gay marriage

[Neon Ness]

This government was founded on christian ideals Not that everyone of the founding fathers was christian.
God is in our constitution we will have a biased christian government for a while. Its only been like...200 some years

Whether you like it or not thats the way things are for now

Marriage is viewed in the christian sense as a holy communion between a man and a woman
There is no non religious reason to deny same sex marriage that I can see. Im not trying to start a religious argument either im just saying it is what it is. I know that very soon however all mentions of religion in government will be erased. Its only a matter of time before the gays get what they want.

Another thing is many people think that the christian/religious community is the one stopping it but I dont think so. Only a very small amount of people are fighting against evolution in text books still.In my own schools there was absolutely no room for religious argument, when textbooks established evolution as a fact (its really not lol). This is a much more important issue than gay marriage ,yet no one is going crazy trying to stop it. Christians are generally pretty lazy when it comes to changing public opinion.I think the majority of americans that arnt younger than 35 disagree with gay marriage. It could be because they dont like gay people or because they grew up with the mentality that it was a bad thing. Younger people dont give a **** because....we are young lol.

Its funny because we went through this same discussion in my government class yesterday. Out of 30 people in the class one person did not raise their hand when the professor asked who is in support of gay marriage. That was me lol.

Personally I'm against it, even more gay dudes makin out in front of me...nah..i aint havin that lol
I mean if it happens i wont care but id rather it not.

S...So many blanket statements. I want to lie down for a nap...

All Christians are not lazy about changing public opinion. I'm not even sure where you got that. There are a lot of people just here on campus spreading their opinions and offering advice to others. Just because some don't listen doesn't mean we're lazy...

And if younger people "didn't give a $%#&", the world would have no future leaders and changers. Think about how young a lot of people in the Civil Rights Movement were, and also look at the age of people in Gay/Straight Alliances (if there are any at your school/community). There are a lot of people in our generation that care about world issues.

It's also sort of funny how some people said things to the effect of "I don't mind gays as long as they don't try to feel me up". It's not like being gay means they're attracted to every single member of the same sex. It's not like every straight person of the opposite sex wants to feel you up either.

I dunno. I don't mind gay people at all. I sort of agree with ph00tbag, I don't see why such large emphasis is placed on jumping over a broom if the two people are already a couple. Guess it just feels bad to be denied something like that, though.

 

[Zoro]

S...So many blanket statements. I want to lie down for a nap...

All Christians are not lazy about changing public opinion. I'm not even sure where you got that. There are a lot of people just here on campus spreading their opinions and offering advice to others. Just because some don't listen doesn't mean we're lazy...

And if younger people "didn't give a $%#&", the world would have no future leaders and changers. Think about how young a lot of people in the Civil Rights Movement were, and also look at the age of people in Gay/Straight Alliances (if there are any at your school/community). There are a lot of people in our generation that care about world issues.

It's also sort of funny how some people said things to the effect of "I don't mind gays as long as they don't try to feel me up". It's not like being gay means they're attracted to every single member of the same sex. It's not like every straight person of the opposite sex wants to feel you up either.

I dunno. I don't mind gay people at all. I sort of agree with ph00tbag, I don't see why such large emphasis is placed on jumping over a broom if the two people are already a couple. Guess it just feels bad to be denied something like that, though.

Its easy to go to your local campus and preach its another thing to get involved in politics. It is uncommon nowadays to hear about individual christians protesting certain things, most of the community just conforms with public opinion. They feel like it wont make a difference because the government is heading in that direction regardless of what they do.

Young people don't care specifically about gay marriage they don't support ALOT of things but for the most part i would say from my personal observations that in my community more than 90% of the youth are in favor or dont care.

Ive personally been felt up by gay person before and its like some kind of joke to him but it makes me feel incredibly uncomfortable. I attribute that to how common homosexuality is now. They are so open about it but if anyone feels like it is unnatural or makes them uncomfortable, they are given a bad reputation. Its a bad thing nowadays to dislike homosexual behavior. I like gay people I dislike homosexuality. I dont think Im ignorant or a bigot but im seen as both when it comes to homosexuality. Homosexuality is biologically unnatural , so I feel like I shouldnt have to feel guilty for not agreeing with it. There must be a million chemical signals in my brain going off telling me to hate it fear it and to only be attracted to women. Its only natural for me to hate it.

Its almost illegal to show discomfort now..

It takes too much time to not write blanket statements. I could say, that I estimate 83% of the people younger than 35, on television, radio, or that I have personally heard talking about these issues opposed it OR I could say young people oppose it. I think ill just stick with generalized statements for an informal forum.

If gay marriage is legalized then homosexuality must then be forever known as completely natural and not immoral. Men kissing men and women kissing women in front of playgrounds or at elementary schools will be completely fine and no one can say anything to stop it even if you feel like you don't want to subject your child to it. There are a lot of consequences for legalizing it that a lot of people don't take into account. Redefining marriage is one.Redefining morality / America's ethics and values is another
( it is not illegal for gay people to show public display of affection right now but many people consider it immoral and would say something to protest it under new laws everyone would have to tolerate it)

 

[h1roshi]

gays gays!!!!!! wanna get married!!!........if they are already together, i dont see how them getting married is gonna make any difference.

HOMOS!!!!!!

-hiro

 

[nevershootme]

in the end. a gay or lesbian couple will still be together despite if the government doesn't allow them to have a marraige license

 

[Zoro]

gays gays!!!!!! wanna get married!!!........if they are already together, i dont see how them getting married is gonna make any difference.

HOMOS!!!!!!

-hiro

Governments are made from the people, the majority
If governments accept gay marriage ,the people, the majority are accepting that it is OK. Like i said redefining our values. Its kinda a big deal. Not everyone agrees with your opinions however.Thats why the issue is so hard to get rid of. You think people haven't thought of that before...hey wait...WHATLL BE THE DIFFERENCE!? That mindset has been around forever and nothing has changed from it.

Gays arnt going away, everyone has to get used to that.
Keeping the public opinion on marriage being between a man and a woman is what people are trying to achieve. Its not about getting rid of homos its about keeping the idea of marriage sacred.

I think homosexuality should ALWAYS be legal. Marriage between them NO. That belongs to the heteros!

 

[ph00tbag]

textbooks established evolution as a fact (its really not lol).

It really is, lol.

No really, you don't even want to start with me on this. Either I'll convince you that you're absolutely wrong, or you'll never pay attention to me, refuse to see the world the way it really is, and make yourself look like a complete tool.

The best choice is just to accept that the full theory of evolution is a testable, foolproof and 100% accurate description of the basic mechanics by which biological diversity is produced. Trust me on this one, the fundamentals of modern evolutionary-genetic theory are absolutely sound and indistinguishable from hard fact. The only reason biologists in this field have any more work to do is because there are still neat ways in which mutations arise that aren't fully studied, but no find in that field will change the fundamental mechanics of evolution. Those are irrefutable fact.

If you want to know what a theory looks like that is not yet fact, check out optimality theory in linguistics, or just take a gander at modern physics.

 

[Park0o]

It really is, lol.

No really, you don't even want to start with me on this. Either I'll convince you that you're absolutely wrong, or you'll never pay attention to me, refuse to see the world the way it really is, and make yourself look like a complete tool.

The best choice is just to accept that the full theory of evolution is a testable, foolproof and 100% accurate description of the basic mechanics by which biological diversity is produced. Trust me on this one, the fundamentals of modern evolutionary-genetic theory are absolutely sound and indistinguishable from hard fact. The only reason biologists in this field have any more work to do is because there are still neat ways in which mutations arise that aren't fully studied, but no find in that field will change the fundamental mechanics of evolution. Those are irrefutable fact.

If you want to know what a theory looks like that is not yet fact, check out optimality theory in linguistics, or just take a gander at modern physics.

yay!! according to you. I came from a monkey!!!!

 

[h1roshi]

It really is, lol.

No really, you don't even want to start with me on this. Either I'll convince you that you're absolutely wrong, or you'll never pay attention to me, refuse to see the world the way it really is, and make yourself look like a complete tool.

The best choice is just to accept that the full theory of evolution is a testable, foolproof and 100% accurate description of the basic mechanics by which biological diversity is produced. Trust me on this one, the fundamentals of modern evolutionary-genetic theory are absolutely sound and indistinguishable from hard fact. The only reason biologists in this field have any more work to do is because there are still neat ways in which mutations arise that aren't fully studied, but no find in that field will change the fundamental mechanics of evolution. Those are irrefutable fact.

If you want to know what a theory looks like that is not yet fact, check out optimality theory in linguistics, or just take a gander at modern physics.

i do want to get started, i want to see your reasonings for your 100% belief in this.

-hiro

 

[ZOM~B]

a.) Doesn't matter if gay "marriage" is legal. As long as hetero sexual "married" couples get legal rights that gay couples have no means of getting, that's some major constitutional bull****.

b.) Call it "domestic pairing" I don't give a **** if the church wants a word.

c.) The fallacy that the "theory of evolution" is "not fact but a theory" lies entirely in the definition of theory. The common-use definition of theory is more of that of an idea: "contemplation or speculation." Like "I have a theory: maybe we all see different colors and we all just know them to be the same because we learned their names the same way?"

The scientific definition of theory is as follows:

a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.

These theories undergo rigorous testing and are formed completely on observation. If one exception is found the theory is completely voided in regards to that exception until it can be worked in to the theory. A scientific theory is developed by observation rather than contemplation.

 

[FlatSoda]

Everyone paints an image of how they see things in this thread.

There's been a few posts about

"Let'em marry, just don't feel up on me."


That's cool and all, but I don't think every gay man / gay woman is set out to feel up on heterosexual males/females. But that's cool if you see it that way, I'm not here to convince anyone.

Zoro has some leverage on the Christian statements there.
ph00t blew minds I bet.

But yeah, nonetheless everyone's painting their own image.
Everyone's got opinions.
We've all got voices.

Let's not turn this into a giant Shitstorm.

 

[Toobz]

Lol wtf smashers talking about gay marriage. I don't give a **** if gays get married. They just can't raise kids. It doesn't affect me, so why should I care?

 

[ph00tbag]

yay!! according to you. I came from a monkey!!!!

Please. According to my worldview, you came from a warm puddle of soggy dna.

i do want to get started, i want to see your reasonings for your 100% belief in this.

-hiro

It's not belief. It's knowledge.

http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/150/Evolution statement.pdf

For context, the people reading this are paid by some of the most highly respected institutes of higher learning to perform experiments, interpret data, debate results, and come to cogent, well-formed conclusions with real explanatory power. Not only that, but they are paid to consume massively voluminous quantities of information concerning science in all of its forms. If there is something that these people as a group don't know about science, then someone isn't doing their job. I can think of few (if any) other organizations with more authority to assert that evolution is true.

If you don't trust them not to lie to you, then it's clear that I couldn't convince you of anything, because you don't even care what the truth is.

 

[h1roshi]

homos, gays, homoes, gays, !!!!!!1 homosexuality!!!! ph00tbag!!!!! evolution, creation!!!!!! yayuhz.

-hiro

 

[Hawks go Caw]

So many people have said, "I don't care if gays can get married. Who gives a *&^(?"

They don't realize that this is the same as saying, "I don't care if gays are oppressed. Who gives a (*)&^?"

 

[AfroQT]

Christians dont believe in Dinosaurs.

 

[Park0o]

Please. According to my worldview, you came from a warm puddle of soggy dna.

nope. i prefer monkey.

I hate it when gays say that they're discriminated like the black americans before the 70's.

**** that B.S.

 

[FlatSoda]

Christians dont believe in Dinosaurs.

l o l

 

[spider_sense]

But Christians do believe in zombies. Because Jesus was the first zombie.

 

[Zoro]

It really is, lol.

No really, you don't even want to start with me on this. Either I'll convince you that you're absolutely wrong, or you'll never pay attention to me, refuse to see the world the way it really is, and make yourself look like a complete tool.

The best choice is just to accept that the full theory of evolution is a testable, foolproof and 100% accurate description of the basic mechanics by which biological diversity is produced. Trust me on this one, the fundamentals of modern evolutionary-genetic theory are absolutely sound and indistinguishable from hard fact. The only reason biologists in this field have any more work to do is because there are still neat ways in which mutations arise that aren't fully studied, but no find in that field will change the fundamental mechanics of evolution. Those are irrefutable fact.

If you want to know what a theory looks like that is not yet fact, check out optimality theory in linguistics, or just take a gander at modern physics.

It is not fact
we have seen small adaptations occurring in different species which can prove that there is some kind of evolution going on but Evolution is NOT a good origin of life theory. It does not prove how life originated it only proves how species mutate and adapt biologically. Nobody can attribute evolution to the creation of matter nobody knows if evolution can create life these are speculations from seeing only minor alterations.
In my text book it mentions how we come from primordial slime and all life came from the sea it is establishing it as fact but it is not we were not there to see it, we are speculating that based on the fact that we have absolutely no scientific explanation for the origin of life. If you remove evolution as a fullproof origin of life theory then you have no alternative there is no alternate solution if you dont believe in evolution you believe in god or the universe having intellegence. Alot of people dont like religion so evolution is their last hope. Thats why the scientific community wont let go of it. Science puts an unlimited amount more faith in chance, some mystical god called nature and imagination. History books are fool of bull**** that I cant even believe they would put there. Prehistory is completely fabricated from imagination. Its a joke now its like...we dont know how this works or how this happened...so ..IMA MAKE IT UP. I believe some things in evolution are true but you still need a universe that wants you to exist for anything to happen.Your just going in circles.You believing in random chance requires a vast more faith than any world religion.

You could absolutely never convince me that evolution can be the explanation for life and biodiversity. That is very ignorant to think that other people havnt done their research. Provide me with evidence for the theory and I will let you know how it doesnt solve anything. Evo has some good arguments but there are EXTREMELY good counter arguments. I am not going to cover my ears I will hear anything that is presented to me, i have always done so. I'm not a tool I just dont change my worldviews because people tell me...trust me...i know everything there is to know.

Christians believe in dinosaurs they are called leviathans behemoths or dragons. I dont know where you get that.

 

[ZIO]

It really is, lol.

No really, you don't even want to start with me on this. Either I'll convince you that you're absolutely wrong, or you'll never pay attention to me, refuse to see the world the way it really is, and make yourself look like a complete tool.

The best choice is just to accept that the full theory of evolution is a testable, foolproof and 100% accurate description of the basic mechanics by which biological diversity is produced. Trust me on this one, the fundamentals of modern evolutionary-genetic theory are absolutely sound and indistinguishable from hard fact. The only reason biologists in this field have any more work to do is because there are still neat ways in which mutations arise that aren't fully studied, but no find in that field will change the fundamental mechanics of evolution. Those are irrefutable fact.

If you want to know what a theory looks like that is not yet fact, check out optimality theory in linguistics, or just take a gander at modern physics.

If we came from monkeys, that was god's choice. What may seem like seven days to him may have taken millions of years to actually occur. Thus why scientists are deeming dinosaur bones far older than any human can go based on a age system that we human created and believe to be the right way to judge the age of something.

I will not accept that we came from monkeys. Related, maybe. I can understand evolution to the extent of adapting to one's environment. We wouldn't have the diversity of race if that didn't happen. But as for Darwin and his thing for monkeys I only have this as a response.

But I can see you have a strong belief for it. Everyone has a right to a belief, if they choose to be ignorant or not. And if the evolution thing is a "fact" I'll stay ignorant of it, for ignorance is bliss.

 

[ph00tbag]

It is not fact
we have seen small adaptations occurring in different species which can prove that there is some kind of evolution going on but Evolution is NOT a good origin of life theory. It does not prove how life originated it only proves how species mutate and adapt biologically. Nobody can attribute evolution to the creation of matter nobody knows if evolution can create life these are speculations from seeing only minor alterations.
In my text book it mentions how we come from primordial slime and all life came from the sea it is establishing it as fact but it is not we were not there to see it, we are speculating that based on the fact that we have absolutely no scientific explanation for the origin of life. If you remove evolution as a fullproof origin of life theory then you have no alternative there is no alternate solution if you dont believe in evolution you believe in god or the universe having intellegence. Alot of people dont like religion so evolution is their last hope. Thats why the scientific community wont let go of it. Science puts an unlimited amount more faith in chance, some mystical god called nature and imagination. History books are fool of bull**** that I cant even believe they would put there. Prehistory is completely fabricated from imagination. Its a joke now its like...we dont know how this works or how this happened...so ..IMA MAKE IT UP. I believe some things in evolution are true but you still need a universe that wants you to exist for anything to happen.Your just going in circles.You believing in random chance requires a vast more faith than any world religion.

You could absolutely never convince me that evolution can be the explanation for life and biodiversity. That is very ignorant to think that other people havnt done their research. Provide me with evidence for the theory and I will let you know how it doesnt solve anything. Evo has some good arguments but there are EXTREMELY good counter arguments.

Christians believe in dinosaurs they are called leviathans behemoths or dragons. I dont know where you get that.

So your assertion is not that it is false to assert that life started out as little more than dna wrapped in protein, but that the chemical reaction that led to life existing was not random chance?

Fine. Evolution can't and doesn't account for whether an omniscient Being willed life to begin. We can't begin to conceive of reasons all those billion years ago, but we can build a rough picture of what primordial life must have looked like based on evidence. It would be folly to assert that it all began for no reason, just as, scientifically, it would be folly to assert that it did. My science class gave no reason for life arising. I was never told, "Life began randomly for no good reason because ours is a lonely, cold existence." I was told, "Life began looking like this. Why? That's not in our scope."

Some scientists will make war out of it, but frankly, the first volley was fired by the Right, by suggesting that untestable musings should be accepted and taught as testable scientific fact in science classes. It makes them no less poor excuses for scientists, but extend blame unless you're going to do so fully.

Note that plenty of scientists are Christian, and find a way to find God without having to attempt to tear down proven scientific fact. Maybe you got unlucky, but don't you dare blame the rest of science because your teacher was a ****.

 

[Frames]

gays deserve to suffer just as much as straight couples so let them get married

 

[Zoro]

So your assertion is not that it is false to assert that life started out as little more than dna wrapped in protein, but that the chemical reaction that led to life existing was not random chance?

Fine. Evolution can't and doesn't account for whether an omniscient Being willed life to begin. We can't begin to conceive of reasons all those billion years ago, but we can build a rough picture of what primordial life must have looked like based on evidence. It would be folly to assert that it all began for no reason, just as, scientifically, it would be folly to assert that it did. My science class gave no reason for life arising. I was never told, "Life began randomly for no good reason because ours is a lonely, cold existence." I was told, "Life began looking like this. Why? That's not in our scope."

Some scientists will make war out of it, but frankly, the first volley was fired by the Right, by suggesting that untestable musings should be accepted and taught as testable scientific fact in science classes. It makes them no less poor excuses for scientists, but extend blame unless you're going to do so fully.

Note that plenty of scientists are Christian, and find a way to find God without having to attempt to tear down proven scientific fact. Maybe you got unlucky, but don't you dare blame the rest of science because your teacher was a ****.

I agree with you
however in my opinion evolution is a disprovable theory. Science should not give up trying to discover the truth of our existence. I dont believe science is bad I think absolute faith in it is bad.

 

[Hawks go Caw]

I agree with you
however in my opinion evolution is a disprovable theory. Science should not give up trying to discover the truth of our existence. I dont believe science is bad I think absolute faith in it is bad.

. . . . How can you say that when you have (or at least you're supposed to have) absolute faith in religion?

And nobody has "absolute faith" in science. If we did, we wouldn't question it and we wouldn't continue to test theories/ideas/whatevers hundreds and thousands of times daily. By "we" I mean humans and society in general.

This is what I remember about the origin of life on earth from my biology class which I took like 3 semesters ago so it's not going to be 100% accurate:
1. Earth is some huge ocean filled with proteins and enzymes and stuff (nothing's living yet)
2. Proteins were able to "live" longer and better when they stuck together. Proteins aren't actually "alive", but I can't think of another term to describe it. Proteins have a structure and can break down; by "live" I mean that they inherently want to maintain their structure. But doesn't this imply some sort of intelligence and thus life? Not really. Sort of like how atoms try to fill their outer valence shells with electrons and thus form bonds and molecules, you know? Once bonded, they try to stay bonded. It's not through any actual will of the atoms that they stay together.
3. Anyway, enough proteins came together to form a "cell."
4. Cells found that when they stuck together, they lived longer.
5. Different cell types emerged and formed colonies of cells.
6. Colonies of cells eventually became more and more organized to where they had specialized cells.
7. These colonies eventually became specialized and organized enough to be considered an organism.
8. ????
9. Profit

Anyway, I'm missing a ton of details and not all of them are 100% accurate. But I'm just typing this from memory and it gives the basic gist of things.

Oh yeah, evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive.

 

[KRiMz0N]

I am not for it. I don't approve of being Gay. I think it's an excuse for something, because I honestly can't wrap my mind around how a one would find another of the same gender any attractive beyond friendship

it's called sex

i live in a town where 60% of the high schoolers are gay

edit: also,

 

[Zoro]

. . . . How can you say that when you have (or at least you're supposed to have) absolute faith in religion?

And nobody has "absolute faith" in science. If we did, we wouldn't question it and we wouldn't continue to test theories/ideas/whatevers hundreds and thousands of times daily. By "we" I mean humans and society in general.

This is what I remember about the origin of life on earth from my biology class which I took like 3 semesters ago so it's not going to be 100% accurate:
1. Earth is some huge ocean filled with proteins and enzymes and stuff (nothing's living yet)
2. Proteins were able to "live" longer and better when they stuck together. Proteins aren't actually "alive", but I can't think of another term to describe it. Proteins have a structure and can break down; by "live" I mean that they inherently want to maintain their structure. But doesn't this imply some sort of intelligence and thus life? Not really. Sort of like how atoms try to fill their outer valence shells with electrons and thus form bonds and molecules, you know? Once bonded, they try to stay bonded. It's not through any actual will of the atoms that they stay together.
3. Anyway, enough proteins came together to form a "cell."
4. Cells found that when they stuck together, they lived longer.
5. Different cell types emerged and formed colonies of cells.
6. Colonies of cells eventually became more and more organized to where they had specialized cells.
7. These colonies eventually became specialized and organized enough to be considered an organism.
8. ????
9. Profit

Anyway, I'm missing a ton of details and not all of them are 100% accurate. But I'm just typing this from memory and it gives the basic gist of things.

Oh yeah, evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Nature as intelligence ???
nature creates new things but these things (i cant think of the word for it) are not complex they are ordered. If the chemicals in dna are just meant to mold together and A must bond with T you would not get complex strands it would only look like TATATATATATATATA. By saying nature can go outside of order and begin to be complex is giving nature intelligence.

Faith in religions is just that faith, we are supposed to. Nothing is absolute if something is disproven if god is disproven then faith is not absolute. God cannot be disproven faith remains.
If people disprove evolution then evolutionists will say there will be more discoveries in the future and this will prove natural causes for life. That is faith in science

 

[Rx-]

I have sex with men.

 

[-ACE-]

Oh yeah, evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Quoted for absolute truth.

 

[Smith]

gays deserve to suffer just as much as straight couples so let them get married

^ this, luls.


But most people who are against it, think it's a choice, when it's not..Your born that way and your hormone levels don't come out the right way, so a homosexual male would have more of the female hormone instead of the male hormone.
I'm completely with homosexuality, I support. Love is love.

 

[ph00tbag]

I agree with you
however in my opinion evolution is a disprovable theory. Science should not give up trying to discover the truth of our existence. I dont believe science is bad I think absolute faith in it is bad.

It's not just opinion. You're very right that it's disprovable. Any theory could at any point be disproven. But evolution is the most solid theory ever imagined. It's misunderstanding the nature of theories to say that just because any of them are disprovable, none of them are fact. No reputable researcher has been able to disprove evolution. Inasmuch as any human knowledge can be fact, evolution fits the bill.

This is all I'm trying to get across.

 

[Foxy]

ph00t, you are my favorite poster. I had no idea you were so amazing.

And to creationists: no matter how shaky you think evolution is, there is no way to say that there is any MORE proof for creation than evolution.

lol bcuz ther is no prewf foar creashun

 

[FlatSoda]

If I don't believe in him, why would he believe in me?


T______________________T

 

[ZIO]

ph00t, you are my favorite poster. I had no idea you were so amazing.

The man obviously knows his stuff. When you know your stuff, ain't no one gonna push a better argument than you.

He's a pretty cool guy, eh, knows his theories and is bros with darwin and doesn't afraid of anything

 

[Zoro]

These reputable researchers you speak of are evolutionists in the first place right?
There are cosmologists, astronomers, biologists, micro biologists, chemical biologists, etc that have found evidence against evolution those who were agnostic or atheist. Not reputable in your opinion though right?

Allan Rex Sandage the one time protege of Edwin Hubble ( that's right the telescope guy) has been awarded very prestigious honors from the American Astronomical Society, the Swiss Physical Society, the Royal Astronomical Society and the Swedish Academy of Sciences, received astronomy's equivalent of the Nobel prize. New York Times dubbed him the "Grand old man of cosmology"

In a conference discussing origin of life there was two sides theists and atheists. Nobody doubted that he would take the atheist side, he had been an atheist his entire life and he was 50 years old at the time. Surprisingly however he switched sides during the conference and he told the audience " the big bang, was a supernatural event that cannot be explained within the realm of physics as we know it. Science has taken us to the first event but it cant take us further to the first cause. The sudden emergence of matter, space, time, and energy pointed to the need for some kind of transcendence. It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science" He later told a reporter "It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence."

That doesn't have to do with evolution it has to do with proving creationism.
There are many reputable scientists that have evidence against evolution but they are dismissed because once you are a theist you are no longer a reputable scientist....

Maybe you only accept evolutionists as reputable.

ph00t, you are my favorite poster. I had no idea you were so amazing.

And to creationists: no matter how shaky you think evolution is, there is no way to say that there is any MORE proof for creation than evolution.

lol bcuz ther is no prewf foar creashun

amazing at reinforcing your own personal beliefs? Not too hard.
you came from nothing because of nothing for nothing. Am I a better poster in your opinion now?

Phoots good, knows his stuff and really is eloquent and easily understood unlike me. Everyone of us has our own biases though i have a faith based bias, and maybe he does too.. not a bad thing.

Of course I am a theist , but i try to post from an agnostic perspective because I was before I starting reading books from origin of life scientists.

Not trying to be a **** either lol


btw ph00t why'd u have to start this debate lol this evolution thing was this big in my first posts (.......................)
I just cant help wanting to continue a common good argument / debate lol.
Im sure u cant either
maybe we can just agree to disagree
I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind. Just wanted to establish that it is not a indisputable fact.. I wanted to debate these things in high school but you cant argue with teachers or students that have been told it is indisputable. If someone told me they think the world is flat..i wouldn't even give that person the time of day. If something is fact youd have to be stupid or ignorant to dispute it.



back to the real topic at hand!


gays right they are pretty gay yo!

 

[ph00tbag]

These reputable researchers you speak of are evolutionists in the first place right?
There are cosmologists, astronomers, biologists, micro biologists, chemical biologists, etc that have found evidence against evolution those who were agnostic or atheist. Not reputable in your opinion though right?

Allan Rex Sandage the one time protege of Edwin Hubble ( that's right the telescope guy) has been awarded very prestigious honors from the American Astronomical Society, the Swiss Physical Society, the Royal Astronomical Society and the Swedish Academy of Sciences, received astronomy's equivalent of the Nobel prize. New York Times dubbed him the "Grand old man of cosmology"

In a conference discussing origin of life there was two sides theists and atheists. Nobody doubted that he would take the atheist side, he had been an atheist his entire life and he was 50 years old at the time. Surprisingly however he switched sides during the conference and he told the audience " the big band, was a supernatural event that cannot be explained within the realm of physics as we know it. Science has taken us to the first event but it cant take us further to the first cause. The sudden emergence of matter, space, time, and energy pointed to the need for some kind of transcendence. It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science" He later told a reporter "It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence."

That doesn't have to do with evolution it has to do with proving creationism.
There are many reputable scientists that have evidence against evolution but they are dismissed because once you are a theist you are no longer a reputable scientist....

Maybe you only accept evolutionists as reputable.

btw ph00t why'd u have to start this debate lol this evolution thing was this big in my first posts (.......................)
I just cant help wanting to continue a common good argument / debate lol.

I know the evolution thing wasn't that big, but I wanted to clear up the point.

About Sandage: many religious scientists, in fact, take the spontaneity of the Big Bang, the complexity of life, the existence of consciousness, to be something that can only be explained by God. Hell, I consider myself to be spiritual, if not theist, entirely because I am conscious. Not just that I can contemplate myself, but that I can perceive instead of just sense. For a scientist to see the world this way doesn't make them disreputable.

But I'd like you to point out one real scientist who has said that life does not evolve based on genetic information. If the assertion has been made in the last decade, it should not be hard to find at all. If you can't find it tonight, you should probably assume that the only people making such claims have no credibility to begin with.

 

[Zoro]

Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun
to name a few

http://books.google.com/books?id=w_...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPP1,M1

an entire online book on the subject
you can skim it pg.168 has a good summary
http://web.mac.com/bkue/Kueppers/Home_.html
the authors biography

 

[Hawks go Caw]

Nature as intelligence ???
nature creates new things but these things (i cant think of the word for it) are not complex they are ordered. If the chemicals in dna are just meant to mold together and A must bond with T you would not get complex strands it would only look like TATATATATATATATA. By saying nature can go outside of order and begin to be complex is giving nature intelligence.

Faith in religions is just that faith, we are supposed to. Nothing is absolute if something is disproven if god is disproven then faith is not absolute. God cannot be disproven faith remains.
If people disprove evolution then evolutionists will say there will be more discoveries in the future and this will prove natural causes for life. That is faith in science

Order and complexity are not opposing ideas/qualities. If anything, order in nature is one of the most complex aspects of nature. I'm not entirely sure where you're going with the DNA analogy, but there's A,T,C,G and they can combine into as long of a string as they want and even ordering one pair differently can make a huge difference. The word CAT is completely different from the word ACT in meaning, but it's composed of the same letters. N'ah mean?

It just seemed to me that your statement of having "absolute faith" in science was a bit hypocritical since you must have absolute faith in God. You can't disprove evolution just like you can't can't prove evolution. There's evidence for it. There's probably evidence against it. But we'll never know whether or not it's true.

And even if people did have "absolute faith" in science how's that any different from the faith you have in your religion? It's their belief and they hold it to be fact. The worst that can happen is they're wrong.

---

I don't like it when people say that homosexuality can be attributed to simple genetic hormonal imbalances. Sounds to me like they're uncomfortable with the idea of people being gay just because and they're making excuses for it.

 

[Zoro]

Order and complexity are not opposing ideas/qualities. If anything, order in nature is one of the most complex aspects of nature. I'm not entirely sure where you're going with the DNA analogy, but there's A,T,C,G and they can combine into as long of a string as they want and even ordering one pair differently can make a huge difference. The word CAT is completely different from the word ACT in meaning, but it's composed of the same letters. N'ah mean?

It just seemed to me that your statement of having "absolute faith" in science was a bit hypocritical since you must have absolute faith in God. You can't disprove evolution just like you can't can't prove evolution. There's evidence for it. There's probably evidence against it. But we'll never know whether or not it's true.

And even if people did have "absolute faith" in science how's that any different from the faith you have in your religion? It's their belief and they hold it to be fact. The worst that can happen is they're wrong.

---

I don't like it when people say that homosexuality can be attributed to simple genetic hormonal imbalances. Sounds to me like they're uncomfortable with the idea of people being gay just because and they're making excuses for it.

Having faith in origin of life sciences is exactly the same as faith in religions
I was using another generalized statement. Science can be relied upon just not every issue in it.
I don't call my religion a fact . I'm saying somethings in science are not established fact.
It wouldn't bother me that people have faith in it, if people wouldn't question my intelligence for questioning evolution. I don't think your ignorant or uninformed because you believe in evolution. There are reasonable reasons why everyone believes what they believe and everyone is entitled to their opinions. In this day and age it does not take blind faith to have theistic beliefs. There is no distinction between intelligent men and unintelligent based on religious beliefs.

Also i know that the dna thing was hard to follow and a bit ambiguous. I probably shouldn't have used it since I dont know how to summarize and articulate what i'm thinking. Basically i was talking about chemical affinities like chemicals have attractions to certain other chemicals so that could explain how the 4 dna alphabet could self assemble and create protein.That does not prove it to occur from natural causes however because if the chemicals did assemble that way it would be ordered and repetitive T would bond to A creating a sequence of TATATATATA not TAGCGATCGAAATGC. I probably should have tried better the first time to convey what i was thinking.What your saying is exactly right ACT is different from CAT. To convey information you need irregularity if i typed AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA on the screen you would not understand what i was trying to convey.

In the same way DNA must have irregularities These are irregular but not random this sequence cannot be attributed to chemical affinities. So what makes this sequence? Nobody knows but evolutionists say chance or natural selection and I cant even begin to comprehend how that makes any rational sense.You have to start at the basis of all life DNA, small adaptations in species doesnt prove evolution as an origin of life science. Maybe i should change my argument, i believe evolution MAY be possible in already existing species and in very small ways, i dont believe evolution is the cause of those species. To me however that is not evolution...that is adaptation. Sort of like how i adapt to the cold by putting on a sweater except it happens biologically.

Evolution-A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Adaptation- Something, such as a device or mechanism, that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special application or situation.

 

[Foxy]

This discussion is very fun to follow.

Keep it going!

 

[CaliburChamp]

Being gay destroys family. If they decide to adopt. Marriage shouldn't be an option for gays.
Most people that become gay were raised in a bad family and had a bad child hood. And some parents dont care if they re child dresses up as a fruitcake or as a boy. It's the parents job to tell the kid when they are young, to dress like a boy if they are a boy, vice versa. Otherwise the kid will be confused for the rest of his life, its why most families that have someone gay in it are broken up families, cause they were not good parents. No one is born gay, unless they are a transgender from birth.

People only support gays to make money off them. Then there are those type of people who say anything just to be accepted in society and they accept gays as "normal" because they don't want to hurt their friends that are possibly gay.
It's just like with drugs, if you care about your friend, you would tell them to stop taking drugs.
Same thing should apply if your friend is a gay. There are consequences for being gay, they can be making the AID's virus more deadly and widespread. Just like how AID's probably came about from bestiality... and no one accepts beastiality, its not normal, and same thing with being gay, being gay isn't normal, and it isn't right. I'm saying gay people need spiritual and pyschological help, I'm not hating on them just so you guys know. They need HELP to get rid of that mindset, NOT SUPPORT for them to continue as they are.