[Ilkidarios]

And tell me where the contradiction is?  Lets say a lifeform evolves on its own by random chance over trillions of years.  Lets call this "Lifeform A".  Lifeform A advances rapidly and suddenly they are able to reach the stars and extend their knowledge of the universe.  One day, Lifeform A decides to create a pet project to see if it is possible to breed lower lifeforms into ones of comparable intellect, maybe for slaves, cheap labor, or perhaps just to see if it could do it.  Lifeform A begins the long, complex process of genetic modification and selected breeding.  After thousands of years, a primitive being is created (evolution happens faster with external influence and selective breeding).  We will call the new product "Lifeform B".  Lifeform B questions its own existence and purpose, so Lifeform B decides to attribute it to the very force that created its own creators, standalone evolution.  (but of course, with an all-knowing view such as this short story, you can see that it wasn't standalone evolution, but controlled evolution that created lifeform B, but we won't tell them).  Is anyone going to create another thread about this?  I hate to intrude on a perfectly good discussion of homosexuality.
P.S. The above post doesn't represent my own beliefs. I happen to be a Methodist who believes evolution. I am simply stating what believers in non-religious Intelligent Design have said to me.

[Yui Unifex]

There are a thousand such complex, deeply abstracted possibilities on the origin of life. Science classes are not the place to choose arbitrarily. Given evolution's pivotal role in your scenario, it's clear you too believe that ID and evolution are not on equal footing.

[dragon master]

So, right here, this would mean that evolution has to be able to work without intelligent design. Since it can work without intelligent design, there is NO reason to add intelligent design in unless we have some sort of evidence for it. That is, assuming you want to follow the scientific method. If you don't, you might as well say that although we understand why birds fly. For all we know, there could be little invisible aliens that can't be measured in any way pushing them along. Well, we could never prove that not the case but there is NO reason to assume it is. Just like there is NO reason to assume that secular intelligent design is the case. It takes a perfectly valid theory(one that must be perfectly valid for the aliens to even exist) and adds unproven complications to it that do nothing to support it. We may not be able to prove we aren't the descendants of aliens, but in science, you DON'T accept something just because it hasn't been proven wrong, you need evidence that it has been proven right. This is one of the standard things that science is based upon. There are an infinite number of likely wrong things that haven't been proven wrong (let's take the existance of unicorns for example) but you don't teach that they are right in classrooms.

Oh, and by the way, the universe has only been around for 20 billion years(or less by many estimates) and wasn't in shape for life to evolve for a while after that. Even 20 billion years however is a VERY longtime. People often take large numbers and shrink them into something imaginable when immagining them, and then think they aren't large enough for, let's say life to evolve. But they have to remember that they aren't imagining the full amount of time. 20 billion years is INSANELY long. Even 300 million years is INSANELY long. Do you truly realize how much could happen in that amount of time?

[Kopribear]

*watches the Gay Rights debate fly out of the window*

HEY YOU!!

How about we stick to what the topic says we're talking about maybe? Could we take the evolution discussion to another board? Has -nothing- to do anymore w/ the GR debate.

[shadowfyr]

Right.... And why exactly is it necessary or reasonable to assume that life on earth didn't 'evolve', without guidence? Because if the supposed guides did, then why not here? Or if they where, then you keep regressing back to some point where either a) life was not yet possible or b) God did it. ID asks several false questions, but gives no suggestions about how one goes about testing if some outside force guided things. It simply insists that it 'must' have been guided. The problem is that the premise itself is false. There is no evidence of good design in genetics, but plenty of basic chemical factors that dictate that DNA can **only** work using the proteins we see. Not the combinations we see, but flat out 'only' those. Any carbon based form would have to use the same proteins. This doesn't mean some non-carbon based ones couldn't exist, just that the laws of physical and chemical reactions make anything other than what is found in our cells simply won't work, being too unstable, corrosive, etc. This hardly requires someone to have 'designed' it. The genes themselves, while they are quite complex, contain numerous errors, things where some transitional species by shear fluke passed on a trait which didn't benefit it and later got patched by something else. Mice a a good example. The segment that is 'supposed' to code for the G type protein, instead codes for the A type. The RNA literally has to derail from the 'normal' pattern, jump to a different point, then chemically modify the A type to become G, in order to fix the mistake. No guided evolution should produce such a mistake. The fact is, the only people who support ID are people that have virtually no comprehension of evolutionary biology. Their arguments for ID and against evolution are no more reasonable than a chemist talking about gravitational acceleration in space. They may have degrees, and a few barely passed the classes to 'technically' have some skill in some subject like molecular biology, but they don't know what they are talking about.

Again.. If **our** evolution was guided, all ID theorists need to do is provide a means to test that theory and evidence to support it. They have none, so science rejects it in favor of something for which real evidence does exist. Where is the supposed proof of this guidence? And why if it isn't about religion was is religious institutions like the Discover Institute that came up with it and whose pseudo-science and complete lack of accurate facts is used to defend it?

All that is required for scientists to take it seriously is proof, but all ID has provided is false accusations of close mindedness, false assertions about the existing theory and a lot of babble about 'gaps' in the theory, which exist in **all** sciences.

[shadowfyr]

Because most people don't care, the ones that do also once took the Bibles similar declaration to kill all Witches literally, but somehow figured that maybe it was stupid to do that and also completely ignore 90% of everything else in the same section of the Bible they use to condemn gays, and those not in either group are reasonable sure its either genetic or developmental and that treating them like paria is just as morally reprehensible as locking a down syndrome child in an insane asylum, because 'good people' shouldn't have to see and deal with the mentally disabled.

What more is there to say on the subject, other than to rehash the same BS arguments by the Religious Blight about why they are 'sure' Christ wanted us to continue condeming gay people (but apparently according the the same Biblical passages, not lesbians), but that its no longer OK to stone a child to death for disobeying (as just one example...).

[Ilkidarios]

I don't think Christ thought gays are evil.  I think it was probably the old testament god.  Yes, I think they are two seperate gods.  Think of the stark contrast between old testament and new testament doctrine.  One god would kill off all the children in an Egyptian city and then rain fire down from the sky onto the remainder of them, followed by an immense flood to make sure no human remains alive.  Meanwhile, the god of the new testament would attempt to teach these people to lead good lives and love their neighbors without having to set them all to fire or turn them into pillars of salt.  I would love to see someone convince me that those two polar opposite personalities are the same god.  Basically what I'm saying is that Christianity is polytheism.  Think about it.  There's three forms of god, but other Christians try to say that they are all the same guy.  I simplify it, they are seperate beings. Works for me, I can still believe in Christianity, there's nothing wrong with polytheism.

[Jazuela]

I think the Christian Bible is an epic fantasy tale with no basis in reality whatsoever.

So as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter what Jesus the Christ or the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" trinity would or would not have thought, because in MY world, they never existed in the first place. They're just fictional characters in an epic fantasy.

I say, leave religion out of legal issues completely. Gays are human beings, consenting adults, and so long as they are not committing crimes of law, such as rape, murder, fraud, etc - then they should have the same privilege of legal status in their partnerships as non-gay marriages.

Edited to point out: Even convicted criminals in jail have the right to join in legal union, and receive inheritence rights, joint tax returns, etc. Why place law-abiding citizens below convicted criminals on the food chain, just because they wish to join with someone of the same gender?

If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, the law should stay out of it and let the church reject the request. And the church should stay out of the rights for gay couples to enjoy legal benefits of civil unions. It *should* work both ways. That's the whole point of "seperation of Church and State."

[dragon master]

That's pretty much my belief to. Except that I believe the Bible has a lot of Basis on reality. There probably was a large flood somewhere in the middle-east that became Noah's flood. Lot's of the wars recorded in the Bible actualy did happen. A lot of works of Mythology are grounded in truth and then expanded upon. The Bible is the same way. Some of the events that happened in the Bible likely did happen but there has been so much Mythology added that you can't be sure about the truth of any given event(though some, you can be pretty sure didn't happen). Given this, drawing Morals from the Bible just doesn't seem that bright. But if you want to draw morals from a book that tells you that you are cursed for holding back your sword from bloodshed, that you should wipe out entire cities because a few people there aren't chrisitian, that God enjoys tearing children to pieces with bears, that Gays are evil, as are witches, as are all non-christians, then at least keep it away from our legal system.

The Ku Klux Klan had more to it than kill gays, kill blacks, and burn crosses.

But you are probably 15. Right Korabear? Failed Social Studies, didn't you? How about History?

Anyways.

Gays should be shot.
A gay flight attendant started the AIDS epidemic.
Now how many people a year are dyeing because of that on gay "Human" had to skrew another man and then another, and then another?
When supposedly that gay man he skrewed had sex with a monkey or ate one.

All those gay bastards signing up to be Catholic Priests, so they don't have to come out. So the end up touching and molesting little kids. (Blame that on me and the burning crosses Kora. go ahead)

Now I have to see the American Gay Rights Parade every year right outside my window. But if there is a Straight Rights Parade they will be arrested because that offends people.

What good has come from it?
Two people get to be happy? Woop de do dah.
They can be happy after I shoot them.

[Yui Unifex]

The course you've failed is logic. Your post has inductive fallacy written all over it.

[Kopribear]

Sweetie, before you ask if I've failed any classes. how about you pass your English/Grammar class? Yeah.

Anyway, a gay flight attendant did NOT start the AIDs epidemic. Stop using your little non-facts as backup for your disgusting views. ...Homosexuality has nothing to do with eating monkies, either. Dunno where you got that one.

Child molesters are not homosexuals usually, mmkay? One doesn't just 'become' a Catholic priest. Check out your theology before you open your hideous, undereducated mouth.

And technically no one can be arrested for a peaceful demonstration, though demonstrating for 'straight rights' would be little pointless because... what rights are straights looking for? Murder, however, is something you CAN be arrested for. ^^

BY THE WAY...
You refer to gays as 'he'. I'm betting you have no problem with lesbians... or perhaps you're one of those sick S.O.B.s who like to WATCH some 'hot girl-on-girl action' ... hmm, says something about you, doesn't it, lover?

Also... stop calling me Kora. It's Kopri. KOPRI. Thx.

<3
Kopri

[Jazuela]

What would be poetic justice, is if Destro actually manages to kill a homosexual, gets sent to jail, and becomes some big serial killer's "girlfriend."

I find that oddly amusing.

[shadowfyr]

And if it had been a straight person that ate or screwed a monkey, would it be acceptable to kill all straight people? You really are a narrow minded, irrational idiot. Heh, I know, all people of European decent should die because they brought disease to indians too, even if their family was never involved with it... You are the one that should be shot, for everyone else's protection.

[Kopribear]

*falls over laughing* *muses* hmm, Delstro as prom queen of cell block six... don't drop the soap, lover.

[Jeena]

I'm a history professor, and I can tell you right now...the Ku Klux Klan got together in order to keep blacks in their place by any means necessary. So whoever else may or may not have studied history I have.

This is the single most ridiculous and stupid statement I've heard on any forum in a decade. Where do you get your news from, the National Equirer? Come on...you cannot be an adult and hold such a stupid and simple view.

This is the remark of a childish mind. I don't care how old you are, you are obviously the one with issues. In fact, as vehemently (look this one up if you don't know the meaning) as you advocate violence against people who are different I would suggest that you probably have some hidden sexual issues that could require therapy. See a doctor, Buddy.

[Ilkidarios]

Jesus Christ did exist.  He was referenced in other historical texts of the time period.  It's not a question of whether or not he existed, it's a question of whether or not what he was saying and teaching was the truth.  It's like if I said that Caligula didn't exist because I didn't agree with his methods of dealing with things, it doesn't make him any less real, just because I can't see him now doesn't mean he didn't exist in the past.  A proper way to state your post would be "I think that God and the dieties of the Christian religion are human constructs and non-existent."  Because unlike Jesus, God isn't referenced as existing in other non-religious books. Of course, I wouldn't discount the informative nature of religious texts myself. They are great resources for historical information.

[Jazuela]

I'm sure there was a man who lived in Jerusalem, who served as a Jewish Rabbi, who went by the name Yishua (the english transliteration of the hebrew name). In fact, I wouldn't doubt it if there were several. It's not an uncommon name for the era this person was assumed to have lived in.

However I do not believed there existed a "Christ" by that name, particularly because the whole notion of "Christs" is a construct of man, who created the term after the man known as Yishua had already been dead a few hundred years.

I stand by my words: Jesus the Christ is a fantasy. As is the New Testament (all versions) which were written by various anonymous authors a hundred years after the stories were alledged to have occurred.

I also believe the Old Testament, and the Torah, are man-made fantasies, with some vague basis in history. In other words, Historical Fiction.

[Ilkidarios]

And I respect your ideas and will not try to change them.  The same way I don't think there was anything special about Gautama Siddhartha. A buddhist would try to change my opinion, but I wouldn't listen anyways.

[Singer]