Same right for every couple!

[OphidiaPhile]

In California?

In California, what state rep do you take the issue of opposing gay sex to?

Or what appellate court?

From the Prop 8 people:

It's all about schools.

http://protectmarriage.com/video/view/7

And they lied, is that hard for you to grasp?

 

[cantata]

Yeah. While "do's" seems to be the more popular spelling, I have never seen a rule that validates it. Yet that's the way I prefer spell it. In my opinion it simply looks better---familiarity breeds contentment. Or some such nonsense.

The justification is simply that punctuation is there to make things clearer, and "dos" is pretty much incomprehensible while "do's" is not.

Other than that example I can't see any other reason to put apostrophes in plurals, although occasionally one may be able to make a case for doing it if you're talking about there being more than one of a particular letter, e.g. "How many Is are there in this sentence?" is clarified considerably by the insertion of an apostrophe in "I's".

 

[WatersMoon110]

0X0 is not even a logical response but again we know that you are not one for logic and where would this move on you speak of, be, if you don't like my posts then do not read them because I am not leaving.

(emphasis mine)

Agreed. This is why CF allows us Ignore lists, so that we can ignore those posters who we do not want to see anymore. For example, when PCF seemed, to me, to have grown a sense of humor, I removed him from my Ignore list, now that he seems, to me, to be back in his perpetual bad mood (from my own observations, I of course, cannot know what anyone is actually feeling, I can only make educated guesses based on their language use), I have had to add him back. He almost lasted a whole 48 hours, too.

 

[WatersMoon110]

You remind me allot of my future father-in-law who refuses to associate with his own daughter because she wants to marry an atheist.

His loss, for sure. You are a great person, and I'm sure that she is as well (since I'm sure you also have good taste in people, and not just good taste in beer).

And we have won every battle we have had against your kind in the states that have tried to keep the alcohol percentage of beer at 6% or below as have we won every one to sell labels that you have deemed offensive like Arrogant Bastard, Satan, Lucifer and quite a few others.

Arrogant Bastard might be the best beer name ever (and its certainly one of my favorite beers, along with Double Bastard). I don't understand why anyone would try to keep "offensive" beer names off the shelves. Nobody will ever force them to buy those beers!

It's like there is this odd little moving company a short distance from our apartment. I believe it is called: "Christian Brothers' Moving" or something similar. They have the big Jesus Fish (this one

with the little t in it) as their logo. I don't think I would choose to go to them (well, I don't think we'd ever hire movers in the first place, it's too expensive) because I don't see how them being so insistent on their company being "Christian" makes me worry that they might be more RWAers and so untrustworthy with my prized possession (my pet cages and my computer).

No one (in the US) is ever forced to buy a product or service with a name they don't like. Not that I can think of, anyway.

 

[sidhe]

Ironically, I bought a 750ml bottle of Arrogant Bastard tonight.

 

[Atlantians]

Homo Sapien spin tactic, according to your bible we are of gods design so then how could we possibly be the hybridized product of two entirely separate species of Homonid which we just so happen to be.

Go ahead and post your illogical expose' and lets see just how good of a laugh we get out of non-science based science.

And which Hominids would those be?

.
Why don't you explain that bit of nonsense to me. Not only do we have hybridized DNA from Homo Sapien SapienXHomo Neanderthalensis we also have left over DNA from many other species that are our ancestors, so how does DNA prove your hypothesis?

DNA is a hyper-complex computer code. That is how.

 

[WatersMoon110]

DNA is a hyper-complex computer code. That is how.

And you think that God is just a really bad programmer? He just made us to have useless bits of dead viruses in our DNA that we share with many other species, because He wants to fool us into believing in Evolution?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

And which Hominids would those be?

I already stated them as Homo Sapien Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis.
It is always broken down as Genus, Species and Subspecies so that would be two entirely different species.

DNA is a hyper-complex computer code. That is how.

The human Genome has been mapped and we can readily distinguish DNA that has been contributed by species other that Homo Sapien, so I really get the idea yo have no idea of that which you speak.

 

[Atlantians]

The human Genome has been mapped and we can readily distinguish DNA that has been contributed by species other that Homo Sapien, so I really get the idea you have no idea of that which you speak.

I reject similarities in certain elements of an overarching computer code being evidence that there was no programmer and that the program simply developed from chance reactions over a billions years.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

I reject similarities in certain elements of an overarching computer code being evidence that there was no programmer and that the program simply developed from chance reactions over a billions years.

Ok so you just proved my assertion that you do not understand simple genetics not DNA which is not a computer code which would denote a binary code.

Human DNA has many anomalies that prove anything but an intelligent design of any kind. We have insect, primate and other DNA that is decidedly not of Homonid origin and some of these are visually expressed during gestation when we have gills and a tail among other non human visual traits.


So whether you like it or not Evolution is a theory with innumerable mounds of supporting evidence while creationism is still a hypothesis with no supporting evidence.

 

[Atlantians]

Ok so you just proved my assertion that you do not understand simple genetics

Please, do elaborate.

not DNA which is not a computer code which would denote a binary code.

It is easily comparable to a computer code.
Is DNA a digital code?

We have insect, primate and other DNA that is decidedly not of Homonid origin

You are assuming evolution a priori in your analysis.

A piece of code is a piece of code. An intelligent designer can use that code in whatever fashion he would intelligently like in any creature he would intelligently design.

and some of these are visually expressed during gestation when we have gills and a tail among other non human visual traits.

We never at any point of gestational development have gills or tails... unless of course you adhere to the Haeckelian theory that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

 

[Funny Fundie]

That is what I was thinking! Why have two different names? Just drop the one that is so loaded with prejudice: marriage.

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, the homosexual must pursue his own identity--a kind of union that clearly suits his lifestyle.

 

[WatersMoon110]

It is easily comparable to a computer code.
Is DNA a digital code?

You also show that you don't know very much about computer code either. *rolls eyes* All computer code is, on the lowest level, binary which means that each option is either 1 or 0 which corresponds to "on or off". Of course, human beings program with much higher level codes, which are compiled by other programs into something the machine can understand.

DNA has four different options, Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, or Thymine. I believe that each pairs up only with its "opposite" which means that each pair is either AT/TA or CG/GC. Though the effect of DNA on living beings can be compared to the effect of some computer programs (like an OS) on a computer, they really are not the same thing.

A piece of code is a piece of code. An intelligent designer can use that code in whatever fashion he would intelligently like in any creature he would intelligently design.

So you are saying that God is a very bad programmer?

We never at any point of gestational development have gills or tails.

No gills, just pharyngeal pouches that resemble gills. Human embryos do have a tail though, which is later reabsorbed during the fetal stage.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, the homosexual must pursue his own identity--a kind of union that clearly suits his lifestyle.

Okay, so you want marriage to be defined by the government to be what you think it is because...you think that is what marriage means?

*rolls eyes*

 

[Freodin]

Because marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore, the homosexual must pursue his own identity--a kind of union that clearly suits his lifestyle.

So marriage is between a man and a woman. Fine. No problem. My OP, if you get around to read it, has nothing to say against that.

But what is marriage? Under which authority is it? What kind of rights and duties does it include? Does your understanding of "marriage" include, say, "spouses are automatically included in each others health insurance" or any other kind of legal or social rules?

 

[cantata]

The Latin name for the human species is homo sapiens, not homo sapien. Homo sapiens is not a plural.

I'm slightly surprised that someone who works in genetics doesn't know this, OphidiaPhile!

 

[OphidiaPhile]

The Latin name for the human species is homo sapiens, not homo sapien. Homo sapiens is not a plural.

I'm slightly surprised that someone who works in genetics doesn't know this, OphidiaPhile!

Homo Sapien Sapien or Sapiens are both correct classifications as we are the nominate form ie; the first that was officially classified not the actual progenitor of the species, within the genus. If you classify as per species status then you can use either Homo Sapien or Homo Sapiens but when classifying to subspecific status Sapien Sapien (Species, Subspecies) is generally considered correct although either can and have been used. And most of these species have been classified by skeletal and dental variation and it is therefore possible that they could be reclassified if genetic criteria were used. The following are both seperate species within the genus Homo as well as subspecies of the species Sapien/Sapiens.

And by the way Homo Sapiens is singular and Homo Sapien is plural and if you truly want to pluralize it in a Latin form it would be Homines Sapientes.

Homo Sapien Sapien or Sapiens as you prefer.
H. Sapien Idaltu
H. Erectus
H. Neanderthalensis which some have synonymized with the species Sapien so therefore it would be Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis in that case.
H. Floresiensis
H. Habilis
H. Heidelbergensis which is generally considers the immediate predecessor of both Sapiens and Neanderthalensis.
H. Rudofensis
H. Georgicus
H. Ergaster
H. Antecessor
H. Rhodesisensis
H. Cepranensis

For information of structural variation within the species.
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homosapiens.htm

 

[Freodin]

Well, cantata is correct. If you use the latin designation, it is "sapiens", not "sapien". Is that an anglizised form?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Well, cantata is correct. If you use the latin designation, it is "sapiens", not "sapien". Is that an anglizised form?

They are both used by taxonomists as one is plural and one is singular, but I was also classifying to subspecies status of which Homo Sapien Sapien, Homo Sapien Sapiens and Homo Sapiens Sapiens have all been used.





Taxonomic classification


Homo Sapien Lineage at Taxonomy Browser at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)."]Homo Sapien Lineage at Taxonomy Browser at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).





http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/science/biology/taxonomy.html



Species - Homo Sapien "wise" - Language, more sophisticated tools.
Sub-species (breed, race 3 , strain)
Variety (plants)
Form or cultivar (plants)
Individual (Plants)

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Berkeley.

Typos. There is never an apostrophe in a plural, with the possible exception of "do's" as in "do's and don'ts", and even that is controversial.

Hubba-hubba. You know how I love the truth. Reality is so, so . . . oh never mind.

Same right for very couple.