Comments
591,441 - 591,460 of 730,843 Comments Last updated 3 min ago

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623040
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sorry, memphis, I'm not trying to insult you, but that video was just laughable. You insult the intelligence of everyone here when you say you "understand evolution," and then ask us to seriously consider something that clearly shows a total lack of understanding on your part.

I recommend you really try to get an understanding of what the TOE says. Once you do, you can go back and watch that video and get a good laugh out of it. Not only from the fact that that guy is a complete tool, but because what he says is totally absurd.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623041
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Huh? What do you mean? Again, I think you're conflating "sexuality" with sexual orientation. If you would agree that the rights of minorities (blacks, hispanic, etc) count as civil rights, and therefore human rights, I don't see how you can forgo extending the same civil/human rights to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.
I disagree that teaching people about the history of the gay rights movement and about notable gay rights activists/people in general counts as "sex education." No one is going to be describing in explicit detail how gay people have sex, or even talk about sex at all. I assume they will be taught about it in the same way that kids are taught about the various civil rights movements. There's nothing explicit or sexual about mentioning someone's sexual orientation.
Um you can't say gay or straight without a sexual implication.
I'm just saying I think first graders aren't ready to be taught this concept at all. When you say gay to a six year old you will then have to explain what it is.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623042
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it's a very apt analogy. But let's give you another:
Most little girls wear teeshirts and jeans, yet most are not lesbians. If what you wore did impact it, they'd all be lesbians. Male actors wear makeup all the time, yet most male child stars grow up straight, if what they wore had an impact they'd all be gay.
Let's expand that more ....
Almost all gay people are told growing up that being homosexual is "evil" or "wrong," they are forced to deny themselves, told they are not suppose to be "like that." Yet they grow up to be one of two things, either gay, or bigots who eventually get "busted" for something that forces them out of the closet. If how they were raised had an impact on their sexuality, there would be no gay people on the planet. That bears repeating, if how a child is raised impacts their sexuality, there would be NO, as in none at all, gay people on the planet.
Very true. Even if they were raised in a completely accepting, loving family, they still wouldn't turn out to be gay, because there is no way they could avoid the message of society at large: being gay is wrong. If people really could choose their sexual orientation, no one would choose the one that leads to them getting hated and discriminated against.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623043
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Do you think that evolution occurs by animals "trying" to transform into something else?
Blind ambitions? WTF?
What do U mean WTF?! Isn't that what evolution states?! That one animal evolves into another for the purpose of adaptation and survival?! That fish evolved and grew lungs for air and started living on land?! For U to ignore the real questions and pick out "trying" just shows that U don't have as much faith in the theory as U think and the tactic of avoidance is all U have, oh, and Wikipedia!!

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623044
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Ahahahah. Evolution "violates" entropy and the "law of biogenisis." You can't, on the one hand, come in here and say that you understand evolution, and then post crap like this. He started out instantly with the most easily debunked fallacies that apologists always try to use. Evolution has *nothing* to do with the 2nd law. And there is no "law of biogenisis."
Actually there is.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_...

But this was to counter the notion that flies sprang from nothing in dead animals, and has nothing to do with modern abiogenesis.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623045
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a good analogy
Is there a good analogy for wearing shoes and being homosexual?

Enlighten me.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623046
May 11, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Responsible" doesn't answer how life got as diverse as it is, the theory of evolution answers the real questions of "how," the important question. Saying "god dun it" does not answer anything, it literally answers nothing because there is no evidence that there is a god, there is no evidence that anything outside of natural influences has had any effect on the universe, and knowing "who" does not tell you anything.
Does knowing your computer is built by Apple explain to you how it was built? Does knowing your car is manufactured by Nissan explain to you how to built an internal combustion engine or how that engine works?
Funny U should ask! Let me tell ya! As far as the last part goes, I'd probably not know exactly how my computer was built but I would know that it was built by Apple.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623047
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Well in his case it seems to have been an indicator.
But pretending to be doctor and actually becoming one is a far cry from pretending to be a girl and becoming gay.
Not sure if it even requires schooling to achieve that goal. lol
You don't become gay.

You are or you are not gay.

It's as simple as that.

I don't understand the confusion.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623048
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
What do U mean WTF?! Isn't that what evolution states?! That one animal evolves into another for the purpose of adaptation and survival?! That fish evolved and grew lungs for air and started living on land?! For U to ignore the real questions and pick out "trying" just shows that U don't have as much faith in the theory as U think and the tactic of avoidance is all U have, oh, and Wikipedia!!
Again, evolution doesn't "say" anything.

Also, that's not even what the theory of evolution says, that's what creationists say.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623049
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny U should ask! Let me tell ya! As far as the last part goes, I'd probably not know exactly how my computer was built but I would know that it was built by Apple.
Which doesn't help you build one, does it?

Also, are you lazy or is English not your primary language, "U" is not a word.

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623050
May 11, 2013
 
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Ahahahah. Evolution "violates" entropy and the "law of biogenisis." You can't, on the one hand, come in here and say that you understand evolution, and then post crap like this. He started out instantly with the most easily debunked fallacies that apologists always try to use. Evolution has *nothing* to do with the 2nd law. And there is no "law of biogenisis."
U didn't read the full post, did U? The link didn't concern U and I knew that folks like U are too closed-minded to give time to listen. And U and other evolutionists ignore the second law of thermodynamics dealing with enthropy because it doesn't fit well with evolution theory. And whatever doesn't fit gives way to some other outstanding explanation that is only speculation but seems to fit and idiots believe it because they are told to!

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623051
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
What do U mean WTF?! Isn't that what evolution states?! That one animal evolves into another for the purpose of adaptation and survival?! That fish evolved and grew lungs for air and started living on land?! For U to ignore the real questions and pick out "trying" just shows that U don't have as much faith in the theory as U think and the tactic of avoidance is all U have, oh, and Wikipedia!!
No, the reason I picked out the word "trying" is because it shows a huge misunderstanding on your part. Animals don't think "hey, I'd like to have wings," and then "try" to grow them.

And what questions did you ask?

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623052
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Yep, thank g-d Carradine wasn't a flaming, gay politician...
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story...
...or they would be telling the little ones that he should be someone to be proud to emulate too.
Is this your way of saying you are a closeted admirer of Carradine?

Since: Jan 12

Memphis, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623053
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there a good analogy for wearing shoes and being homosexual?
Enlighten me.
No, no. He mentioned the shoes but I figured it was more than just that. Most times when a boy prefers to wear a dress that he know is for girls he may be telling U something. With girls it may be as subtle as wanting to sport a boys haircut or take on the mannerisms of boys. It's harder to tell with girls because nowadays it's acceptable for girls to be as equal to boys without being defined as gay so early on.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623054
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
U didn't read the full post, did U? The link didn't concern U and I knew that folks like U are too closed-minded to give time to listen. And U and other evolutionists ignore the second law of thermodynamics dealing with enthropy because it doesn't fit well with evolution theory. And whatever doesn't fit gives way to some other outstanding explanation that is only speculation but seems to fit and idiots believe it because they are told to!
It has NOTHING to do with evolution. Let me repeat that. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has absolutely nothing at all to do with evolution. If you understood evolution, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you wouldn't be parroting this nonsense you read on apologist sites. That's why I don't take you seriously - you constantly commit the most basic and ridiculous errors.

And I did listen. That guy states the 2nd law as "things decrease, not improve," which is not at all what it says. It says "the entropy of a closed system never decreases," and he intentionally misrepresents it and fallaciously applies it to evolution. Earth is not a closed system, and anyways, the 2nd law applies to *energy,* not complexity. It does not preclude the formation of complex organisms, because it has *nothing* to do with them. Again, it concerns energy - it is not a "law of disorder" as some creationists term it.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623055
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't become gay.
You are or you are not gay.
It's as simple as that.
I don't understand the confusion.
Maybe you have to be gay to really understand gayness?
But I see it as a choice, a or preference and some are swinging both ways.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623056
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
U didn't read the full post, did U? The link didn't concern U and I knew that folks like U are too closed-minded to give time to listen. And U and other evolutionists ignore the second law of thermodynamics dealing with enthropy because it doesn't fit well with evolution theory. And whatever doesn't fit gives way to some other outstanding explanation that is only speculation but seems to fit and idiots believe it because they are told to!
And trust me, I am not closed minded, but being open minded does not mean "humoring absurdly fallacious arguments."

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623057
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually there is.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Law_...
But this was to counter the notion that flies sprang from nothing in dead animals, and has nothing to do with modern abiogenesis.
"Law" implies an incontrovertible rule of the universe. Yes, there is the *observation* of biogenisis, in that we have only seen life come from life, but it is not a law.

But ok, lol.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623058
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
U didn't read the full post, did U? The link didn't concern U and I knew that folks like U are too closed-minded to give time to listen. And U and other evolutionists ignore the second law of thermodynamics dealing with enthropy because it doesn't fit well with evolution theory. And whatever doesn't fit gives way to some other outstanding explanation that is only speculation but seems to fit and idiots believe it because they are told to!
The second law evolution argument is pure garbage.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623059
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DeAngelo of Memphis wrote:
<quoted text>
No, no. He mentioned the shoes but I figured it was more than just that. Most times when a boy prefers to wear a dress that he know is for girls he may be telling U something. With girls it may be as subtle as wanting to sport a boys haircut or take on the mannerisms of boys. It's harder to tell with girls because nowadays it's acceptable for girls to be as equal to boys without being defined as gay so early on.
http://www.operatorchan.org/g/src/13657298111...

Skirts and all.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••