“So, you were aware of it. I wonder why you did not say that the first time...well, I think I know...the usual campaign of deceit and bullying. Like the guy who found the gay gene, or those why say they are born that way. Lies. Or trying to force your way into the St. Patrick's day parade. Or trying to ruin someone's business simply because they do not believe in homosexual acts.”
omobob on Aug 19, 2013 at 22:16:08
“The APA no longer holds that positon. Nor does the rest of the scientific community. This 2013 not 1974. Let’s move forward.”
“Is this the same for pedophiles? Didn't the American Psychological Association say homosexual acts were a mental/emotional disorder?”
omobob on Aug 19, 2013 at 12:59:59
“> Didn't the American Psychological Association say homosexual acts were a mental/emotional disorder?...?
No they did not. What the American Psychological Association actually said: There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
jsgaetano on Aug 19, 2013 at 12:10:40
“ So there's a cure for conservative "thought"? ”
manduleylucas on Aug 19, 2013 at 11:57:54
“Your kidding right? If your not I think your in desperate need of some therapy yourself there buddy.”
“Yes, there is the missing link. There is no transition between monkeys, apes, chimpanzees and man. Still missing. Now, every few years some scientist claims to have found it, but then it turns out to be an animal or a man or a fraud. Nebraska man is one of my favorites.”
TanzaniaTeacher on Aug 1, 2013 at 16:27:48
“You didn't read what I wrote.
EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil. There is no missing link. Read a book on the subject. Try Neal Shubin's Your Inner Fish.”
ythri on Aug 1, 2013 at 12:42:13
“Humans did not evolve from chimpanzees or any living species of monkey or apes. And you are either lying or completely uninformed to claim that no transitional forms between humans and more basal primates have been discovered.”
“I don't think they are saying evolution is not true. I think they are saying macro-evolution is not true. In other words, to go from an amoeba to a man is not possible. The missing link is still missing.”
ythri on Aug 1, 2013 at 12:40:11
“Macro- evolution is just a lot of micro- evolution. Creationists can;t explain what prevents the latter from proceeding to the former. It's merely a dodge because the evidence for evolution is irrefutable, so they have to move the goal posts.
Nobody claims man evolved form amoeba. The missing link trope is leftover form the Victorian age. Evolution is not a chain of links, it is a series of barely perceptible transitions over vast quantities of time. Innumerable transitional forms have been found.”
Streit Rhoades on Aug 1, 2013 at 12:11:10
“Missing link? What is this, 1930? There's nothing about the validity of evolution that requires finding evidence of every step. That would be impossible and completely unrealistic. This kind of ridiculous thinking comes directly from unscientific Bible-thumpers who have zero evidence for everything they believe. The evidence of macro-evolution is overwhelming and undeniable - unless you're a whacko.”
FranklySpoken on Aug 1, 2013 at 11:54:52
“Foster: You are correct in saying that you “do not think”.
The only difference between micro & macro evolution is scale. You are effectively saying that seconds exist but no evidence of hours exists.
The “missing link” is just a place holder for any step in our knowledge of evolution.
Now, are you going to produce ANY evidence to support creationism? Please just one piece of peer-reviewed evidence.”
DC Liberal on Aug 1, 2013 at 11:51:56
“Who is the "they" you are referring to? Bobby Jindal specifically refers to creationism and ID, and not merely macro-evolution, when he opined "I've got no problem if a school board, a local school board, says we want to teach our kids about creationism, that people, some people, have these beliefs as well, let’s teach them about ‘intelligent design."
The problem is that creationism and ID are not scientific theories; they have never been subjected to peer review, and they meet none of the criteria required under the general scientific method.
Poking holes in any theory is fine. That's what good scientists do. What is completely unacceptable is offering ANY alternative as science that is not derived using the scientific method . Put it is philosophy ... or comparative religions.”
Will Kraft on Aug 1, 2013 at 11:50:23
“There is no singular "missing link". Every species that has ever lived is a transitional form to something else (unless it turned out to be an evolutionary dead end).
Going directly from amoeba to man is not possible but no one with a proper understanding of evolution would make such a statement.”
hodlof97 on Aug 1, 2013 at 11:38:59
“what missing like are we now talking about, every time we find a "missing" link they just jump to the one before that, the problem is fossils are very rare, especially if you are looking for 1 special fossil. And they seem to argue ALL evolution is wrong, since anything wrong with the bible cannot happen to them,”
TanzaniaTeacher on Aug 1, 2013 at 11:33:03
“There is no missing link. Every fossil is a transitional form. Every single bit of evidence that we have points to every living thing on this planet having evolved from that first spark of life. DNA evidence alone proves this.”
Jun 27, 2013 at 12:47:07
“I did not make any assumptions...unless you consider the comment that he does not look strong an assumption. And how do you know he did not tell the kid? A 17 year old "Kid" is certainly capable of killing or hurting an adult...just look at the photos of GZ's head. Simply because he is a "grown man" does not mean he will not seek to protect himself from a 17 year old. GZ is alleging the kid double-backed and came at him.”
ericenigma4 on Jun 27, 2013 at 15:54:46
“Yes my friend that comment you made was an assumption, just as the assumption I made previously. I never said a KID is not capable of hurting or killing someone. My point is if GZ is wise enough to pull his gun out and use it, GZ should've been wise enough to not get UP and get AWAY from TM, IF it went down the way GZ is claiming. Unfortuneately we will never know the entire truth because GZ is only there to tell his side. Which i'm going to make another assumption...lol...I think he is only telling a partial truth. I'm not choosing sides, just think that when they 1st came face to face that GZ could've just said that he was a neighborhood watch person, which could've eliminated the conflict. If GZ did say that it haven't came to light yet. Peace!”
Jun 27, 2013 at 08:40:43
“Maybe GZ just wanted to protect the common people from a person he thought might be a criminal. And if you do not follow a suspicious person closely, you lose him. Maybe you are a super great follower, but you are not GZ. And when you say you can knock someone off of you, that is good for you. That does not mean GZ can do it. He does not look like a very strong guy to me. You make a lot of assumptions based on what you can do.....this is not right. You need to judge based on what GZ can do. I believe that is "tough", not "touch". Oh, and I did not make any claims about getting people off of me, so I am not interested in the streets. You can have 'em.”
ericenigma4 on Jun 27, 2013 at 10:24:03
“Well my friend, that's where common sense comes in! Since he is a grown man he should have told that KID what he was doing to eliminate a conflict and he would not be in court now and this KID would not be 6 feet in the ground. You're right i'm not GZ... and you are not GZ either so you don't know how strong he is...It seems you know how to make assumptions also!”
Jun 26, 2013 at 23:40:59
“GZ called 911. If he was a vigilante, he would not have called 911. As far as knocking someone off that is on top of you, perhaps you should join the UFC...let's see how well you do there.”
ericenigma4 on Jun 26, 2013 at 23:59:38
“If you read my comments, I did not call GZ a vigilante, I think he is a coward that thought he was tough since he had that tooly on his hip. And as far knocking someone off you that's on top, this was a grown man who let a kid get the best of him. UFC is a different playing field. In a cage fighting and street fighting are two different classes that can't be compared. So since you bought up UFC...let's see how well you do in the streets touch-actin-tinactin!”
“Equal rights? It has nothing to do with equal rights. Can a brother marry his sister? Can a dad marry his daughter? Can a mother marry her son? Can a man or a woman marry their dog (btw this happened in India about a yr ago)? Can a man or a woman marry a child? What about the equal rights of all these people? Why can't they marry who they want to marry? Because it is wrong...that's why. So, if it were really about equal rights, all the above people would be able to marry. The gays would be shouting for their equal rights. But they don't.
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. This is the definition. You cannot change the definition. The definition is the definition.
The gays want to bully their way in, and steal marriage, then call it theirs. It is not about equal rights - it is about theft. Just like they stole the word "gay". They have stolen the rainbow. Now they are trying to steal marriage.”
AbsoluteTruthiness on Feb 26, 2013 at 16:27:52
“What a warped view of the world you have. Just because it has 'always been' doesn't mean it's the right thing. After all, up until a certain point in the mid 1800's, slaves had 'always been' legal.
Anytime one group seeks to deny rights to another group, then you are wrong at evry level. If you could mind your own business, maybe everyone would be better off. A gay couple doesn't hurt your marriage does it? Well, let's put it this way - if your marriage is shaky and without basis, you can try to blame ANYTHING for your failed marriage.”
AZLionQueen on Feb 23, 2013 at 13:41:22
“Stop with the insane conjectures. If two unrelated (sorry Kentucky/Alabama/Mississippi/Georgia, etc. etc.) adults want to marry, it shouldn't matter what their sexual preference is.
*shakes head* All of your opinions are based on your religion. YOUR religion has no say in civil rights. Period. It is a civil right for people to marry who they wish to marry. If you want to get married in your church, more power to you. However, first you have to get a MARRIAGE LICENSE from your state. Do you get it now? MARRIAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION!!!”
“It is because he became a congressman. You cannot be a boxer and a congressman at the same time. It takes too much time away from boxing. It has nothing to do with his religion. Why would a mother say bad things about her son in public? This is the time to encourage your son, mommy dearest, not a time to criticize him! Shameful!”
“Planned Parenthood receives tax money! Are you saying Planned Parenthood does not receive tax money? And we are paying for it! We should not be paying for anyone's birth control in this country! Let them pay for it themselves. And if "birth control" is not being used for birth control but for medical needs, then it is not birth control. She was trying to speak for all women who use birth control, not just herself.”
“When females get down to the post office and sign up for a potential draft, we can start talking about 50/50. This is the biggest form of discrimination in our society because it affects the entirety of the male population, which is approximately half our country. Our sons have to register for the draft, but the daughters do not. Better yet, why don't the females go to war, and leave the males at home. We have been doing it for so long now. It is about time you did your duty, and stopped hiding behind your femininity, and bringing out feminism when it suits you.”