"US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists"

[Skaloop]

The question might be asked if such sexual practices are loving.

They certainly are when done right.

 

[Army of Juan]

The question might be asked if such sexual practices are loving.

[SIZE=-1]Love sucks, true love swallows


Sorry, it was the first thing that popped in my mind.
[/SIZE]

 

[LittleNipper]

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Former President Jimmy Carter said Friday he was embarrassed by the Georgia Department of Education proposal to eliminate the word "evolution" from the state's curriculum.

"As a Christian, a trained engineer and scientist, and a professor at Emory University, I am embarrassed by Superintendent Kathy Cox's attempt to censor and distort the education of Georgia's students," Carter said in a written statement.

Cox explained the reasoning at a news conference on Thursday and in a statement posted on the Department of Education Web site, saying that the concepts of evolution would remain in the curriculum.

"The unfortunate truth is that 'evolution' has become a controversial buzzword that could prevent some from reading the proposed biology curriculum," Cox said in her statement.

She added: "We don't want the public or our students to get stuck on a word when the curriculum actually includes the most widely accepted theories for biology. Ironically, people have become upset about the exclusion of the word again, without having read the document."

But Carter said dropping the word would leave Georgia's high school graduates "with a serious handicap as they enter college or private life where freedom of speech will be permitted."

Carter also predicted ridicule for the state, along with discredit on Georgia's university system.

"The existing and long-standing use of the word 'evolution' in our state's textbooks has not adversely affected Georgians' belief in the omnipotence of God as creator of the universe," Carter said. "There can be no incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology, biology, and astronomy.

"There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/georgia.evolution/index.html - Jan. 30, 2004

If this man is a creationist, then the word "creationist" is entirely meaningless.

The man sees that one does not promote creationism by stopping the mention of evolution. It is a shame that evolutionists do no not consider the same with regards to creationism and Intellegent Design. We might raise some intellectuals instead of fodder for the battlefield.

 

[Belk]

A child needs two parents. A male role model and a female role model. That is what comes naturally and that is what generally works the best. Why should a child (who has already lost his parents for whatever reason) settle for what can only be described as third best---- if "best" can be used at all..... It's all about the CHILD's welfare. It isn't about what the "would be parents" want. And I might remind you that a "prude" is an offensive term. And offensive terms aimed at the person and not at a behavior are something people trying not to hurt others should be aware of.

Well that makes so much more sense. They are not able to have the "best" model so lets not give them any model at all. This is not a reason, it is an excuse.


prude n. One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous.

It would seem to be the correct term for someone who is so concerned about anothers private life because of their religion. I am sorry that you felt it was offensive.

 

[PsychMJC]

The question might be asked if such sexual practices are loving.

Oooooooh ok so NOW your definition of "loving sexual practices" is the difference.. Its so hard to follow your train of thought when the damn thing isn't even on tracks...

 

[PsychMJC]

Why should a child (who has already lost his parents for whatever reason) settle for what can only be described as third best---- if "best" can be used at all.....

You make a whole lot of statements of fact that you can't back up in ANY way dontcha... Where is your evidence that shows children being raised by a same-sex couple are being brought up in a "third best" scenario.. Especially considering the evidence to the contrary..

 

[LittleNipper]

Well that makes so much more sense. They are not able to have the "best" model so lets not give them any model at all. This is not a reason, it is an excuse.


prude n. One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous.

It would seem to be the correct term for someone who is so concerned about anothers private life because of their religion. I am sorry that you felt it was offensive.

The key word is excessive---and who determines that. I feel that it is a label, and labels usually not are applied by the one on the receiving end. They are provided by someone who thinks it applies.

 

[LittleNipper]

You make a whole lot of statements of fact that you can't back up in ANY way dontcha... Where is your evidence that shows children being raised by a same-sex couple are being brought up in a "third best" scenario.. Especially considering the evidence to the contrary..

Of course I can back it up. Children are the byproduct of two individuals of two different sexes. That is a fact. If GOD wanted it any other way, HE would have designed an alternative provision. There is no evidence that shows that a homosexual "couple" can make superior parents, in general, to heterosexual married couples. The evidence to the contrary is provided by a bias element that has as it's agenda "gay" marriage.

 

[Skaloop]

Of course I can back it up. Children are the byproduct of two individuals of two different sexes. That is a fact. If GOD wanted it any other way, HE would have designed an alternative provision.

The he did. Adoption.

 

[LittleNipper]

The he did. Adoption.

Man invented adoption and man changes rules. GOD has a permissive will, but HE uses it to teach those who weigh the results.

 

[Skaloop]

Man invented adoption and man changes rules. GOD has a permissive will, but HE uses it to teach those who weigh the results.

Are you suggesting that God doesn't approve of adoption? That's what it sounds like.

 

[Belk]

The key word is excessive---and who determines that.

I gave my opinion on this, and I provided the reason I held that opinion.

I feel that it is a label, and labels usually not are applied by the one on the receiving end.

Stipulated that this is normally the case.

They are provided by someone who thinks it applies.

Correct, I believe that it applies. If you believe I am wrong feel free to give me why you feel I am in error.

Now would you be willing to address the rest of my post? If homosexual couples do not provide the "optimal" parenting model why is this a reason for providing them no model at all?

 

[PsychMJC]

Of course I can back it up. Children are the byproduct of two individuals of two different sexes. That is a fact. If GOD wanted it any other way, HE would have designed an alternative provision. There is no evidence that shows that a homosexual "couple" can make superior parents, in general, to heterosexual married couples. The evidence to the contrary is provided by a bias element that has as it's agenda "gay" marriage.

Just because a child can't be made independent of outside factors by a same-sex couple means they can't be effective parents? Thats it? I never argued simple biology. If that's all you've got its pretty weak.
So couples that can't have children without the help of modern science can't be proper parents either I suppose?
So every study done, every person that has been raised by a same-sex couple, every person who knows same-sex parents.. they are all lying for some "gay" agenda? Why would I lie for the "gay" agenda?

Edit* Why must they be SUPERIOR anyway? Isn't it good enough to be as loving and caring as a heterosexual couple?

 

[LittleNipper]

I gave my opinion on this, and I provided the reason I held that opinion.



Stipulated that this is normally the case.



Correct, I believe that it applies. If you believe I am wrong feel free to give me why you feel I am in error.

Now would you be willing to address the rest of my post? If homosexual couples do not provide the "optimal" parenting model why is this a reason for providing them no model at all?

My feeling is that it depends on the community. If a community wishes to run like Sodom and Gomorrah, as far as I'm concern, I ain't going to live there and they will reap what they sow. However, to make something a NATIONAL policy, I feel that is like putting a big bull's eye on one's back. The entire nation will suffer. My gut feeling is that the more slack one provides the more abuses one will need to deal with.

 

[LittleNipper]

Just because a child can't be made independent of outside factors by a same-sex couple means they can't be effective parents? Thats it? I never argued simple biology. If that's all you've got its pretty weak.
So couples that can't have children without the help of modern science can't be proper parents either I suppose?
So every study done, every person that has been raised by a same-sex couple, every person who knows same-sex parents.. they are all lying for some "gay" agenda? Why would I lie for the "gay" agenda?

Edit* Why must they be SUPERIOR anyway? Isn't it good enough to be as loving and caring as a heterosexual couple?

Why don't you and your spouse adopt a child? Besides, Moslim children need moslim parents. Christian children need a Christian example. Buddhist children need Buddhist parents--------------etc. At least that is the way it should go.

 

[InTheCloud]

For me the most worrisome thing is that a Huckabee presidency will increase the fundies penetration of the US military.
I find very worrisome to find that the military of the most powerful country on earth is increasely under the influence of people who do not believe in modern cosmology, biology, geology, linguistics, history. logic or scholarship. That looks at everyone to not share their religious views as the spawn of Satan. That believe the are going to be "Raptured of this building" anytime. That the US is a "christian country" but define christianity in away so narrow that most christians in the world are not christians, and openly say to the media that Muslims workship Satan, to the delight of Al Jazzera and Al Qaeda. That use the word crusade for everthing again to the delight of Al Quaeda. That seen to wait for the end of the world with cherish, even wanting to accelerate it.
That is the stuff that professional atheists like Dawkins warned us about.

 

[LittleNipper]

For me the most worrisome thing is that a Huckabee presidency will increase the fundies penetration of the US military.
I find very worrisome to find that the military of the most powerful country on earth is increasely under the influence of people who do not believe in modern cosmology, biology, geology, linguistics, history. logic or scholarship. That looks at everyone to not share their religious views as the spawn of Satan. That believe the are going to be "Raptured of this building" anytime. That the US is a "christian country" but define christianity in away so narrow that most christians in the world are not christians, and openly say to the media that Muslims workship Satan, to the delight of Al Jazzera and Al Qaeda. That use the word crusade for everthing again to the delight of Al Quaeda. That seen to wait for the end of the world with cherish, even wanting to accelerate it.
That is the stuff that professional atheists like Dawkins warned us about.

Oh well, we will be more like the Continental Army that once served these United States. They were not so bad----at least you should thank them for the freedom you seem thoughtlessly bent on making light of.

 

[Belk]

My feeling is that it depends on the community. If a community wishes to run like Sodom and Gomorrah, as far as I'm concern, I ain't going to live there and they will reap what they sow. However, to make something a NATIONAL policy, I feel that is like putting a big bull's eye on one's back. The entire nation will suffer. My gut feeling is that the more slack one provides the more abuses one will need to deal with.

I'm sorry, I am confused. I don't see how that awnsers my question. Could you clarify?

 

[flatworm]

My feeling is that it depends on the community. If a community wishes to run like Sodom and Gomorrah, as far as I'm concern, I ain't going to live there and they will reap what they sow.

What were the crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah again?

However, to make something a NATIONAL policy, I feel that is like putting a big bull's eye on one's back. The entire nation will suffer. My gut feeling is that the more slack one provides the more abuses one will need to deal with.

Can you back up your gut's claims of harm with evidence?

 

[mpok1519]

Oh well, we will be more like the Continental Army that once served these United States. They were not so bad----at least you should thank them for the freedom you seem thoughtlessly bent on making light of.

I dont think hes making light of his freedoms; hes just fears that if our leaders side with ignorance rather than enlightenment, it will spring-board us into more war and strife.

Which, I'm sorry to say, makes plenty of sense.

We elected Bush; and it hasn't been worse ever since.

thats a good example.