Posted 1 year, 5 months ago in 
Loading ...
Recently I was made aware of the same-sex commitment ceremony that aired on the season finale of the television series “Brothers and Sisters” which portrayed those who uphold traditional marriage values as bigoted and hateful.
You should know that this is a biased and inaccurate view of public opinion, as in almost every state where voters have had the opportunity to voice their opinion on this issue, have upheld the definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman.
Although I recognize that anyone has the right to enter into any kind of committed relationship they choose, I hope the media in this area will refrain from presenting content that gives such a radical and false view of what family is and has always been in this nation, founded under God and on the truth of His laws.
SHARON W. DE LOS REYES
Grand Junction
56 Responses to “Marriage should be between a man and a woman”
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 12:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
i don’t usually comment on this issue, because it makes no sense to me to fight against love, whether it be between a man and woman, 2 women, or 2 men…i’m not threatened in any way by 2 guys getting hitched, any more than i am a young straight couple….in todays’ society, with all the violence, anger and angst, we need more caring and less condemnation…and this is coming from a fairly conservative person….that doesn’t mean i want my kids hearing the gory details, mind you….sex still belongs behind closed doors, imho….besides, i do not see the harm
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Most individuals were brought up with “gender roles” all of their lives. For most, that has only been reinforced by such institutions as “marriage” or “religion.” Some people, become so deeply indoctrinated into “beliefs” that they enter into a mental state of absolutism where nothing outside of it is possible.
That type of mentality reminds me of a farmer, having 100 acres to plow, keeps going over the same furrow over and over again. The only possible consequence is that he/she digs himself in so deep such as to be unable to get out. The same thing can occur mentally or intellectually through self-indoctrination. Ms. De Los Reyes would appear to be one such person, basing her determination of the purpose of marriage based upon her personal religious convictions. She might do well to consider as to why she has any right whatever, except those based upon personal religious conviction, to dictate to others how they are to live their very own personal lives.
It would seem to me that “religions” and religious organizations have overstepped their bounds in the area of “marriage”, as some have come to believe that they “own” it. Nothing could be further from the truth.
True, a priest, pastor, minister, rabbi, etc. can execute the “marriage”, but that is because that power or authority has been granted by the state for him or her to do so. It is not the other way around, much as some of our local theocrats and zealots would like it to be so. Neither of the above can “marry” anyone; i.e. perform any “marriage”, unless a marriage license has first been issued by civil authority. Therefore “marriage” itself is a civil contract, not a religious one.
Many countries require “civil” marriage ceremonies and, if the couple wants a “religious” one, that is their choice, but not necessary. While some are deluded, and believe that the “clergy” has always had the authority to marry people in this country, and that has always been recognized by the state, that is not true either. Those who believe that are not at all versed in American history.
Perhaps we should go back to the way we were centuries ago, and as many countries still do. We should require a purely “civil” ceremony to handle the legal and civil aspects of “marriage” and, if two people want to get an additional ceremony, a religious one, that is their otion. That may assist to clarify the distinction between civil and religious aspects of what is termed “marriage”, and do away with the attempt by some “religious” individuals and organizations to establish ownership over it.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Perhaps we should go back to the way we were centuries ago, and as many countries still do. We should require a purely “civil” ceremony to handle the legal and civil aspects of “marriage” and, if two people want to get an additional ceremony, a religious one, that is their otion. ”
A quick history lesson.
Marriages were a ‘religious’ ceremony prior to any ‘civil’ government came into existence.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Marriages were a ‘religious’ ceremony prior to any ‘civil’ government came into existence.” WLJ
An even quicker (and more nearly accurate) history lesson: The WLJ statement is true only if you define “religious” to include every form of pagan worship, witchcraft, Druid ceremonies, and other forms of superstition in addition to Christianity.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If you don’t want your children to see something, change the channel.
I haven’t even heard of this show but it scares the HE-double-hockey-sticks out of me to read of the original letter writer’s desire to censor the media for content that is not even graphic or violent.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Johnson’s replies are always interesting if but for their evading issues and substituting his unsubstantiated “statements of fact.” His latest in post #3 is merely another a long string of “classics.”
“Marriages were a ‘religious’ ceremony prior to any ‘civil’ government came into existence.”
We await with bated breaths the supporting arguments for his position. Unless, of course, he has been around since the first of the homo sapiens has walked the earth. Such I doubt, even though many of the thought and concepts he hold too so tenaciously could be considered archaic.
He might do much better to study more history (if only American History) prior to writing or re-writing any, such that it conforms to what he “believes” it should be.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Not all marriages are “religious” cermonies, even today and in this country. Neither can I go back to pre-history to determine if marriage had any religious basis whatever, during those years. Mr. Johnson, in his statement merely “assumes” that there was, and probably because that is what he was told, or what he has read in some “book”, written by whom and to what purpose, we will never know.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 3:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Perhaps Mr. Laitres should study the ancient histories a little closer.
Originally, ‘marriages’ were more of an ‘exclusive mating’ than marriage.
They evolved (there’s that wird agin) into family units within the general community prior to any form of ‘civil government’ being formed.
But, as I said, it’s ancient history and has no place in the current teachings of ancient history.
No arguments Bob, just history.
For as educated as you claim to be, I find it odd that you would question this.
Is it your ‘bombastic buffoonery’ syndrome acting up again?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 4:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger,
Lets see here, you don’t want an invocation and asking you to ignore it or step outside or any of the other options are verboten.
But, if a person doesn’t want something broadcast on the airwaves that they find objectionable (for whatever reason), then your answer is
If you don’t want your children to see something, change the channel.
You don’t see the hypocrisy in this?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 4:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix, not it’s not hypocritical. It’s just the difference of what scares the heck out of me and which doesn’t.
In fact I really don’t care if there is an invocation at our City Council meetings or not.
I have just been trying to explain (ad nauseum and obviously to no avail), the notion of separation of church and state; that it does exist and that is why “the atheists” or anyone else has legal grounds for challanging prayer during public government business.
I really don’t give a hoot about it and I do believe if this issue goes to the courts it could go either way.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 4:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger,
The only ’separation of church and state’ that exists is the guarantee that congress shall pass no law making any given religion the ‘official’ religion of the United States.
Read the histories of why individual religious relocated to the colonies.
It was to escape the religious persecution of the church of England.
And the first amendment guarantees that ‘right to freely worship the religion of your choice’ shall never be infringed’.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Have anyone ever heard of a married couple going to a church and having their divorce performed by a minister? Divorces are granted by judges are they not. I think my point is obvious, but I’ll guess to some it isn’t.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 5:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I believe the Catholic Church has some rules on the subject.
But that probably wouldn’t interest you.
BTW, divorces were seldom before gubbmermints got involved with the whole process.
People made better choices when they knew going into the marriage that it was for LIFE, and not a disposable fad of the week.
Too many details though?
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 5:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“The only ’separation of church and state’ that exists is the guarantee that congress shall pass no law making any given religion the ‘official’ religion of the United States.”
Not quite, Willis.
Congress can make no law ESTABLISHING a specific religion. This has been interpreted by the courts to include government sponsorship of a specific religion, not just passing a law making one religion official.
Once again, you misunderstand.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 5:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
oh, golly, the smartest person in the whole world has spoken again.
And once again he has claimed superior knowledge on the subject.
And once again, he has placed his own personal ideology stamp of approval on his words.
Ok, in easy to understand language.
“CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”
Real plain and simple, ‘establishing a religion’ in this specific instance means giving one religion official status over any other religions.
Only in your mind could those words be misconstrued to mean that congress might have the ability to pass a law and actually ‘establish’ a whole new religion where no religion existed before.
A analogy would be that congress s forbidden from establishing Ford Motors and the official auto manufacturer in this country and all other manufacturers can be demonized and harassed legally.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 5:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually, the most rigorous prohibition against the co-mingling of state and religion is not that which many like to quote beginning with “Congress shall make no law..” It is the one prohibiting any religious test for anyone seeking public office. And that one, if it has to have any meaning whatever, has to apply to each and every person, not just government. Unfortunately, while some require others to abide by laws, and even the Constitution, they have not sufficient respect for it to abide by its provisions themselves. They forget the old adage: “If you want to change the world, start with yourself.” We all forget that, and all too frequently.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 5:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I thought most all marriages came with vows, one of which is “till death do us part.” I don’t know if divorces were seldom at some point in history, but they certainly weren’t as common as they are today today. Around 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and some divorces occur after 30-40 or years.
I know many Catholic couples (male/female) who have divorced without permission from a priest. Some fundamentalist would like to make divorce illegal.
“when they knew going into the marriage that it was for LIFE” “For life” meaning essentially forever. Very little in life (even life itself) is forever. I’ve learned to never say never or never say always when dealing with human relationships.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 5:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” “when they knew going into the marriage that it was for LIFE” “For life” meaning essentially forever. Very little in life (even life itself) is forever. I’ve learned to never say never or never say always when dealing with human relationships. ‘
150 years ago it was a truly different world.
My frst wife and I came to an understanding on the ’til death do us part’ thing’.
Our relationship had died due to opposing goals in life.
I wanted to make lots of money, and she wanted to spend lots more than I was making at the time.
Life has been good to us both since then.
Posted May 28th, 2008 at 5:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quoting Scott:
“Congress can make no law ESTABLISHING a specific religion. This has been interpreted by the courts to include government sponsorship of a specific religion, not just passing a law making one religion official.”
Thank you. I am not at all interested in how Willis interprets the First Amendment. It was Jefferson and subsequently the courts that interpreted it as government not favoring one religion over another.
But we have been through this subject, over and over. I was willing to let it rest until the hypocrisy accusation. I will try to give it up now because it’s not the subject at hand.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 8:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”
Real plain and simple, ‘establishing a religion’ in this specific instance means giving one religion official status over any other religions.”
You mean like having mostly Christian-specific prayers before city council meetings?
“Only in your mind could those words be misconstrued to mean that congress might have the ability to pass a law and actually ‘establish’ a whole new religion where no religion existed before.”
Actually, that would be your mind, because I never said that.
“A analogy would be that congress s forbidden from establishing Ford Motors and the official auto manufacturer in this country and all other manufacturers can be demonized and harassed legally.”
Which is exactly what the wall of seperation is supposed to prevent.
Glad we agree.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 9:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
” Which is exactly what the wall of seperation is supposed to prevent ”
No, the First Amendment forbids the establishment.
There is no ‘wall of separation’ in Constitutional law.
That is a strawman argument.
And in writing that phrase, Mr. Jefferson was not experiencing ’second thoughts’, nor was he clarifying his position on the subject.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 9:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s interesting that you thought the people who uphold traditional values on that episode of “Brothers and Sisters” were depicted as bigoted and hateful. The characters you refer to were the parents of one of the gay men, and they were depicted as very loving to their son, but unable to endorse gay marriage. The mother even said, “We’re not bad people” and they weren’t depicted that way. The father sent a set of cufflinks for the son to wear in the ceremony, ones that he wore in his wedding, even though he couldn’t bring himself to attend on moral and religious grounds. Sounds like loving people to me, not bigoted and hateful. I thought the depiction was very balanced and didn’t judge either side. Perhaps you should search your own heart and try to discern why you judged them that way.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 9:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think the point many people are missing is that we no longer live in the time when gays were closeted and there’s no going back. We now have have a generation of young gays and lesbians that have always been out. They don’t see themselves as “less than” or secong class and so naturally there is a push to have the same rights as the majority straight population.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 10:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“No, the First Amendment forbids the establishment.
There is no ‘wall of separation’ in Constitutional law.
That is a strawman argument.
And in writing that phrase, Mr. Jefferson was not experiencing ’second thoughts’, nor was he clarifying his position on the subject.”
Really? Then why did he write it? The letter to the Danbury Baptists is usually described as Jefferson’s explanation on what the First Amendment means as far as religious freedoms go. You should tell all those Constitutional scholars that they’ve been wrong for the last 200 years.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 4:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, do you believe the phrase, “nor the free exercise thereof” means that it would be Unconstitutional to interfere with a person expressing his religious beliefs in public?
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 5:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “Scott, do you believe the phrase, “nor the free exercise thereof” means that it would be Unconstitutional to interfere with a person expressing his religious beliefs in public?”
Twisting and turning again WLJ. That is not even the issue here. Nobody is arguing that point. Any moron is free to go out on the streets and shout whatever religious nonsense he or she wishes or pray to whichever god is believed responsible for the human condition. That is quite a different subject from the real issue: TO WIT: a tax supported government body uttering a religious invocation which clearly favors one particular religion (always Christianity-even the Jews are excluded).
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 9:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As Classof52 said, it would be unconstitutional to interfere with a PERSON expressing his religious beliefs in public.
Where do you get the idea that a government entity such as a city council has the same rights? This is not what Supreme Court decision after Supreme Court decision has determined. You can take it up with the Supreme Court if you want.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 9:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ok, just checking.
My religion says that I descended from humans.
You constant complaining is an encroachment on MY Constitutional RIGHT to the “FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.”
I keep telling you that you are free to worship whatever God you choose without interference from me.
If you choose to believe in something else that’s fine.
I’m not a government supported institution. But even if I were, my right to freely exercise cannot be infringed.
Especially not by a bunch of people who have nothing better to do than whine about another persons beliefs.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 9:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Would you folks have any objections if homosexual marriage became legal and a small business owner decided to only offer family benefits to male-female marriages?
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 10:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
No one has even suggested that you are not free to believe whatever you want. You really do like these straw men, don’t you?
And who’s whining about the beliefs of others? Have you read the letter in question? Are you sure that is what is happening? Or are you buying into all the misinformation flying around about this issue?
But if you post your opinions as facts in a public forum such as this, and they misrepresent the actual state of things, you should expect to be challenged on them.
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 10:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan: “Would you folks have any objections if homosexual marriage became legal and a small business owner decided to only offer family benefits to male-female marriages?”
It’s not a question as to whether any of us would object. I would gues that it would be an illegal distinction (though I am not an attorney). It would be seen, I suspect, in the same light as a small business owner who advertised that the starting salary for women would be $50 less per week than for men.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 7:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Scott
Posted May 29th, 2008 at 10:22 pm PM This User Report this comment
Willis,
No one has even suggested that you are not free to believe whatever you want. You really do like these straw men, don’t you?
And who’s whining about the beliefs of others? Have you read the letter in question? Are you sure that is what is happening? Or are you buying into all the misinformation flying around about this issue?
But if you post your opinions as facts in a public forum such as this, and they misrepresent the actual state of things, you should expect to be challenged on them. ”
No strawman involved scott.
By your public preaching your religion as superior to mine, you are violating MY RIGHTS.
There is no difference between you and the atheists that whine because they have to listen to something they don’t want to believe.
I believe that I descended from the HUMAN RACE, and that interferes with YOUR religion.
But I agree that you, and the rest of your race probably did evolved from apes, thereby NOT interfering with your religious beliefs.
So, STOP preaching your religion by declaring MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS to be false.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 7:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
gene, it’s a private property issue. It could also be a freedom of religion issue.
If a store owners has religious beliefs that preclude homersexyouallattea in their lives, any requirement violates their FREE EXERCISE THEREOF, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
But, if it helps destroy the United States, I can see you being all in favor of that encroachment.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 7:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
There is some evidence that a person, supposedly named Jesus, that did exist. However, it is notable that there is no evidence whatever that he, himself, never made any claim to being a “god.” That came later on, in the evolution of Christianity, along with many other things, good and bad alike.
One thing I note in most of this modern revivalism of “Christianity”, is that there is one thing missing, that is the quality of humility.
In fact, a big part of this more “modern” version is quite the opposite, it is pride and the resultant sense of superiority over others, and the devotion to materialism in the standards they use as a measure of success, be that in the weight of the collection plate, the size of their “congregation”, or in the political influence they wield. That is nothing like the version of “Christianity” that I learned. In fact, it is diametrecally opposed it.
When hearing a pastor or minister, supposedly a “person of god”, displaying their “baubles”, be it personal jewelry or a jet plane, or saying “god wants you to be rich”, “send me money and god will make you rich”, I don’t see anything resembling Christian religion, what I see are charlatans “using” religion to advance or enrich themselves. It is called “prostitution” of religion.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 7:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WSJ states, “I believe that I descended from the HUMAN RACE,” but offers no “hard evidence” as to any factual basis for that contention. How typical.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 7:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“No strawman involved scott.”
Are you sure you know what a strawman argument is? I’m guessing you THINK you do…
“By your public preaching your religion as superior to mine, you are violating MY RIGHTS.”
Two points. First, assuming you are once again referring to evolution as a religion, you are wrong by every “actual” definition of the term, not including the ones you make up. Second, I have never said or implied that by beliefs were superior to yours. Mine may more closely reflect reality, but I never said anything about superiority. By claiming I have, you are creating a strawman.
“There is no difference between you and the atheists that whine because they have to listen to something they don’t want to believe.”
You have no idea what was actually in that letter, and thus have no basis for your claim of whining.
“I believe that I descended from the HUMAN RACE, and that interferes with YOUR religion.”
Not at all. Only when you spout nonsense and claim it is what evolution said/demands/requires/etc. do you get called on it. Regardless of whether evolution is correct or not, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT IT IS WRONG!
“But I agree that you, and the rest of your race probably did evolved from apes, thereby NOT interfering with your religious beliefs.”
Strawman. I never said any such thing. Are you sure you know what a strawman is?
“So, STOP preaching your religion by declaring MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS to be false.”
I am not saying your religious beliefs are false. Your understanding of evolution clearly is, and by continuing to post such nonsense in a public forum, you are opeing it up for comment. If you don’t like being shown to be wrong, stop posting these statements.
Besides, even if evolution was a religion, which it isn’t, why wouldn’t I have just as much right to preach it in a public place as your do? Or is this a case where the minority doesn’t get the rights guaranteed by the Constitution?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 8:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
poor little scottie,
You are free to preach your religion (even though you deny your religion while doing so).
You just can’t preach against MY religion.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 8:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Sugarfoot
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 7:53 am PM This User Report this comment
WSJ states, “I believe that I descended from the HUMAN RACE,” but offers no “hard evidence” as to any factual basis for that contention. How typical. ”
Asking for hard facts?
OK, give me some hards facts on why all the different species between the Okapi(not a giraffe), and the current version of the Giraffe have managed to die off with no traces left behind, and why the current species of Giraffe was not affected.
HARD FACT mind you. Not “well, this is what our religion requires us to believe.”
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 8:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, may be time to give this argument up… it’s rather like the old saying about “beating a dead horse”…. it’s a waste of time.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 8:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
The irony in your last reply is not lost on me, coming from the person who started the thread looking for liberals who could discuss issues without name-calling. You certainly don’t seem to be a conservative who can do the same.
Please cite the article or amendment from the Constitution that makes your religion immune to criticism. You seem quite comfortable with preaching against your caricatures of evolution, which you insist on calling a religion, yet suddenly I am not allowed the same right? Hypocrisy much?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 8:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue,
Agreed, but for different reasons.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 8:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Would you care for a little more irony scott?
Your continual preaching of evolution to me is exactly the same thing you are accusing the Council members of doing to the atheists.
Just a touch of hypocrisy there little buddy.
Now, about them “hard facts” I requested?
Either hard facts, or it’s faith based, which, by default, make it a religion.
And try not to shift the goal posts again.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Not preaching - correcting. I have never said evolution is true or even proven 100%. Nothing in science ever is. We can’t say with 100% certainty that the earth goes around the sun. 99.99999% certainty perhaps, but not 100%. That’s just the nature of science. Evolution is the best explanation for the information we currently have, just like the earth going around the sun is the best explantion for the information we currently have. Both theories have withstood testing for many years. Both theories could have been disproved easily - but this has never happened. Once again, regardless of whether evolution is true or not, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT IT IS WRONG! Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
And no, correcting your misunderstanding on evolution is not the same as city council-sponsored sectarian prayer. One is Constitutional, the other is not.
As for your hard facts, Reddfrogg posted a goodly number of fossil examples for giraffes in the Creation vs. Evolution thread. I am not at all surprised you ignored them. I’ll look up more when I get home, not that I expect you will acknowledge them in the least.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Not preaching - correcting. I have never said evolution is true or even proven 100%. ‘
So, EXACTLY what percentage is “PROVEN”?
And what percentage is “FAITH BASED”?
And ‘fossil evidence’ assumes the fossil is an actual member of the evolutionary thread the archaeologist wants it to belong to?
It’s primarily a religion.
And you have been preaching, the same as an Evangelist at his podium screeching hellfire and brimstone. (except, the evangelist is a little less militant in his position)
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
I have observed, in numerous posts re; religion and evolution that you continue to assert the absence of a missing link as evidence that the evolutionary theory is statistically impossible. Although I share your disbelief of evolution from man to monkey, I must respectfully disagree with your missing link argument. I concede, in advance, that my disagreement is based on a faith based belief and careful anecdotal observation information.
To whit: On a recent hunting expedition, near the ANWAR wildlife refuge, the subject of long neck and short neck Giraffe’s and the missing link came up. In an effort to answer this question once and for all, a study was suggested, and observations made. The conclusions were then published by posting on the hunting camps communal out house wall. They are as follows. Environmental conditions DO affect length. Observations conclusively proved that the colder temperature (Celsius) was advantageous to shorter length, while the opposite temperature (Celsius) favored longer length. It was observed that the length issue was in direct proportion to temperature extremes (Celsius) above or below the freezing point of water. There was one remarkable observation of a politically liberal test subject which resulted in a controversial new theory. For the purpose of accurate record keeping, this new theory was labeled, “The little blue acorn theory”, or TLBAT. Until this theory was developed, our research observations were confined to two basic groups, the long and the short. With the advent of the TLBAT it was suggested that we were looking between the long and the short for the missing link and perhaps where we were looking accounted for the missing link. It was not a matter of the existence of a missing link. It was just clear that we were looking in the wrong place. Politically conservative members of the group suggested that the little blue acorn test subject was just an anatomical anomaly, or atypically genetically predisposed to a condition they expressed as “practically non-existent. There was even speculation that his political affiliation was a factor in his deformity. These assertions aside, there was unanimous agreement that “simply short” represented the missing link. Considering the limited number of test subjects, and the lack of a control group, it is recognized that our data may not be reflective or applicable to the whole of the population. The study did, however, indicate the possibility of a missing link and this fact should be considered, and that is the long and the short of it.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: So, EXACTLY what percentage is “PROVEN”?
And what percentage is “FAITH BASED”?
Still don’tunderstand anything about science, do you WLJ? The current theory of evolution best fits the known facts. Plain and simple! If new evidence turns up which invalidates that theory, then scientists will formulate a new theory which best fits the known facts. But don’t hold your breath. The current theory has libraries full of evidence supporting it and none against it. Religion on the other hand is purely faith based without one iota of repeatable physical evidence.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
HARD FACTS gene, not more evasion of the issues.
” Sugarfoot
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 7:53 am PM This User Report this comment
WSJ states, “I believe that I descended from the HUMAN RACE,” but offers no “hard evidence” as to any factual basis for that contention. How typical. ‘
I’m required to present “hard evidence”, so put up or shut up.
Stop trying to move the goal posts and provide ‘hard evidence’ or ‘hard facts’, your choice of terminology.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
From gay marriage to evolution, AGAIN!
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I noticed awhile back that this thread was being hijacked and I tried to steer it back on course. So much for that.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Duly noted. My response to Willis has been put in the Creations vs. Evolution thread.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: I’m required to present “hard evidence”, so put up or shut up.
But you don’t. I do (fossils are among the “hard evidence” DNA sequences are another and there are tons more) What’s yours?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 1:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
BTW gene, there is a question on the table in “that pesky ballot initiative thing”.
It’s one of those problems your egos caused for you again.
Take care of it.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 1:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nice dodge, Willis. You’re getting good at that.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 1:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
no dodge involved on my part scott.
Now, about that “hard evidence”?
Are you going to perform or not?
The goal posts haven’t moved either.
The goal is for you to present “hard evidence”.
Surely your God has supplied plenty of “hard evidence” to bolster your claims?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 2:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It looked like a dodge to me. Classof52 asked for yours (after presenting his) and you changed the subject. How is that not a dodge?
And as I told you earlier, I will look up the giraffe transitionals later this afternoon. Not that I expect them to do any good.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 2:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just remember scott, you need to prove the reason everything between the (supposedly) precursor to the Giraffe and the current version died off without killing the current as well as the (supposed) precursor.
If it was a food supply issue, explain why the lower forage lived, and the higher forage lived, but everything in between died.
Cold temperatures, as in an ice age would have killed across the board.
Earthquakes, meteors, floods, volcanic activity, etc wouldn’t be very selective either.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.