User Profile: blinknight

blinknight

Member Since: January 17, 2013

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • July 25, 2014 at 4:30pm

    “You can hate Christians and still love the liberties and systems of government they devised. ”

    I can watch them tell lies like that too. If these liberties and systems of government were so “Christian” you might want to explain why Christians never advocated for them for 1700 years after Jesus death.

    Christianity did not civilize humanity, humanity civilized Christianity.

  • [-5] July 25, 2014 at 4:24pm

    I love how the people that want to scream evolution is a ‘lie’ and that it shouldn’t be taught in schools are always the first to turn around and claim that their side is ‘being silenced’

    There is not a conspiracy to ‘silence’ anyone. There is a crackpot who can’t let it go being told he has to go.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] July 25, 2014 at 4:21pm

    “The fossil record does not support evolutionary theory.”

    Are you…

    1) Ignorant, and unaware that the fossil record supports evolution.
    2) Lying, you are aware that it does and choose to lie anyway

    Pick one and if you think there’s an ‘option 3′? Be sure and tell these people about it.

    http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] July 25, 2014 at 4:20pm

    “Live mollusks have been dated as millions of years old”

    You might want to actually go to school and learn a few things.

    Go ahead, guess what we know for a fact we can’t use carbon dating on? Just… Just guess what we’ve known for decades and decades.

    Aside from that, there are about 40 different dating methods. If our understanding of chemistry and physics was so fundamentally flawed that we had 40 different techniques that were all off by factors of 500,000 to 750,000x then nothing we have from our rockets to our computers would work.

    Yes, we do know how things can fossilize rapidly. Guess what else we know? How to tell the difference between rapid and slow fossilization. If somebody told you fossilization ALWAYS takes very long periods of time, I’m sorry, they were mistaken.

    Responses (3) +
  • [2] July 25, 2014 at 4:15pm

    Facts mix similarly well with theists.

    Responses (3) +
  • [3] July 25, 2014 at 4:13pm

    “Isn’t college supposed to explore any and all ideas. And then debate.”

    Yes, all the ideas are explored and debated.

    When there is evidence to support them.

  • [2] July 25, 2014 at 4:13pm

    “Why not try to scientifically refute the man’s claims?”

    They did and as with most creationists he didn’t accept it.

  • [5] July 25, 2014 at 4:12pm

    Somebody drew a picture of a guy with a big S on his chest that could fly and shoot lasers from his eyes, that must mean he’s real.

    The actual evidence that we can examine says humans and dinosaurs did not exist together at the same time. The amount of evidence that supports this is absolutely irrefutable. You have ‘drawings on a wall’, we have the entirety of the fossil record, in which you will never, ever, find the remains of any human intermixed with the remains of a dinosaur.

  • July 25, 2014 at 4:09pm

    “just publishing facts that line up with a Biblical paradigm and refute the “party line” of Darwinism”

    No, you don’t get fired for that. You get fired for misrepresenting your findings. Which is what he did.

    Responses (2) +
  • [2] July 25, 2014 at 2:49pm

    Yes, I’m aware of the meaningless accolades religion associates with it but as always the hubris of assuming that only marriages done under the specific direction of your religion ‘count’ never ceases to amaze me. Marriage has gone on for thousands of years before your religion and continues to go all over the world in regions largely absent of your religion.

    But as I say, it’s just silly that you want to change everyone to ‘civil union’ just so you can keep the term marriage all to yourself. The funny thing will be, that besides making it mean nothing legally, you’re also by default making gay marriage legal too because without the law associated with it, there’s nothing stopping them, and as I just pointed out your religion does not have a monopoly on it, so they could get married all they wanted.

    And their marriage would be just as recognized and valid as yours.

    You haven’t thought this cunning plan through all the way have you?

  • [2] July 25, 2014 at 2:44pm

    So you’re not actually going to answer the question.

    Why does the court consistently rule against the argument you’re making?

    Let me guess, activist judges? So that sort of makes me wonder: If that’s the case why aren’t they also ruling against your position on the 2nd Amendment. There’s a consistent trend here: They rule in favor of the right of gun ownership and in favor of the separation of church and state.

    So again, I say, you can jump up and down about ‘the exact words’, the rest of us will go with ‘the original intent’, and it is because of the original intent that courts keep ruling against the argument you’re making on church/state separation.

  • July 25, 2014 at 1:46pm

    Actually the way you’re talking about it? The civil union will be the only thing that even matters. Nobody will care if you’re married because it has no legal recognition.

    In fact the system you propose would cause ‘marriage’ to become a thing of the past and a quaint antiquity within 20 years.

  • [1] July 25, 2014 at 1:44pm

    @Texas

    What is this, some reflection of the post I made earlier about somebody claiming to ‘not care’? I never said I don’t care about what you had to say, I said I don’t care whether you accept facts or not. I always care about what people have to say, even if I think its wrong or stupid because you can always learn something from anyone.

    As stated, this is a couple of years worth of data, we’re past the point of saying that it’s been manipulated. I didn’t start calling it a majority position until this year for that reason.

  • [1] July 25, 2014 at 1:41pm

    Okay… So let me see if I have your argument right.

    You’re going to call the ‘legal stuff’ a civil union and make marriage a meaningless exercise that holds no weight what so ever in a court, all so you don’t have to share the title of marriage with gay people?

  • [1] July 25, 2014 at 1:39pm

    @Gerry

    So when are you giving up your guns? Because ‘the wording’ is precisely the same argument that liberals use when they try to say people don’t actually have the right to own guns.

    The court keeps ruling against them, because the court understands the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

    Now tell me, why is it you think that the court consistently rules against your argument concerning separation of church and state? I wonder if there’s a trend here… Like maybe you’re mistaken about it.

  • [1] July 25, 2014 at 1:35pm

    “marriage out of the government”

    So you’re going to give up all the legal benefits of marriage? Yeah, because that’s the only way the government can ‘get out’ of marriage, since its the government that has to enforce laws.

    You do realize that if the government ‘gets out’ of marriage, if your spouse gets sick, you do not be default get to make any medical choices? You are effectively shut out unless you go through… a legal process… to declare somebody a medical proxy.

    If only we had a system that automatically conferred this in some situations… Like… Marriage.

    Responses (7) +
  • [1] July 25, 2014 at 1:31pm

    ‘Christian Constitutionalists’

    Oh that would be funny to see. Are they actually going to follow the Constitution?

    Cause yeah that means accepting: No religious displays on public property and no religion in public school.

    Responses (5) +
  • [1] July 25, 2014 at 1:29pm

    See that button to the left of the A? Learn what it does.

  • [1] July 25, 2014 at 1:29pm

    No True Scotsman.

  • July 25, 2014 at 1:28pm

    @Texas

    Of you could just accept, whether you like it or not, reality… And reality says the following: Support for gay marriage is now a majority opinion in the United States. You might be able to shrug off one poll as manipulated, or two, but you cannot shrug off 2-3 years worth of data, across multiple sources, that has been consistent. Support for gay marriage averages out to about 55% as a national average, and it has been that way consistently for the last two years.

    The trend is going to continue and at some point, maybe when it consistently hits more than 60%, you’re finally going to accept it, or you’re not, nobody actually cares which.

123 To page: Go