Scientists have no evidence at all that one species has evolved into another species. Only that there are different species in the fossil record.
Scientists have no evidence at all that life could come together out of a primordial soup all by itself. In fact, statistical analysis shows that in the 4 billion years that the earth has been around, not one single protein could have come together by accident, much less a single cell, much less an organism, much less complex organisms evolving from one to another.
It is only by faith that such things are believed, and this is no more 'rational', if you will, than the theory that God created everything.
Amino acids have been shown to spontaneously form under laboratory conditions. But yet, it is mere speculation that organelles, and eventually whole complex cells could form on their own by mere random chance (though it would happen over a very large period of time).
I also think you are confusing evidence for proof. Evidence doesn't prove anything, it either supports a hypothesis or it helps to disprove it. The fossil record is evidence that supports the general theory of evolution, but it does not prove conclusively anything.
Evidence doesn't prove anything, it either supports a hypothesis or it helps to disprove it. The fossil record is evidence that supports the general theory of evolution, but it does not prove conclusively anything.
Fact: fossil record. There are various species recorded in the fossil record.
Theory #1: One species has evolved into another species.
There is no proof or evidence to back this up. No laboratory experiments have ever created a new species from an old one. It is merely a speculative theory.
Theory #2: Intelligent design. The various species were created, though there has been post-creation changes within species.
There is no proof or evidence to back this up. It is merely a theory. Though, we do have ancient books that tell us this.
I'm just saying that both require a leap of faith. Theory #1 requires faith in Almighty Science. Theory #2 requires faith in Almighty God.
I don't need to be careful of what i say. I can be as offensive as i want, it's my right!! Besides, the gay agenda offends me, so what about that? Right, me being offended of you matters not, but you being offended by me does
Actually, there is no reference to "Gay" or "Homosexual" in the bible. The bible first appeared about 400 years after the crucifixion and is largely a collection of stories not written by any god or Messiah, etc. Quoting Leviticus may leave some to think you may be showing your ignorance in an attempt to hide a narrow minded and bigoted view of others. You see, Leviticus says a lot more than not lying down with other men which by the way has been interpreted to mean something about homosexuality with no proof that it actually does. If you ever actually read the bible you need to read all of Leviticus and you need to doggedly follow it as you do the part you like to quote. Here's what I mean:
Homophobic bigots often quote two verses that seem to be against gay people. They appear in the book of Leviticus, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Lev 18:22) "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Lev 20:13) Look at other scripture verses in the same book (Lev.). This proves that those that are so enthusiastic about quoting the book of Lev. to affirm their prejudice against gays become awfully quiet when it comes to other verses in the very same book. They choose the Bible as the tool to affirm and legitimize hate. The truth is that they just don't like gay people. "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. His blood shall be upon him." (Lev 20:9) Imagine what would happen if we killed every child who was disrespectful to his parents. The above verse is just 3 verses before Levi 20:13, one of their favorite anti-gay scriptures. Bigots change their entire methodology of scriptural interpretation when it suits their purpose! "If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Lev 20:18) What would happen if we deported every man and woman who had ever had sex together while the woman was having her period? Fundies decline the call to take this verse literally. "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."(Lev 25:44-45) Ever wonder where racists in the 19th century got the idea that slaves were just property and not people? Directly from the above verse, which fundies don?t take literally. "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."(Lev 19:27) Fundies never preach against the evils of shaving. Maybe they would if they had a personal bias against shaving. "...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you."(Lev 11:7) The book of Lev. also prohibits the eating of pork. Fundies do not use this verse to preach against eating pork. Remember, it's about their personal prejudice against gay people, not a desire to understand what the Bible actually says. ".do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material."(Lev 19:19) Farmers in this country almost always grow more than one kind of crop in their fields. They often must do so for ecological reasons. Fundies also ignore the Biblical command to not wear clothes that have two different kinds of material. The shirts that many fundies are often wearing may be a cotton/poly blend, the most common in the USA. Stone them all! An "abomination?" Fundies also like to use Lev 18:22 to justify their anti-gay prejudice. That verse says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Perhaps you have heard some people refer to gay people as an "abomination." They get the idea directly from Lev 18:22. But did you know the Bible says that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination: "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Lev 11:10) "They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination."(Lev 11:11) "Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you."(Lev 11:12) Anti-gay fundies selectively quote the Bible and embrace those parts that justify their own personal prejudice against gays.
In truth, there are 7 or 8 passages in the bible that have been interpreted as admonitions against homosexuality. But, there are approximately 185 admonitions against heterosexuals. Does that mean god hates straight people? Just curious.
I don't believe God hates either, but hates the sin as i was pointing out. The reference to Gay and Homos is rather dumb as Gay use to mean happy. So just because words change, or a new word is invented for something, does not change the something.
yes, there are certain laws for certain things and just because we eat certain items does not make them good for us. Therefore them being an abomination to us, not it being an abomination to God.
To answer the rest in whole if i might, "what would happen" Wow, what a wonderful place if we did not have to tolerate such ignorance and you could banish them and so forth. The put to death mostly references the final death, that of your spirit, not physically for disobedience to your mother.
I can't argue much of what you said with regards to the laws. They are, what they are. Do we all follow them? No, should we? Sure, it His creation, He has the right to lay down whatever laws he wants.
But if you don't believe in my God, then none of this matters to you. You have your faith, the big bang, and i have my faith, the big God!
Amino acids have been shown to spontaneously form under laboratory conditions. But yet, it is mere speculation that organelles, and eventually whole complex cells could form on their own by mere random chance (though it would happen over a very large period of time).
I also think you are confusing evidence for proof. Evidence doesn't prove anything, it either supports a hypothesis or it helps to disprove it. The fossil record is evidence that supports the general theory of evolution, but it does not prove conclusively anything.
the ONLY thing the fossil record shows is that something DIED, it shows nothing else. Just because something died above something else dose not show evolution. There are in fact, many places that reverse such findings in other locations, and several that show trees fossilized in many layers vertically which disproves all of it.
Amino acids in a lab? So it does take intelligent to create life then??
You should read up on the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were from ~80AD, if I remember correctly.
No, God just hates sin, and sin can be found in all people. The question is: has your sin been paid for?
wait... you mean I was supposed to get a bill?
Funny story, my step-dad found a playboy under my bed when I was 13, he sent me to an all girls' Catholic boarding school to "straighten me out".....
^_^
Holy guano Batman.... I just had a revelation....
Lev 18:22 specifically says two men, and I've yet to find anything saying two women lying together is a sin!! Screw you people, Lesbians get to go to heaven!!!
Fact: fossil record. There are various species recorded in the fossil record.
Theory #1: One species has evolved into another species.
There is no proof or evidence to back this up. No laboratory experiments have ever created a new species from an old one. It is merely a speculative theory.
Theory #2: Intelligent design. The various species were created, though there has been post-creation changes within species.
There is no proof or evidence to back this up. It is merely a theory. Though, we do have ancient books that tell us this.
I'm just saying that both require a leap of faith. Theory #1 requires faith in Almighty Science. Theory #2 requires faith in Almighty God.
Lev 18:22 specifically says two men, and I've yet to find anything saying two women lying together is a sin!! Screw you people, Lesbians get to go to heaven!!!
God's plan has unfolded through the 1500 or so years the bible came to be, from Moses and the Torah to New Testament. Some things that were forbidden for the Israelites (and notice they were a theocracy), like eating shellfish, were allowed later on. However, homosexuality is condemned throughtout the entire 1500-year bible.
Why did god take so long to come up with a plan? For someone who just took 6 days to create the world 1500 years seems like a very long time. Also why did god keep changing its plan throughout those 1500 years?
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality
Fact: fossil record. There are various species recorded in the fossil record.
Theory #1: One species has evolved into another species.
There is no proof or evidence to back this up. No laboratory experiments have ever created a new species from an old one. It is merely a speculative theory.
Watch this. Can you still say there is no proof or evidence on the fossil record that one species has evolved into another one?
Now I can go back to my old high school and mock the nuns. (I have scars on my knuckles and freakish shoulders from holding out my arms with bibles in my hands. Just for kissing other girls.)
Why are you people wasting time trying to rationally argue with a bunch of zealots who have been subjected to decades of brain-washing -- and in the case of "frugality", a case of blue balls that would rival Babe the Ox.
Just make fun of them for the time being, until the Dems to take over in November, when these people will be scurrying back under their rocks, emerging only to picket funerals, and throw the occasional bomb at an abortion clinic.
Why are you people wasting time trying to rationally argue with a bunch of zealots who have been subjected to decades of brain-washing -- and in the case of "frugality", a case of blue balls that would rival Babe the Ox.
Just make fun of them for the time being, until the Dems to take over in November, when these people will be scurrying back under their rocks, emerging only to picket funerals, and throw the occasional bomb at an abortion clinic.
the ONLY thing the fossil record shows is that something DIED, it shows nothing else. Just because something died above something else dose not show evolution. There are in fact, many places that reverse such findings in other locations, and several that show trees fossilized in many layers vertically which disproves all of it.
Amino acids in a lab? So it does take intelligent to create life then??
A single fossil shows nothing important, I agree. But when you have an entire series of dated fossils that show gradual changes in structure over large periods of time, that is evidence of something. Like I said, it doesn't prove anything, but it supports the hypothesis/theory.
Creation, on the other hand, has absolutely no evidence to support it. All there is is a book of fables passed down, which people hold up as if it were proof of something.
Speaking of believing far-fetched things I read in a book, did you know that an entire island of dinosaurs has been re-populated off the coast of Coasta Rica?
Realize that that's like saying, "I believe in physics, but I have a problem with Newton's Law." You can't be an anti-fundamentalist Physicist. The fundamentals are just that...fundamental. They are core to the very belief.
If there is a truth, it is fundamental. You're saying, "I want God, but I don't want any specifics." You want a fuzzy religion with no Truth.
God is a fundamentalist, by the way.
If there is a god, there's no way that any mind as small as any human being's (relative to the mind of a god, which, by definition, has infinite wisdom and omnipotence) could possibly fathom what that god is thinking or believing or wanting us to do, or even that the god cares anything about us at all. The Bible was written by men who SAY they were "inspired" by god, but apparently we're supposed to believe them just because they said so. How convenient is that logic. It's possible that the Bible is the truth and the only truth (although in that case there's so much contradiction within the bible as to justify almost any style of monotheistic belief, from fundamentalism - and there's even debate amongst those people what that means - to, say, Unitarianism), but it's just as possible that only some of it is the truth (i.e., only some of the people who wrote it "really were" inspired by god) and it's just as possible that none of the people who wrote the Bible were inspired by god - or maybe inspired by some spiritual being other than god.
Anyone who doubts any belief espoused by someone professing to represent the word of god is simply dismissed as a non-believer - presuming that only their particular belief is the Truth. It's circular logic and totalitarian. Bigots use religious _rhetoric_ to justify hatred precisely because it provides this shelter of circular, totalitarian logic. Religious "laws" are beyond question simply because they are supposedly written by god. Ironically, this is completely opposite the point of the core of most religions at their origins - which is love and charity. Unfortunately for the charitable aspects of religion, bigots can easily convert the passion of their bigotry into pseudo-religious passion - and they're even more adamant about it in the case of sexuality, because of its inherent emotional and physical passion. Bigots use religion to justify hatred of the chosen despised minority, using texts supposedly inspired by god to condem a minority to hell in the afterlife and condem them in this life to being shunned, sanctioned, harrassed, beaten and/or killed, depending on the cultural temperature of the time or place. Some of the hatred finds validation in writings in the Bible, but all of the hatred's origin is in fear. At various points in history, this has been the case for mixed-race marriages, all ethnic and religious minorities in any country, communists, capitalists, royalty, peasants and... Samaritans - to name a few. In the case of gays, the most vehement anti-gay rhetoric comes from people who fear homosexuality within themselves, or their children, perhaps because they may have glimpsed it there, don't understand it and have always been taught to repress and hate it. It's also a fact that when people meet and get to know actual gay people usually their fear, and condemnation, melt away in due course simply because they come to understand that people are people, regardless of sexual orientation (or skin color, or cultural heritage, or, yes, religion), even if they still aren't "comfortable" around it.
Companies should stay out of politics, but, however, they don't. That includes Apple. Apple, like mostly publicly traded companies, pay millions to lobbyists to exert their influence.
With that said, who cares what others like for sex? Provided the activity is between consenting adults, I certainly don't. Freedom is about protecting ideas and behaviors that you don't necessary agree with yourself. Moreover, what is wrong with having sex with an inanimate object? Isn't that what those blow up dolls are for?
As a straight guy, I think the more gay guys the better. Less competition for me. Plus I need somebody to teach me how to dress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smurfman
I wouldn't quite put it that way, but I agree. I'm glad Apple has kept a fairly neutral stance on political issues. It's unwise for ANY company to have a bias over one political hot-bed over another. Especially, IMO, the gay movement.
Homosexuality is an obvious unnatural sexual preference folks (i.e. square peg in round hole analogy). The same reasoning that homosexuals are using could be applied to someone who may want to have a relationship with an animal or even an inanimate object or child. This general cultural focus on homosexual rights is ludicrous and irrational.
The gay group claiming Apple's sensibility to gays has a right to their view but I bet it's mostly because of Apple's neutral organizational stance on hot political issues that gives them a high level of integrity.
Realize that that's like saying, "I believe in physics, but I have a problem with Newton's Law." You can't be an anti-fundamentalist Physicist. The fundamentals are just that...fundamental. They are core to the very belief.
If there is a truth, it is fundamental. You're saying, "I want God, but I don't want any specifics." You want a fuzzy religion with no Truth.
God is a fundamentalist, by the way.
Uh, I don't feel like arguing right now, soo...
I'm an Atheist, Environmentalist, and a Pacifist. I'm anti-war, pro-choice, and I'm pulling for Obama. Respect my beliefs and I'll respect yours.
As a straight guy, I think the more gay guys the better. Less competition for me. Plus I need somebody to teach me how to dress.
Except, if you assume the proportion of homosexuals who are women follows the same spread as the ratio of men to women in the entire population, you haven't really gained any advantage.
I understand your position, however I'm not so sure you can say that he never chose to be attracted that way. He had a girlfriend, one who was a bit selfish it seemed, and it left some sore feelings at their break-up, shortly before he got involved in the furriness. I think the furriness was more of a 'fetish', and the homosexuality came from that, where it wasn't there before.
People don't choose (or change) their sexuality.
Your brother was born gay.
You may not admit it; he may not admit it; but he was born gay.
Just as most people are born straight (do people choose to be straight?!), gay people are born gay. I mean, can you tell me exactly when you "chose" to be straight?
Of course, if you're 35 years old and a virgin, my guess is that your brother is at least being more honest with himself than you are with your self.
Comments
somewhere a village is missing it's idiot.....
then you best be getting back there before they send mommy to find you
Scientists have no evidence at all that one species has evolved into another species. Only that there are different species in the fossil record.
Scientists have no evidence at all that life could come together out of a primordial soup all by itself. In fact, statistical analysis shows that in the 4 billion years that the earth has been around, not one single protein could have come together by accident, much less a single cell, much less an organism, much less complex organisms evolving from one to another.
It is only by faith that such things are believed, and this is no more 'rational', if you will, than the theory that God created everything.
Amino acids have been shown to spontaneously form under laboratory conditions. But yet, it is mere speculation that organelles, and eventually whole complex cells could form on their own by mere random chance (though it would happen over a very large period of time).
I also think you are confusing evidence for proof. Evidence doesn't prove anything, it either supports a hypothesis or it helps to disprove it. The fossil record is evidence that supports the general theory of evolution, but it does not prove conclusively anything.
Evidence doesn't prove anything, it either supports a hypothesis or it helps to disprove it. The fossil record is evidence that supports the general theory of evolution, but it does not prove conclusively anything.
Fact: fossil record. There are various species recorded in the fossil record.
Theory #1: One species has evolved into another species.
There is no proof or evidence to back this up. No laboratory experiments have ever created a new species from an old one. It is merely a speculative theory.
Theory #2: Intelligent design. The various species were created, though there has been post-creation changes within species.
There is no proof or evidence to back this up. It is merely a theory. Though, we do have ancient books that tell us this.
I'm just saying that both require a leap of faith. Theory #1 requires faith in Almighty Science. Theory #2 requires faith in Almighty God.
I don't need to be careful of what i say. I can be as offensive as i want, it's my right!!
Actually, there is no reference to "Gay" or "Homosexual" in the bible. The bible first appeared about 400 years after the crucifixion and is largely a collection of stories not written by any god or Messiah, etc. Quoting Leviticus may leave some to think you may be showing your ignorance in an attempt to hide a narrow minded and bigoted view of others. You see, Leviticus says a lot more than not lying down with other men which by the way has been interpreted to mean something about homosexuality with no proof that it actually does. If you ever actually read the bible you need to read all of Leviticus and you need to doggedly follow it as you do the part you like to quote. Here's what I mean:
Homophobic bigots often quote two verses that seem to be against gay people. They appear in the book of Leviticus, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Lev 18:22) "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Lev 20:13) Look at other scripture verses in the same book (Lev.). This proves that those that are so enthusiastic about quoting the book of Lev. to affirm their prejudice against gays become awfully quiet when it comes to other verses in the very same book. They choose the Bible as the tool to affirm and legitimize hate. The truth is that they just don't like gay people. "For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. His blood shall be upon him." (Lev 20:9) Imagine what would happen if we killed every child who was disrespectful to his parents. The above verse is just 3 verses before Levi 20:13, one of their favorite anti-gay scriptures. Bigots change their entire methodology of scriptural interpretation when it suits their purpose! "If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Lev 20:18) What would happen if we deported every man and woman who had ever had sex together while the woman was having her period? Fundies decline the call to take this verse literally. "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."(Lev 25:44-45) Ever wonder where racists in the 19th century got the idea that slaves were just property and not people? Directly from the above verse, which fundies don?t take literally. "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."(Lev 19:27) Fundies never preach against the evils of shaving. Maybe they would if they had a personal bias against shaving. "...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you."(Lev 11:7) The book of Lev. also prohibits the eating of pork. Fundies do not use this verse to preach against eating pork. Remember, it's about their personal prejudice against gay people, not a desire to understand what the Bible actually says. ".do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material."(Lev 19:19) Farmers in this country almost always grow more than one kind of crop in their fields. They often must do so for ecological reasons. Fundies also ignore the Biblical command to not wear clothes that have two different kinds of material. The shirts that many fundies are often wearing may be a cotton/poly blend, the most common in the USA. Stone them all! An "abomination?" Fundies also like to use Lev 18:22 to justify their anti-gay prejudice. That verse says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Perhaps you have heard some people refer to gay people as an "abomination." They get the idea directly from Lev 18:22. But did you know the Bible says that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination: "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Lev 11:10) "They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination."(Lev 11:11) "Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you."(Lev 11:12) Anti-gay fundies selectively quote the Bible and embrace those parts that justify their own personal prejudice against gays.
In truth, there are 7 or 8 passages in the bible that have been interpreted as admonitions against homosexuality. But, there are approximately 185 admonitions against heterosexuals. Does that mean god hates straight people? Just curious.
I don't believe God hates either, but hates the sin as i was pointing out. The reference to Gay and Homos is rather dumb as Gay use to mean happy. So just because words change, or a new word is invented for something, does not change the something.
yes, there are certain laws for certain things and just because we eat certain items does not make them good for us. Therefore them being an abomination to us, not it being an abomination to God.
To answer the rest in whole if i might, "what would happen" Wow, what a wonderful place if we did not have to tolerate such ignorance and you could banish them and so forth. The put to death mostly references the final death, that of your spirit, not physically for disobedience to your mother.
I can't argue much of what you said with regards to the laws. They are, what they are. Do we all follow them? No, should we? Sure, it His creation, He has the right to lay down whatever laws he wants.
But if you don't believe in my God, then none of this matters to you. You have your faith, the big bang, and i have my faith, the big God!
Thanks for reading....
Amino acids have been shown to spontaneously form under laboratory conditions. But yet, it is mere speculation that organelles, and eventually whole complex cells could form on their own by mere random chance (though it would happen over a very large period of time).
I also think you are confusing evidence for proof. Evidence doesn't prove anything, it either supports a hypothesis or it helps to disprove it. The fossil record is evidence that supports the general theory of evolution, but it does not prove conclusively anything.
the ONLY thing the fossil record shows is that something DIED, it shows nothing else. Just because something died above something else dose not show evolution. There are in fact, many places that reverse such findings in other locations, and several that show trees fossilized in many layers vertically which disproves all of it.
Amino acids in a lab? So it does take intelligent to create life then??
You should read up on the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were from ~80AD, if I remember correctly.
No, God just hates sin, and sin can be found in all people. The question is: has your sin been paid for?
wait... you mean I was supposed to get a bill?
Funny story, my step-dad found a playboy under my bed when I was 13, he sent me to an all girls' Catholic boarding school to "straighten me out".....
^_^
Holy guano Batman.... I just had a revelation....
Lev 18:22 specifically says two men, and I've yet to find anything saying two women lying together is a sin!! Screw you people, Lesbians get to go to heaven!!!
Fact: fossil record. There are various species recorded in the fossil record.
Theory #1: One species has evolved into another species.
There is no proof or evidence to back this up. No laboratory experiments have ever created a new species from an old one. It is merely a speculative theory.
Theory #2: Intelligent design. The various species were created, though there has been post-creation changes within species.
There is no proof or evidence to back this up. It is merely a theory. Though, we do have ancient books that tell us this.
I'm just saying that both require a leap of faith. Theory #1 requires faith in Almighty Science. Theory #2 requires faith in Almighty God.
I believe God created evolution.
.
Lev 18:22 specifically says two men, and I've yet to find anything saying two women lying together is a sin!! Screw you people, Lesbians get to go to heaven!!!
ROFLMAO!!
.
God's plan has unfolded through the 1500 or so years the bible came to be, from Moses and the Torah to New Testament. Some things that were forbidden for the Israelites (and notice they were a theocracy), like eating shellfish, were allowed later on. However, homosexuality is condemned throughtout the entire 1500-year bible.
Why did god take so long to come up with a plan? For someone who just took 6 days to create the world 1500 years seems like a very long time. Also why did god keep changing its plan throughout those 1500 years?
Fact: fossil record. There are various species recorded in the fossil record.
Theory #1: One species has evolved into another species.
There is no proof or evidence to back this up. No laboratory experiments have ever created a new species from an old one. It is merely a speculative theory.
Watch this. Can you still say there is no proof or evidence on the fossil record that one species has evolved into another one?
ROFLMAO!!
.
BWAHAHAHA!!!! I'm the Queen of the World!!!
Now I can go back to my old high school and mock the nuns. (I have scars on my knuckles and freakish shoulders from holding out my arms with bibles in my hands. Just for kissing other girls.)
Just make fun of them for the time being, until the Dems to take over in November, when these people will be scurrying back under their rocks, emerging only to picket funerals, and throw the occasional bomb at an abortion clinic.
Why are you people wasting time trying to rationally argue with a bunch of zealots who have been subjected to decades of brain-washing -- and in the case of "frugality", a case of blue balls that would rival Babe the Ox.
Just make fun of them for the time being, until the Dems to take over in November, when these people will be scurrying back under their rocks, emerging only to picket funerals, and throw the occasional bomb at an abortion clinic.
Post of the day!
.
the ONLY thing the fossil record shows is that something DIED, it shows nothing else. Just because something died above something else dose not show evolution. There are in fact, many places that reverse such findings in other locations, and several that show trees fossilized in many layers vertically which disproves all of it.
Amino acids in a lab? So it does take intelligent to create life then??
A single fossil shows nothing important, I agree. But when you have an entire series of dated fossils that show gradual changes in structure over large periods of time, that is evidence of something. Like I said, it doesn't prove anything, but it supports the hypothesis/theory.
Creation, on the other hand, has absolutely no evidence to support it. All there is is a book of fables passed down, which people hold up as if it were proof of something.
Speaking of believing far-fetched things I read in a book, did you know that an entire island of dinosaurs has been re-populated off the coast of Coasta Rica?
Realize that that's like saying, "I believe in physics, but I have a problem with Newton's Law." You can't be an anti-fundamentalist Physicist. The fundamentals are just that...fundamental. They are core to the very belief.
If there is a truth, it is fundamental. You're saying, "I want God, but I don't want any specifics." You want a fuzzy religion with no Truth.
God is a fundamentalist, by the way.
If there is a god, there's no way that any mind as small as any human being's (relative to the mind of a god, which, by definition, has infinite wisdom and omnipotence) could possibly fathom what that god is thinking or believing or wanting us to do, or even that the god cares anything about us at all. The Bible was written by men who SAY they were "inspired" by god, but apparently we're supposed to believe them just because they said so. How convenient is that logic. It's possible that the Bible is the truth and the only truth (although in that case there's so much contradiction within the bible as to justify almost any style of monotheistic belief, from fundamentalism - and there's even debate amongst those people what that means - to, say, Unitarianism), but it's just as possible that only some of it is the truth (i.e., only some of the people who wrote it "really were" inspired by god) and it's just as possible that none of the people who wrote the Bible were inspired by god - or maybe inspired by some spiritual being other than god.
Anyone who doubts any belief espoused by someone professing to represent the word of god is simply dismissed as a non-believer - presuming that only their particular belief is the Truth. It's circular logic and totalitarian. Bigots use religious _rhetoric_ to justify hatred precisely because it provides this shelter of circular, totalitarian logic. Religious "laws" are beyond question simply because they are supposedly written by god. Ironically, this is completely opposite the point of the core of most religions at their origins - which is love and charity. Unfortunately for the charitable aspects of religion, bigots can easily convert the passion of their bigotry into pseudo-religious passion - and they're even more adamant about it in the case of sexuality, because of its inherent emotional and physical passion. Bigots use religion to justify hatred of the chosen despised minority, using texts supposedly inspired by god to condem a minority to hell in the afterlife and condem them in this life to being shunned, sanctioned, harrassed, beaten and/or killed, depending on the cultural temperature of the time or place. Some of the hatred finds validation in writings in the Bible, but all of the hatred's origin is in fear. At various points in history, this has been the case for mixed-race marriages, all ethnic and religious minorities in any country, communists, capitalists, royalty, peasants and... Samaritans - to name a few. In the case of gays, the most vehement anti-gay rhetoric comes from people who fear homosexuality within themselves, or their children, perhaps because they may have glimpsed it there, don't understand it and have always been taught to repress and hate it. It's also a fact that when people meet and get to know actual gay people usually their fear, and condemnation, melt away in due course simply because they come to understand that people are people, regardless of sexual orientation (or skin color, or cultural heritage, or, yes, religion), even if they still aren't "comfortable" around it.
With that said, who cares what others like for sex? Provided the activity is between consenting adults, I certainly don't. Freedom is about protecting ideas and behaviors that you don't necessary agree with yourself. Moreover, what is wrong with having sex with an inanimate object? Isn't that what those blow up dolls are for?
As a straight guy, I think the more gay guys the better. Less competition for me. Plus I need somebody to teach me how to dress.
I wouldn't quite put it that way, but I agree. I'm glad Apple has kept a fairly neutral stance on political issues. It's unwise for ANY company to have a bias over one political hot-bed over another. Especially, IMO, the gay movement.
Homosexuality is an obvious unnatural sexual preference folks (i.e. square peg in round hole analogy). The same reasoning that homosexuals are using could be applied to someone who may want to have a relationship with an animal or even an inanimate object or child. This general cultural focus on homosexual rights is ludicrous and irrational.
The gay group claiming Apple's sensibility to gays has a right to their view but I bet it's mostly because of Apple's neutral organizational stance on hot political issues that gives them a high level of integrity.
Realize that that's like saying, "I believe in physics, but I have a problem with Newton's Law." You can't be an anti-fundamentalist Physicist. The fundamentals are just that...fundamental. They are core to the very belief.
If there is a truth, it is fundamental. You're saying, "I want God, but I don't want any specifics." You want a fuzzy religion with no Truth.
God is a fundamentalist, by the way.
Uh, I don't feel like arguing right now, soo...
I'm an Atheist, Environmentalist, and a Pacifist. I'm anti-war, pro-choice, and I'm pulling for Obama. Respect my beliefs and I'll respect yours.
As a straight guy, I think the more gay guys the better. Less competition for me. Plus I need somebody to teach me how to dress.
Except, if you assume the proportion of homosexuals who are women follows the same spread as the ratio of men to women in the entire population, you haven't really gained any advantage.
At various points in history, this has been the case for mixed-race marriages,
Get over it. We are all of mixed race.
I understand your position, however I'm not so sure you can say that he never chose to be attracted that way. He had a girlfriend, one who was a bit selfish it seemed, and it left some sore feelings at their break-up, shortly before he got involved in the furriness. I think the furriness was more of a 'fetish', and the homosexuality came from that, where it wasn't there before.
People don't choose (or change) their sexuality.
Your brother was born gay.
You may not admit it; he may not admit it; but he was born gay.
Just as most people are born straight (do people choose to be straight?!), gay people are born gay. I mean, can you tell me exactly when you "chose" to be straight?
Of course, if you're 35 years old and a virgin, my guess is that your brother is at least being more honest with himself than you are with your self.
Tim Cook, Apple's COO is gay
Google searches to verify this return this thread
But really: where is this revealed?