| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2005 11:25:02 AM · #576 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by hokie:
How is it that people are more interested in discussing the unknowable versus the danger to our human rights? :-/ |
Not being an American I may be missing the gist of the argument in this instance. Where exactly does it say in your constitution that denying anyone the right to marry is an infringement of their rights.
Do I believe gays should have the right to marry... of course I do, but I hardly see this as a human right issue.
Ray |
Ray, the human-rights issue is not WHAT is denied or permitted, but to WHOM the law applies. Any law that targets a certain subset of the population is suspect on constitutional grounds.
Robt. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 11:49:50 AM · #577 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by hokie:
How is it that people are more interested in discussing the unknowable versus the danger to our human rights? :-/ |
Not being an American I may be missing the gist of the argument in this instance. Where exactly does it say in your constitution that denying anyone the right to marry is an infringement of their rights.
Do I believe gays should have the right to marry... of course I do, but I hardly see this as a human right issue.
Ray |
One obvious place is in the Fourteenth Amendment where it says we all have a right to equal protection (treatment) under the laws. If persons A and B are allowed to marry and get certain government benefits (like tax relief), while persons C and D are not allowed to marry and get those benefits -- merely because of their gender -- you have discrimination and unequal treatment. Rights of inheritance, medical decision-making, adoption and child support -- there's a list somewhere of about 1400 specific rights or opportunities available to a couple composed of a man and a woman, but which denied to a couple made up of two men or two women, regardless of their degree of commitment or contractual obligations to each other.
That doesn't even begin to get into the rights to privacy or freedom of association, which are either explicit or implied in the Constitution. Remember, the one overriding philosophy of the Founding Fathers was to limit as much as possible the ability of the government to intrude itself on and interfere with the personal lives of its citizens.
Message edited by author 2005-11-13 11:51:45. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 11:50:04 AM · #578 |
Thank you for the clarification Robert...I neglected to view this in the greater context.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 12:41:49 PM · #579 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
One obvious place is in the Fourteenth Amendment where it says we all have a right to equal protection (treatment) under the laws. If persons A and B are allowed to marry and get certain government benefits (like tax relief), while persons C and D are not allowed to marry and get those benefits -- merely because of their gender -- you have discrimination and unequal treatment. Rights of inheritance, medical decision-making, adoption and child support -- there's a list somewhere of about 1400 specific rights or opportunities available to a couple composed of a man and a woman, but which denied to a couple made up of two men or two women, regardless of their degree of commitment or contractual obligations to each other.
That doesn't even begin to get into the rights to privacy or freedom of association, which are either explicit or implied in the Constitution. Remember, the one overriding philosophy of the Founding Fathers was to limit as much as possible the ability of the government to intrude itself on and interfere with the personal lives of its citizens. |
Well said and stated!!! I believe the founding fathers would be rolling their eyes and pounding their fists if they were to see the "state of the Union" these days. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 02:16:45 PM · #580 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
In order to "see" something there are a number of "things" that are required. |
Again, just because you don't understand something doesn't make it impossible. Blind followers may look at your examples and nod in agreement, but even casual analysis reveals that you've demonstrated both wildly errant assumptions and ignorance of basic fact.
First of all, there's your assertion of "things" that are required for sight. There are no such requirements. Plenty of animals can see without most of your "required" elements, and you can easily form a gradual progression from simple to complex eyes merely by observing the different forms in existence today.
Many insects have compound eyes that don't move, and owls simply turn their heads to point their eyes. Sphincter-type muscles exist independently of eyes (look behind you). Most fish pupils don't dilate, but those of some sharks do, and pinhole cameras focus just fine without a lens. Fish swim in their lens cleaner, some animals lick or wet their eyes manually, and snakes have a clear scale over their eyes rather than eyelids. The transparent "vitreous humor" of jellyfish predates complex eyes. The simplest eyes are merely a few photosensitive cells that detect light and dark... as they become more and more sophisticated they can detect direction, patterns, shapes, colors, etc. A sophisitcated nervous system isn't required either- even plants can turn toward a light source. HERE'S a good reference.
The complexity of eyes continues well beyond your "requirements," too: tapetum, sensitivy to UV and infrared, stereo vision, nictitating membranes, etc... each offering specific advantages over earlier models. Same argument for hearing, Same for smell. Same for taste. Same for kidneys, livers, lungs, the reproductive organs, etc.
If that is the argument for intelligent design, then it's enormously flawed. |
I had this marked for comment, but Shannon did an excellent job. The eye is very comprehensible and explainable within the theory of evolution, but it is consistently trotted out by those who choose a faith (or ID) explanation.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 02:54:09 PM · #581 |
LOL it takes more faith to believe in evolution then creation. Look at Iraq big bangs destroy things they don't create. Until a hand comes along and puts it all back. We only use ten percent of our brains imagine if we used 15.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 03:18:33 PM · #582 |
textOriginally posted by GeneralE:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One obvious place is in the Fourteenth Amendment where it says we all have a right to equal protection (treatment) under the laws. If persons A and B are allowed to marry and get certain government benefits (like tax relief), while persons C and D are not allowed to marry and get those benefits -- merely because of their gender -- you have discrimination and unequal treatment. Rights of inheritance, medical decision-making, adoption and child support -- there's a list somewhere of about 1400 specific rights or opportunities available to a couple composed of a man and a woman, but which denied to a couple made up of two men or two women, regardless of their degree of commitment or contractual obligations to each other.
That doesn't even begin to get into the rights to privacy or freedom of association, which are either explicit or implied in the Constitution. Remember, the one overriding philosophy of the Founding Fathers was to limit as much as possible the ability of the government to intrude itself on and interfere with the personal lives of its citizens.
Well said and stated!!! I believe the founding fathers would be rolling their eyes and pounding their fists if they were to see the "state of the Union" these days.
Where does it say anywhere besides man's law that a 30,40,50 year old man should not mary a 12,13,14,15,16,17 year old girl and have sex and start a family. If its ok for the same sex to get married why stop a man a 48 year old man from getting a 13 year pregnant and getting married. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 03:22:41 PM · #583 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Ray, the human-rights issue is not WHAT is denied or permitted, but to WHOM the law applies. Any law that targets a certain subset of the population is suspect on constitutional grounds.
Robt. |
Well, the first example that pops to mind is that not all of your decent hardworking and law-abiding citizens are eligible in the eyes of the law to be elected President even if 99% of voters would vote yea.
You shouldn't allow discrimination in one place and then complain about it in another.
:-) |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 03:57:48 PM · #584 |
Originally posted by BigR:
Where does it say anywhere besides man's law that a 30,40,50 year old man should not mary a 12,13,14,15,16,17 year old girl and have sex and start a family. If its ok for the same sex to get married why stop a man a 48 year old man from getting a 13 year pregnant and getting married. |
In the same way that it is not permissable for an adult to have homosexual relationships with a minor. It doesn't say an adult woman can have sex with a minor male. Let's have no discrimination here!
Am I right in saying that the Constitution is supported by the laws passed by your government but ideally should not contradict it?
P
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 04:25:42 PM · #585 |
Originally posted by jsas:
LOL it takes more faith to believe in evolution then creation. Look at Iraq big bangs destroy things they don't create. Until a hand comes along and puts it all back. We only use ten percent of our brains imagine if we used 15. |
All of the US' multi-billion dollar experiments analysing space and background radiation discovered that which they predicted: radio interference patterns that are consistent with the multi billion dollar predictions from our best analysis of the initial stages of time in our universe, predicted by humanity's best minds and most powerful computing power over the course of half a century. All based on one theory that dozens of great men and women spent their lives analysing, assessing, predicting, testing and refining.
And you say that it is easier to believe the 5,000 year old bits of one book (rather than any other). Yup - it certainly is easier.
Message edited by author 2005-11-13 16:28:54.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 04:29:11 PM · #586 |
Originally posted by jsas:
Look at Iraq big bangs destroy things they don't create. |
Before criticizing something, it is preferable that you actually know something about it. Comparing explosions on earth with Big Bang gives hints that you've never actually read any layman's books on the subject much less professional, technical papers. Here are some links with a layman's introduction to Big Bang:
MSN - Encarta - Big Bang Theory
NASA - Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
There are also books available on the subject in the science section of your local bookstore. You could also ask professional astronomers at your nearest planetarium for recommended reading if you find you really want to find out what Big Bang proposes, its current state, and the evidence supporting it.
Originally posted by jsas:
We only use ten percent of our brains imagine if we used 15. |
... and spreading urban legends tends not to lend one credibility, |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 04:31:16 PM · #587 |
Originally posted by jsas:
big bangs destroy things they don't create |
I fear that you have forgotten about a pretty big explosion that you see every day (but not at night) that is constantly responsible for all life on this planet.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 04:38:24 PM · #588 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by jsas:
Look at Iraq big bangs destroy things they don't create. |
There are also books available on the subject in the science section of your local bookstore. |
Simon Singh's "Big Bang" is excellent - very readable. You can pass it off as a history book (which, in part, it is) if embarrassed to be seen reading it...
It also explores the creation stories of Christianity and several other world religions and peoples throughout history (geniunely teaching the alternative) before exploring the events and people behind the theory, the experiments done and the rational thought that promoted it. It also explores the genuine (and still arguable to some) scientific alternative theory of a persistent state universe.
Message edited by author 2005-11-13 16:38:59.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 04:44:41 PM · #589 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Simon Singh's "Big Bang" is excellent - very readable. |
Thank you for the recommendation. I had lingered over it at the bookstore the other day, but, with my reading list as long as it already is, I decided against purchasing it. I'll have to give it another look the next time I'm book browsing. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 04:57:14 PM · #590 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by hokie:
How is it that people are more interested in discussing the unknowable versus the danger to our human rights? :-/ |
Not being an American I may be missing the gist of the argument in this instance. Where exactly does it say in your constitution that denying anyone the right to marry is an infringement of their rights.
Do I believe gays should have the right to marry... of course I do, but I hardly see this as a human right issue.
Ray |
One obvious place is in the Fourteenth Amendment where it says we all have a right to equal protection (treatment) under the laws. If persons A and B are allowed to marry and get certain government benefits (like tax relief), while persons C and D are not allowed to marry and get those benefits -- merely because of their gender -- you have discrimination and unequal treatment. Rights of inheritance, medical decision-making, adoption and child support -- there's a list somewhere of about 1400 specific rights or opportunities available to a couple composed of a man and a woman, but which denied to a couple made up of two men or two women, regardless of their degree of commitment or contractual obligations to each other.
That doesn't even begin to get into the rights to privacy or freedom of association, which are either explicit or implied in the Constitution. Remember, the one overriding philosophy of the Founding Fathers was to limit as much as possible the ability of the government to intrude itself on and interfere with the personal lives of its citizens. |
Then you surely MUST be in favor of abolishing the "progressive" tax system, which does NOT provide for "equal" protection ( treatment ) under the law. It taxes higher income earners at a far greater rate, and eliminates income taxes entirely for lower income households.
Or are you one of the millions who would "pick and choose", declaring that some groups are more deserving of equal protection ( treatment ) than others?
FWIW, I'm in favor of the Fair Tax. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 05:06:31 PM · #591 |
| SURELY you must be in favor of a minimum wage in which someone who works a full-time job elevates one above the poverty line? |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 05:19:19 PM · #592 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Water takes up a huge amount of room... |
They did not take it ALL with them, as you say, but enough to make up the deficit. |
...and quite a deficit that would be (enough for many months after the rain stopped). Depending upon whose definition of cubit you use, the ark would be either smaller than or nearly the same size as an aircraft carrier, with up to 96,000 square feet of space (not 1.5 million). Into this space, Noah had to fit 7 PAIRS of every clean beast and fowl, and 2 PAIRS of the unclean versions (not just two of each, look it up), along with enough food and water for a year. Supposedly, the world's plant life was preserved by seed carried by the fowl for over a year. Nevermind that all plants do not produce seed or that many animals and insects can only eat one specific kind of plant (or animal) that would have to be gathered and stored. Actually, you'd need to store well over a year of food because those disembarking would face a moonscape devoid of plants, and every animal would be way up on the endangered species list.
Assuming those problems are overcome, you've got only 8 people on board to feed and care for a group of animals that would dwarf any zoo. Any waste in the lower decks must be carried to the top, and the food mustn't spoil for a year in humid, unrefrigerated conditions. There is no provision for aquatic life despite obvious problems noted earlier with salinity and pressure. |
1) The ark was ( using the shortest estimate of a cubit ( 18 inches )) 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. The floor space would have been over 100,000 square feet.
2) Noah did not take 7 PAIRS of every clean beast and fowl - he took 7 period, and other than the mating pair, the others could have been very young. Likewise, he did not take 2 PAIRS of every unclean beast. Genesis 7:2-3 "2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth."
3) Let me say it for the umpeenth time - prior to the flood, there were no carnivores.
4) Many plants, especially algaes, planktons, seaweed, etc., can survive for years without touching dirt.
5) I answered the question on salinity earlier
6) What pressure?
7)
8) No insects were taken ( unless they stowed away )
I won't bother responding to any more of your rants, because:
a) It seems that the side-thread on Noah has ended
b) It is apparent that you do not read or comprehend my answers
c) It is apparent that you are unwilling to do ANY research on your own
So, If you have any more questions, I suggest the you search at this site where the entire book of Genesis can be read online, without registration. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 05:24:01 PM · #593 |
| If evolution can be taught in school why can't creation? If we are talking about equality thats about as one sided as it gets. If the goverment should not get involed in this marriage thing, then why should they get involved at all in anything. Thank God there is still enough people on this planet that has morals enough to vote against gay marriage. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 05:32:19 PM · #594 |
Originally posted by BigR:
If evolution can be taught in school why can't creation? |
Creation stories can't be taught in a science class because they aren't science. They can, however, be taught in a comparitive religions class. See the 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 05:37:12 PM · #595 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Until the rains came, a great deal of the water was contained in the atmosphere, not in the oceans. |
The atmosphere cannot support that much water vapor (and even if it did, the increased pressure would crush poor humans).[quote]
Since this is not a NOAH question, I though I'd clear up these false statements.
1) At around 77 degrees Farenheit ( 25 degrees Celsius ) the air can hold up to 23 grams of water per cubic meter. That's around 18 kilograms of water in each "cube" of 30 meters on a side ( 900 square meters, 30 meters high ). The surface of the earth is around 510 trillion square meters. And much thicker than 30 meters. Do the math.
2) Air pressure at sea level actually DECREASES with increased humidity.
Originally posted by RonB:
Fresh-water fishes swam near the surface, salt-water fishes lower down; each in accordance with its needs. |
So saltwater animals requiring oxygen to breathe (dolphins, turtles, etc.) just swam under an extra 20,000 feet of water and held their breath for a year? Meanwhile, freshwater mussels floated? o-TAY! |
Why I believe that they breathed THEN the same way that they breathe NOW - they come to the surface.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 05:42:20 PM · #596 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by jsas:
LOL it takes more faith to believe in evolution then creation. Look at Iraq big bangs destroy things they don't create. Until a hand comes along and puts it all back. We only use ten percent of our brains imagine if we used 15. |
All of the US' multi-billion dollar experiments analysing space and background radiation discovered that which they predicted: radio interference patterns that are consistent with the multi billion dollar predictions from our best analysis of the initial stages of time in our universe, predicted by humanity's best minds and most powerful computing power over the course of half a century. All based on one theory that dozens of great men and women spent their lives analysing, assessing, predicting, testing and refining.
And you say that it is easier to believe the 5,000 year old bits of one book (rather than any other). Yup - it certainly is easier. |
That is soo fricken funny you just supported the cause of creation. Where is the evidence for evolution, any trans figured missing links any proof. and the sun quite frankly if it was any closer it would do to you what Truman did to Japan. Big Bang lol look all around you and you say it all happened by chance. So the next time you have a great photo it just happened and I see it. Hitler said give me a child until he is 5 and I will own him for the rest of his life. The communist believe the same. School is teaching monkey history as a fact. The same minds that believe Superman is real believe Darwin. Too funny.
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 05:50:09 PM · #597 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If there were no carnivores around before the Flood, what ate up all the dead herbivores? |
Maggots. And other carrion eating insects.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Doesn't any of the pre-Flood stories mention a lion or wolf? |
Not to my knowledge
Originally posted by GeneralE:
For that matter, snakes are carnivores (or oovores, which should be the same to you), and we know there was at least one of those around before the Flood.. |
Scripture isn't clear at all about oovores. Eggs are not mentioned in scripture until Job says that he thinks that the white of an egg has no flavor. I do know that SOME vegetarians eat eggs, but am assured that vegans do not. So, whether snakes ate eggs before the flood will remain a mystery to us both. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 05:52:38 PM · #598 |
Ladies and gentlemen of the international community,
I present for your entertainment and edification -- the results of homeschooling in the United States of America. Read and be afraid. Be very, VERY afraid.
Originally posted by jsas:
That is soo fricken funny you just supported the cause of creation. Where is the evidence for evolution, any trans figured missing links any proof. and the sun quite frankly if it was any closer it would do to you what Truman did to Japan. Big Bang lol look all around you and you say it all happened by chance. So the next time you have a great photo it just happened and I see it. Hitler said give me a child until he is 5 and I will own him for the rest of his life. The communist believe the same. School is teaching monkey history as a fact. The same minds that believe Superman is real believe Darwin. Too funny. |
|
|
|
|
11/13/2005 05:55:19 PM · #599 |
Originally posted by Didymus:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by Didymus:
Yes, of course I know what 'to lie with ...' means. That's exactly my point. Talmudic jews have always been extremely precise in their interpretations of matters like this so, referring to a jewish authority, we should be, too.
A man does not have sex with a man the same way he has sex with a woman, unless he's bisexual. Heterosexual men would merrily welcome sex with a woman, whereas they would reject even the thought of having to have sex with another man.
It's the same for gays, only vice versa.
Bisexuals are the only ones who don't discriminate on gender basis. |
I'll buy that (the Talmudic aspect of it) if it can be shown that in the original language this nuance was present. The translators of the bible into English, especially, are famous for bowdlerizing it, using euphemisms and allusions to replace explicit verbs.
The word "fuck", or any earlier variation of it, is not included in the bible anywhere as far as I am aware. All references to sexual intercourse are euphemistic in the bible. And in the time of King James translation, to "lie with a woman" was a common euphemism for intercourse, much the way "to sleep with" is now.
Now, if you're saying that you'd still expect a Talmudic dissection to infer from the passage that it referred to bisexuality if it were translated "to make love to a man as he would to a woman", I guess I can't argue with that :-) You'd THINK, if they wanted to be explicit, they'd just say "for a man to have carnal knowledge of another man", wouldn't you?...
R. |
Ah, but that's exactly how we read it, don't we -"to make love to a man as he would to a woman"?
Well, a gay man would not make love to a man as he would to a woman (in fact he would abhor making love to a woman altogether), ergo he can not be condemned under this clause.
I don't think I'm able to make my point much clearer than that. :-) |
But the NEW Testament says ( Romans 1:27):
"In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
Bi-sexuals do not "abandon" relations with women.
I don't think that scripture can make it much clearer than that. |
|
|
|
11/13/2005 06:07:19 PM · #600 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Good Morning! I am back and raring to go!
Since you have moved on from Noah to a certain degree, to anthropology, I will forgo asking the question that struck me at 4am this morning about koalas and kangaroos.
BUT I will return to my question as to when the Old Testament was first written down. Who first wrote it down, when did this happen and where is there a record of this ( can there be a record?). Anyway since the "stories"/"history" must have been oral tradition up to then, who knows if they are true or have been somewhat dramatised as any storyteller will do to keep audience interest. Also if any of you have played Chinese Whispers you know what happens to words after five minutes let alone 1000 years.
By the way RonB,thank you for taking my bitchy remark so graciously - blame it on late night and wine!
I am also glad to see you actually admit ( How did they get to Australia?) that you do not know something about Noah! I respect this more than you trying to explain the unexplainable ( note I didn't say untrue). Is all the information you said about the water/food/dinosaurs in the Bible in plain language? Or is it implied? Or is it the church scholars trying to answer questions like in this thread?
P |
To be honest, the bible doesn't mention dinosaurs by name. And, for what it's worth, the bible doesn't expressly say anything about taking water onto the ark. By what it DOES say, however, one must infer that IF there were land dwelling dinosaurs at the time of the great flood, then they would have been aboard the ark. Likewise, one must infer that if it only rained steadily for forty days & 40 nights, that some water must have been brought aboard. Scripture does NOT say that it never rained at all during the next 10+ months ( nor that it did ), so there is no way of estimating just how much water would have been needed in storage, or how much could have been collected in cisterns while en route. It is my OPINION that it DID rain during the voyage, because when Noah and his family exited the ark they were greated with a RAINbow.
P.S. Since this was something NEW to Noah, it would appear that there had never been any before - because prior to the flood, the atmosphere contained so much water vapor that rainbows wouldn't be visible.
Most of the Genesis story is in plain language. That is why I attempt to insert the quotations - so as not to be accused of "misinterpretation". |
|
