that can't be resolved by a civil union. It's still a financial decision.

What social engineering programs? The ones you won't get because homosexuality is not a Constitutionally protected condition.

I see marriage under American law as an unconscionable contract. To defend it is to impose a form of permanent servitude that you can call many things, but it amounts to slavery.

Idemi dictates reality in every other post that he posts. But at least he doesn't parse things to an @nal level when he's obviously in the wrong.

Your interpretation of relationships does not matter. What matters is that nothing explicit is in the Constitution. The Constitution is about explicit rights, with a sweeping closing statement where any rights NOT specified in the Constitution are retained by the States or the people. Oops! Darn the fine print! We don't know if marriage is a State thing or a people thing, but it's not a Constitution thing.

I never heard of that case. You seem to collect factoids on the subject, even though you're not from Virginia. This IS personal, isn't it? Well, enough said.

Politics. End of discussion.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69519
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

sickofit wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes wish the religous people would shut up and mind there own business and DIE OFF.
That's a bigoted statement. I'm an atheist and I don't make sweeping generalizations to the point where all religious people are meddlers who should all die off.

I'm not a fan of mob behavior and keep a very jaded view of religion, but you are a flaming hypocrite.
mee

Reading, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69520
Jan 1, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Saying "it can't be from" means you are saying you do know, so you contradicted yourself and exposed yourself to be a liar for your god in only a couple sentences. Still not a record, there are some on here who have done that same thing in three words.
I am just expressing my opinion on this subject. I did not contradict myself or am I a liar.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69521
Jan 1, 2013
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor would I wish you or anyone else too.
That psychoTic type stalker stuff is some SICKO business now.
EWE...EWE and double EWE....(and get away!!)
I can't help but feel that there's a secret code here that eludes me!

Can you throw me a bone if there's something between the lines? I've got different issues than the twenty-something crowd. I don't do Lego bricks or planking!:)
mee

Reading, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69522
Jan 1, 2013
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin was stymied several times, as a young man, when exploring the islands of the Galapoagos. He missed several key elements (like NO apes do not fall from the sky, OR just materialize out of the ground into ape from) of the evolutionary theories, at that time.
But hey, NO ONE is perfect...that is why there are MANY, MANY others-that have, and will continue to contribute to the still UNKNOWN factors of ALL the theories.
(even if DUHM as ROCKs does seem to best fit our species sometimes lol)
It's always good to explore and find the truth. Maybe in this case man will never know the truth.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69524
Jan 1, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
A judge's legal opinion is not an opinion. It's professional interpretation of the law. What matters is the law, not a vigilante opinion. Otherwise, it will just get overturned in a higher court and the vigilante judge will eventually be dismissed.
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.
anonymous wrote:
You can't make medical decisions for a dead person.
You've never heard of organ donation?
anonymous wrote:
If you're talking about making medical decisions for someone who is unable to make them for themselves, I don't see that as a problem that can't be resolved by a civil union.
Why the need for a "civil union" when a *marriage* already deals with it?
anonymous wrote:
It's still a financial decision.
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.
anonymous wrote:
What social engineering programs? The ones you won't get because homosexuality is not a Constitutionally protected condition.
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"?
anonymous wrote:
I see marriage under American law as an unconscionable contract. To defend it is to impose a form of permanent servitude that you can call many things, but it amounts to slavery.
People choose to enter into marriage. And they can choose to leave a marriage. And you call this "slavery"?
anonymous wrote:
We don't know if marriage is a State thing or a people thing, but it's not a Constitution thing.
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.
anonymous wrote:
I never heard of that case. You seem to collect factoids on the subject, even though you're not from Virginia.
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.
mee

Reading, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69525
Jan 1, 2013
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean, like this?
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.h...
I don't trust internet links as proof.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69526
Jan 1, 2013
 
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.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69527
Jan 1, 2013
 
mee wrote:
I don't trust internet links as proof.
Why not?
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69528
Jan 1, 2013
 
The word PATTERN as we have it comes from french "template" and is a type of theme of recurring events or objects, elements or a set of objects. One definition of ART according to writer Alfred North Whitehead is the imposing of a pattern on experience, and our aesthetic enjoyment is recognition of the pattern. If we examine a natural stone such as the agate, we can see that its crystal is a structure of small boxlike cells which are said to contain one or more atoms that are stacked in a crystal system with an axis and rotational symmetry. A pattern is arranged in a particular way and a lattice exhibiting long range order and symmetry is in the mineral crystal struture. The agate is beautiful in its expression of mineral coloring and has significance in the Bible REV 21:19 as chalcedony.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69532
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69533
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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??

“Somewhere in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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)

“Somewhere in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

“Somewhere in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 65,341 - 65,360 of111,909
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••