Actually, according to Science...Weekly? Or some other scientific journal that's updated a lot, including my Genetics text book last year, scientists have recently been able to link a possible chain from simple atoms -> us. They're proven it's possible.However, every "leap" of evolution, from proto-cells forming in a 'soup' that would be immediately poisonous to them, to each and every microorganizm from the mitochondria to the flagellum, is basically impossible.
Last post before I go to bed....
Raistlin--
And just what kind of odds were a single one of these links? Did they explain, for example, that the "primordial soup" that could have brought about simple amino acids would also have immediately poisoned any life that could have arisen? Did they mention the odds--greater than a million-to-one--of a single protein strand, much less a cell, coming together by chance? Or any of the other millions of million-to-one coincidences, of which the theory of evolution requires millions?They're proven it's possible.
LH--Oh, this is gonna be fun....
Ahh, yes, because government-enforced anti-Christianity is just one of those little quirks.Almost all of those are just things the ACLU did that you don't agree with.
Oh yes, I forgot--having the government force the American people to recognize two homosexuals shacking up together as a legitimate marriage is right up there with... well, something, certainly.Please, fighting for the right to same sex marriage is an infringement on civil liberties?
You mean like this one here? Got anything else to declare?The only example you cited that is not immediately inaccurate and has anything to do with civil liberties being infringed upon is supporting the inprisonment of the Japanese on American soil, and based off of your other examples I'm going to declare that one bull**** until you have a link.
And since that just didn't last long enough....
Is this a result of your failure to realize that terrorism in general and the Sept. 11 attacks are not the same thing, or you lack of knowledge that "dueling" implies that two things are in opposition to each other?Dueling quotes:
"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." - George W. Bush, 9/25/02
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." - George W. Bush, 9/17/03
"Oh yes, I forgot--having the government force the American people to recognize two homosexuals shacking up together as a legitimate marriage is right up there with... well, something, certainly."
This is a touchy issue to be sure as it mixes a great many things not political, but if America likes to tout itself as the Freedom Loving Capital Of The World, it might want to give a bit more freedom in place of scorn.
"Is this a result of your failure to realize that terrorism in general and the Sept. 11 attacks are not the same thing, or you lack of knowledge that "dueling" implies that two things are in opposition to each other?"
Though I'm just guessing, I believe he was making the point that what Bush said about Saddam was quite a contradiction as he first said that they were linked together then later on said there was no link at all.
Take care all.
How the hell would they be forcing anyone to recognize anything? Is the government forcing you to listen to rap music by not making it illegal? Is the government forcing you to watch Queer Eye For The Straight Guy by not ripping it off the air?Originally Posted by The Redneck
I swear, I'll never understand this thought pattern. Is like, some strange form of masochism or something? O__o
I like Kung-Fu.
Rednecks are like punching bags once they open their mouths.
OOC:
If you're referring to Newdow, which by the way had nothing to do specifically with Christianity, he was pursuing a position of neutrality*, meaning you're free to believe in your God and teach others about it, but the government does not share that right. Period.
Seperation of Church and State is a sticky debate, but it's pretty much cut and dry that it's inappropriate for a government to promote a belief in God as being superior to a lack of belief.
*-neutrality as far as the government is concerned, not individual people
Semantics. Allow me to turn the table and use your wordplay against you. By allowing hetero-marriage, is the government forcing me to recognize something I may or may not want to? No. Are my rights being infringed? No, and if that statement had any credibility to it whatsoever, your flagrant homophobia would turn that upside down. Seriously, that has to be the worst case against homosexual marriage I have heard yet.
Conceded.
In the context of that quote, Dubya was referring to 9/11 as a subset of terrorism. Do your homework.
If you've got any other statements that need correcting, start a new thread about it because it doesn't belong here.
Last edited by LH; 03-25-2005 at 08:11 AM.
Thank you!
The ACLU is anti-Christian, eh? Well, lets just check their track record.
RICHMOND, VA -- Under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Falmouth Waterside Park Manager Brian Robinson has agreed not to prohibit baptisms in Stafford County, the ACLU announced todayNEWARK, NJ-- The State Supreme Court ruled today that a prosecutor violated the New Jersey Constitution when he removed two jurors from a jury pool, one for wearing Muslim religious clothing and another for having engaged in missionary activity.LINCOLN --The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska today announced that it would defend a Presbyterian church from a forced eviction by the city.Any questions?RICHMOND, VA--A federal judge has struck down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating, in a challenge filed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell and joined by the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, the group announced today.
Ummm... interracial marriage, maybe.Oh yes, I forgot--having the government force the American people to recognize two homosexuals shacking up together as a legitimate marriage is right up there with... well, something, certainly.
DMKA--
You every apply for a loan? Pay taxes? Get insurance? Then who the government says is or isn't married affects you, and if you're involved in these or any other business transaction, then you must acknowledge a couple as married if the government says they are.
DarkLadyNyara--
Do you really want to start counting pro- and against cases? Because I can have some fun with this one.
LH--
Ahh, so that's why jury decisions are overturned if they had access to Bibles, or mothers are told by the court what they can or can't teach their children regarding Christianity, or cross-burnings and porn are protected speech while "Lord Bless These Students" is unallowed, or why "Jesus Wept" is considered "Hate Speech"... It's one of those secret pro-Christian things, and I'm just too blinded by my bias to see it.Government forced anti-Christianity? Get a grip in reality. That statement needs no rebuttal, take a look around America for my proof. You're free to be as Christian as you want to be in your personal life.
Micheal Newdow has made a living out of anti-Christianity--and you claim I don't have a grip on reality? Take a look at the world around you!
And if you don't want to recognize normal marriage, that's your trouble. Forcing the rest of us to recognize your disorder as something legitimate (and likewise, removing every standard--why not three people? Two people and an animal? A man and his car (it's a beautiful thing)?) is not within your rights, nor is having the government force us to do so for you. As for infringing on any rights--once you move out and have to deal with the real world, you'll end up in some of the transactions I noted to DMKA.
Referring to 9-11 as a 'subset of terrorism'? Weren't you just saying something about semantics, here? Sodom had obvious links to Al-Quaeda and to other venues of terrorism. Sodom did not take part in Sept. 11. Bush said that Sodom and Al-quaeda were linked. And some time later, he said that Sodom did not take part in Sept. 11. Now, if you're trying to reinterpret what he said into something you can attack, then you'd do a whole lot better to just make up some quotes and attribute them to him. Or, you can just do your homework.
Any other corrections you need will have to wait until tomorrow.
"Forcing the rest of us to recognize your disorder as something legitimate (and likewise, removing every standard--why not three people? Two people and an animal? A man and his car (it's a beautiful thing)?) is not within your rights, nor is having the government force us to do so for you."
It is important to point out that this is just your opinion, and not a truth that must be recognized either. When we all begin to believe our opinions as fact, we skirt dangerous territory to be sure.
It's also not within the rights of the government to deny rights to its own citizens by not allowing those who wish to get married to do so. What you're using as examples makes little sense as marriage is between two PEOPLE, not three, not a person and an animal, not a person and a thing, but two PEOPLE.
If you disagree based on religious differences, that is your right. Yet, it is very hypocritcal to say what you believe is right and what others believe is wrong when law and religion should have no part of each other. Perhaps, we should take this slowly, would it be more "fair" to allow homosexuals to have civil unions?
Take care all.
That is blatantly false. Anyone who believes Saddam had links to Al Queda is wrong.Sodom had obvious links to Al-Quaeda and to other venues of terrorism.
Al Queda and Saddam were of two different religious idealogies, and did not work together. Secondly, a marriage is a contract between two adults, so all this childish 'omfg if gay people get married then people are gonna marry goats' crap is ridiculous. That's I'll all say on this topic, since anything worthwhile has been said already.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I have been saying this for years, but nobody listens!Al Queda and Saddam were of two different religious idealogies, and did not work together.
I would just like to add that the amount of people who WOULD want to marry a goat in this country is so small a number that it could never become a big deal.Secondly, a marriage is a contract between two adults, so all this childish 'omfg if gay people get married then people are gonna marry goats' crap is ridiculous.
You're welcome, I get the same. They're both led by Muslims, but of two different idealogical ends... I dont know the specifics, but I'm sure it's easy to find.
The 'goat' argument and all similar ones just comes from people who are so closed minded they cant understand anything beyond a heterosexual relationship. All they can see is something as ridiculous as a man and a goat or a woman and a chair. It just doesnt click.
If a man did want to marry a goat, he really couldnt, considering the goat cant enter into a contract, which is what marriage is, a fact that tends to escape some folks.
I don't doubt that, and while I admit that the ACLU does occasionaly go a bit far, they are not anti- christian. They just feel that religion is a personal matter, not a public one.Do you really want to start counting pro- and against cases? Because I can have some fun with this one.
THANK YOU!!!If a man did want to marry a goat, he really couldnt, considering the goat cant enter into a contract, which is what marriage is, a fact that tends to escape some folks.
Define normal. The same, and I do mean same arguments were used to pass laws against interracial marriage. As for the disorder comment, don't get me started.And if you don't want to recognize normal marriage, that's your trouble. Forcing the rest of us to recognize your disorder as something legitimate (and likewise, removing every standard--why not three people? Two people and an animal? A man and his car (it's a beautiful thing)?) is not within your rights, nor is having the government force us to do so for you. As for infringing on any rights--once you move out and have to deal with the real world, you'll end up in some of the transactions I noted to DMKA.
The ACLU has been referred to as "Athiests, Communists, and Liars Unscrupulous" and "Anti-Christian Litigation Union". It would live up to both of those names. Check their entire track record, and you'll see that they have a history of going up against anything Christian--from "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience to nativity scenes in the town park to "happy holidays" and "seasons greetings" instead of people being allowed to say "Merry Christmas".
(First of all, I don't know how to say it simple enough for y'all to figure it out. Saddam and Al-Queda were connected. Ties were discovered and verified. Saddam, however, did not have anything to do with 9/11, though Al-Queda did. Like the right hand not knowing what the left is doing...he may have known about it, but didn't play a part in it. nik0tine, if you don't believe that, it doesn't make everybody else wrong, it makes you wrong.)
The Redneck has valid arguments considering what's recognized as a normal marriage. A couple people have pointed out that a marriage is only a union between two "people", and wouldn't ever move anywhere near a union between more than one person, or a person and a non-person. Not too long ago, a marriage was considered a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. One man, one woman, that's a marriage. It it changing now, to a "union between two people". So who's to say the foundation of marriage won't be turned into even more of a joke by allowing more than two people to get married? That's not too far off from letting two guys get married.
LH: "You're free to be as Christian as you want to be in your personal life."
That's right. In my personal life, in my home and car, I can be as much of a Christian as I want to be, as long as nobody else that might get offended has to see, hear, or acknowledge it.
Posting Permissions
