I don't think you know what Liberals are. You are a Buddhist, you support pro-choice and gay rights...Over here that would make you a lefty.

Sounds like somebody has been watching Snowpiercer lately.

True. In DC cannon, only a handful of others are better fighters (Bronze Tiger, Lady Shiva, Richard Dragon, and a few enhanced fighters like Deathstroke).

That said, Superman has mastered a Kryptonian fighting style and has been trained by Batman himself, so he's not a poor fighter.

Iron Man has had some training from Captain America and Hawkeye, but is still primarily reliant on his armor.

See? Arguing to argue. Namecalling to make yourself feel better. Twice my age but half my maturity level. Do you even remember our initial point of contention here? You calling me out for not voting while at the same time calling voting useless? I don't claim to have an especial amount of wisdom. I simply claim to make more sense than you do. And where have I sided with what is popular. I'm an atheist in America. An American who doesn't believe in democracy. I'm rarely on the popular side of any standpoint. Try again you witless nit.

I never had any credibility with you because I never say what you want to hear.

No, its because you caught yourself in a linguistic trap and are too much the fool to realize it. I'm not even sure what your point is anymore, and I doubt you are either. Just arguing to argue at this point. And failing even at that low goal.

Imagine Jabba the Hutt's toilet. Or maybe there is just a giant hole cut out on his throne that leads down to the Rancor pit...

Go anywhere and everywhere until you find something you like. The more you practice, the easier it will be. I've been writing electronic music for years now, and most of my work is still rooted in a succession of happy accidents.

That would be a pretty shitty thing to do, man.

Not so shabby for just messing around. Sound quality needs serious cleaning up, but that little snippet made me curious where the song was gonna go.

Surely even you realize you just set yourself up to lose. If you vote, your being a hypocrite, if you don't, you are the same "whiney bitch" I am. You just killed any credibility in this argument. Not that you ever had any with me to begin with.

Also, you made a sexist statement along the way. Quite the winner we have here.

As usual, your statements are hyper-simplified and exaggerated. But as it turns out, no, I don't vote.

If a request is made of me, I expect good reasons for it.

If God makes a request, I'm sure he would have outstanding reasons, but I'd need to see them first.

Not to mention the whole "hey, could you prove to me you are God?" thing followed by the "if you are God, what the heck are you doing choosing a nobody like me" thing.

Thing is, I can always enjoy the moment, as is, without attempting to enjoy an unknown future whose final calculations are as yet impossible to determine. Besides, I'll gladly sacrifice a smidgeon of illusory enjoyment to avoid very real pain down the road if things go against expectations.

And if down the road proves to be enjoyable, I'll enjoy it when I get there.

Or at least that's the theory. As I said at the beginning, I'm not always successful at the "hold no expectations" rule.

I'm only human after all.

But I'm a human who prefers his joy to be concrete rather than fabricated out of thin air. There's more to life than being happy.

I should clarify that my prior response was a) highly generalized, b) mildly exagarated and c) written while in a bad mood.

I DO accept that different people will have wildly different experiences. Also, from the beginning I said abrogation of fear was a main reason for religion, but it is FAR from the only one.

Great enjoyment is to be had in the expectation of something good happening.

Unless and until it doesn't. In the mean time, if you aren't expecting something good to happen, and it does, you get enjoyment that is IMMEDIATELY validated. That, to me, is true joy.

In cutting yourself off from the pain, you also miss the pleasure.

Only the pleasure that is built on nothing substantial. It is still quite possible to feel pleasure, believe you me.

Example: You are single and you meet someone who catches your fancy. You get her number. During whatever passage of time occurs between then and making your move you could have all these great expectations of things working out. Maybe, just maybe, she could even be the one. But at that point you have no idea how things are really going to go, or even who she really is. Statistically speaking, she probably isn't really the one, and who really knows if ANYTHING is going to happen. By holding out expectations that something will, you could be setting yourself up for a fall in any number of resolutions to that scenario.

Plus, there's ANOTHER problem: you could set these high expectations, but they only get partially met. I.E. you do hook up with her and its kind of nice but you soon realize she's not any where near the goddess you made her out to be. NOW you might be appreciating her less than you normally would because you prematurely held her to expectations she can't meet. Now you've gotten the basic scenario you wanted, but ended up limiting your own enjoyment of it.

Or you can get her number, make the call, go on the date and just let everything happen as it happens. If its a total disaster, you can just chalk that up to something that happens sometimes and move on knowing that not all your dates can be disasters (and if they are, it probably has something to do with yourself, so self-examination is in order).

But there will probably be a little something to be enjoyed from this date and whatever the relationship turns into. And your enjoyment of it will not be lessened just because you weren't expecting it to turn out this way. If its a wonderful thing its a wonderful thing independent of your prior, and limited, assessment of it.

When you get addicted to hope, its lack causes fear. Or experiencing the desperation you mentioned.

Hope doesn't feed the hungry or end wars, and it certainly doesn't change the reality that there will always be hungry people and wars. Hope is nothing but false promises that may never come to fruition. Not heartless, just realistic.

And what would happen if one had no hope? Generally fear. The draw is the fear of feeling hopeless. Which is dumb, since God and other supernatural occurrences can't be demonstrated to be a genuine reason to HAVE hope. I'd rather place my hopes in demonstrable phenomena, should I feel the need for hope to begin with.

Decades of casual religious studies and speaking with the religious has convinced me that for most of them, they choose relegion because it makes them more comfortable. It allows them to believe they are special, that a being of good is in charge of their destiny, that death is not the end. And more than all that, many of them are naturally fearful people (not just the religious though, we all are, which is part of the widespread popularity of religion.) They often feel out of control, so when chaos hits, they want desperately to believe that SOMETHING is in control, and will not let them come to harm. And that when they face their inevitable demise, they will be eternally comfortable.

This isn't bias, this is observation of human nature. Religious people are terrified of a godless world. And to their credit, it CAN be scary.

Fear of mortality or lack of control. That's one of the primary purposes of most religions: to abrogate fear.

I try not to have expectations at all. I'm not saying I succeed all the time, but I sure do try. Expectations lead to heartache and disappointment at the world just doing what it does, and that's not an emotionally healthy way to be.

Yes indeedy. As far as Asshole Face, Mine comes pretty close, and my tattooist is always getting hell for scowling when he is, in fact, just not smiling. I have much sympathy for those who suffer from hardcore BRF/ARF Syndrome!

believing in something is what gives meaning to life.

But is it healthy, either personally or for society, to believe in unproven concepts just for the sake of believing. There are plenty of demonstrable phenomena in the world to hinge one's values and understandings on. And since these are things we can actually work with and manipulate, wouldn't they make more sense.

I'm sure someone could put together a listing based on religious inclination PRIOR to going to jail. THAT would really settle this.

But I'm uninterested in doing the research.

Well, I mean...Isolated weather incidents and climate are a bit "apples and oranges" ye know.

Plus there were all the predictions that rapid warming trends would cause all kinds of wild weather and some of that does indeed involve unexpected coldsnaps.

So yeah...of course its not proof, but nor is it damning.

Determinism or more precisely (cause and effect) does not exclude the act of choosing.

It does if every contributing factor towards that act of choice is situated within the system. In other words, if the process of thinking is physiological, then so is choosing. If choosing is physiological than your choices are determined by your genetics, the chemical and energetic reactions that allow you to remember your memories and experiences, the chemical and mechanical actions that trigger your emotions and other chains of cause and effect that themselves limit the range of choice and promote certain choices above others.

Free will could only function if thought is not entirely subordinate to these factors, and I argue that would not be an entirely deterministic world to begin with.

Your seriously going to bring up an incident that happened in WAR TIME 70+ years ago? Seriously? This is 2014 and Japan has one of the lowest crime rates in the world and a culture based around honor and respect. Most of the problems you complain about here, are practically non-existent there, despite being "Godless". That's my whole point: IF God exists, he doesn't all that much seem to favor his many followers in the Americas.

And where did I display hatred for fundamentalists? All I said is that there are quite a lot of them here compared to...well, almost everywhere else. Yet in spite of their deep faith and large numbers, we've got all these problems you see and complain about.

The majority in this nation call themselves Christians, that is all. They could care less what the Bible actually says.

If that was the case, homosexuality and evolution wouldn't be such big issues in this country.

Like I said, man will make up his own moral standards and live any lifestyle that suits his wants.

And how is this any different if they read the Bible? Reading, even believing, is not the same thing as actually conducting one self in the prescribed mannerisms. This is obvious, otherwise we'd be seeing the very moral society you wish right here in America since we are still very predominately Christian, packed with fundamentalists even. Conversely, we should see chaos in the streets of Scandinavia and Japan and other countries that by and large ignore the Bible. THOSE should be the places where what we are talking about should be dominant, because by your measure, they are even more amoral societies than we are.

Indeed, as I've demonstrated previously, divorce is going down. As is crime in most parts of the country. We've still got a long ways to go, but as religiosity declines, our quality of life slowly improves, and plenty of other countries in the world can give us a taste of what we will be like when we pull even further away from ludicrous fairy tales and start observing and responding to REALITY.

The crushed flower imagery also seems like it could sort of point the same direction, but again, I'm kind of grasping at straws here.

Honestly, this just sounds like some high school would be poet thinking he/she is effectively describing what its like to be an unbalanced teenager. That said...

The apparent longing for Heaven and implications that the singer can't get there due to anger make me think of a Ghost doomed to wander Earth, presumably for eternity.

...or something. Sorry Joe, that's the best I got ;P

No really, divorce has been declining since the 80s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/the-divorce-surge-is-over-but-the-myth-lives-on.html?_r=0&abt;=0002&abg;=1

Also, I'm pretty sure I've heard somewhere that couples who live together before marriage are less likely to get divorced. Which makes sense, since living with someone can be quite trying and troublesome. If one intends to avoid divorce, they are best served knowing their partner as well as possible and living together is a fairly efficient way of doing so. It's not immoral, its smart planning.

What EXACTLY is immoral about living together before marriage?

GET REAL you fossilized fool.

The answers to our problems HAVEN'T HAPPENED in America.

Education? Yes we've spent more money on it, but that isn't how you fix these problems. Fact is, our student's academic achievements have been dropping, low income students still don't have better access to education and slum areas don't receive anything resembling a proportional amount of that funding.

On the other hand, Scandinivian countries, Japan and others have implemented a variety of programs aimed at uplifting the weak and have found phenominal success: high education rates, usually a high GDP, much less crime etc. And these aren't particularly Christian countries we are talking about. The Scandinavians are one of the most atheistic peoples on the planet.

Sex education

You do realize that teenage and unwanted pregnancies have gone down notably since sex education started right? Whereas with abstinence only education such levels tend to rise.

Divorce was considered immoral. Teen pregnancy was considered immoral, etc. etc.

And both of these are on the decline. Stop letting your fear of immorality cloud your vision and look at the statistics.

Your entire theory has proven NOT TO WORK!

Except in other countries. Our countries methods of handling this problem are NOT my suggestions.

Moral values were derived from our Christian heritage

Actually there is more and more evidence that they were derived from genetics, considering similar moral precepts are near-universal.

What stops others from lying when it gets them what they want?

You do realize actions can have repercussions, correct?

Morals are something instilled from the very beginnings of life through a mother & father teaching their children moral values taught to them through a faith in something greater than themselves

No, mostly they are either born with it or they are not.

You know, you act as though immorality is a new thing. That until Liberals came about there was no murder, theft, lying, deadbeat dads, drug users...but these things are as old as time itself. Christianity has had over 2000 years to deal with this, and yet the countries that do the best are some of the LEAST Christian.

My point is that they have no moral road map to follow because they refuse to care what the Bible says about morals.

Simply put, the Bible is FAR FROM being the only "moral road map" out there. There is the rule of law for instance, social mores and simply listening to your intuitions regarding right and wrong. Whichever path we take, we still end up generally knowing it is wrong to kill, lie, steal, cheat etc. These prohibitions are nearly universal and found in plenty of places where Bible study is practically unheard of.

Tell me where your moral code comes from?

Two sources: empathy, and a desire to live in a harmonious relationship with the people around me. I won't kill because a) virtually all people have loved ones, and even though I've never had a loved one murdered I've known people who have. I wouldn't wish that sorrow on my worst enemy. b) if people had free reign to go about killing as they pleased, society would destabilize quickly. All the millennia of progress we have made would be jeopardized and we would all live in terror. And for good measure..c) fear of repercussion.

Why won't I lie? I need the best information possible to make the important decisions in life. We all do. Willingly spreading disinformation may gain the liar, but it is an unnecessary cost to society as a whole.

Theft, urinating in people's food, cheating on one's lover, and generally being a jerk are all things I don't want done to me, so I don't do them to others.

then no man alive has the same moral road map to follow does he?

Google maps will sometimes give you multiple routes to the same destination. 3 people take different routes, see different sights, arrive at different times....and yet when all is said and done, they all have obtained the same objective. Your way may seem the best to you, but don't be so myopic as to believe that other people's methods cannot achieve the same results.

what is it that stops dead beats from sleeping around getting many women pregnant and then walking away from the children?

Church is not a guaranteed cure for that. Some folks are dead beats through and through, and the best defense society has is being observant and extra-cautious with these folks. Reducing poverty and increasing access to education has repeatedly been demonstrated to reduce these incidents, as well as crime, drug use etc. Preventative measures, actually going out and making a change in the world doesn't take a Bible, it takes knowledge, compassion and will power.

All the broken homes, all the addicts, all the children with no fathers, etc. are a result of an amoral nation with no moral road map to follow.

No, its a result of people living in unstable situations, driven by desperation to despicable acts. I DO hold them accountable, but I've also seen first hand what tough times can do to a good person.

Tell me what it is in your Godless nation that would help prevent this from happening over and over again.

Better education in trouble areas would be a start. Better access to QUALITY mental health, resisting the 21st century urge to pull away from the community. And recognizing that no matter how many Bibles you push, people will still do these things. And, statistically speaking, the majority of them were raised Christian in this country, soooo....

Tell me what happens after you start acting upon every immoral urge you have?

Can't tell you. Neither I nor any atheist I know behaves that way. Can't understand why anybody WOULD. We have empathy, laws, accepted norms of behavior, practical considerations etc. Open your eyes, atheists may not believe the same things as you, but most of us conduct our lives relatively similarly to you day in and day out. In fact, we are LESS likely to go to jail, so get off your high horse and realize that professed belief in God tells you nothing about a person's morality.

It does if the percentage of atheists in prison is less than the percentage in the general population. That is literally what it implies.

While atheists may be Unitarians or even form their own congregations (not to mention many Atheist Buddhists), this are segments of the community, not atheists as a whole. Some find a certain appeal to the social benefits provided in congregational life and we certainly have plenty to discuss at group. But to imply that atheists as a whole participate in such a life is like saying all Californians enjoy surfing.

So that's how Joe gets so many points. Gotcha

Or straight, or backwards, or blaze a new trail if feasible.

Yeah. And older generations. And MY generation. Basically, I spend a lot of time shaking my head.

I'd go out to the stars. I realize there will be long stretches of boredom, but I think I could handle that. Maybe find a soul buddy to travel with.

Black holes would only effect souls if they have mass to be pulled by gravity. Even if that does prove to be the case, it might prove to be interesting to get sucked in. With luck, it would drop us off elsewhere, some place totally different.

It's not like the self portrait is new, just easier to do. I've yet to do one, but I don't at all freak out or roll my eys when I see them. There are far more important things to get one's panties in a bunch over.

Which makes it all the more poignant when we don't enjoy/make the best of the brief life we have.

I don't have 10 billion years to spare, but good luck on your experiment.

I'm not sure.

I just wanted to make a lame whiskey joke :P

I don't think men, or any person, needs to be brainwashed to steal and hold power and keep others oppressed when we can.

This scenario may explain why, seemingly unsentient, pieces of matter (the stuff in the periodic table) assemble themselves (either by chance or some other force) in such a way to become sentient AND have the potential capacity of understanding itself.

Why the nearly 10 billion year delay? Do the fragments of God's soul need to age like fine whiskey?

Unless one is related to these folks, I do not see how our lives get more complex just because other people out there can do these things now. Life for them was NEVER simple, but now they have options. Options that are unlikely to have any effect on the rest of us.

Also, life may have been simpler, but has humanity ever truly known a simple world? Ignorance of the complexity of the world does not count.

Don't look like me.

I don't think that anyone needs to earn the right, but if anybody has earned it, it would be funny elderly women.

I never really indentified or particularly got along with either of my g-mas, perhaps if we'd had the chance to spark together that would have been different, even if only for a hours.

it did not make it sound as upbeat as I recall the song to be, it sounded more ominous and dramatic.

And now you know the aesthetic difference between major and minor chords.

A butt is for pooping. As aesthetically pleasing as they can be, they are everywhere. You can, at the very least, look up a thousand pictures of butts online. Even if you can't get laid, you can see them in person at a strip club.

A landing on a comet has never happened before, and isn't likely to be a daily (or even annual) occurrence within my lifetime. So yeah, rarity and science win out over some rich lady's poop shoot.

Our nation's priorities ARE screwed up. But if you have awesome facebook friends like I do, you've seen more pictures of the comet than butts.

I find asking "why" to bold assertions can help unravel your opponent more quickly, but I often forget to do that here. Why? Why? WHY?

I'm not going to say that the present is always better than the past. That depends a lot on where and when you live.

But in general, moving forward in time gives you better and more efficient technology, better distribution of knowledge, more medical breakthroughs and more lessons for society ad a whole to learn from. The past is usually tougher, dirtier and more dangerous. Some might idealize this more barbaric way of living, but I am not among those.

Truth+Life= Goal of biologists.

Money, fear and nukes.

Not any that I mentioned.

As J-Roc77 pointed out Les Claypool (of Primus, Sausage, Oysterhead and others) is a great example. Also, Weather Report and the other work of Jaco Pastorius.

And Death From Above 1979.

And a home-town hero from where I live, Rob, has played in multiple bands that had no guitarist.

And I'm sure there are one or two I've forgotten.

Where is the "reason" or "courage" in believing in something only because that is how you were raised or because it make you feel better about yourself and life?

Facts aren't "cold", they are honesty.

"Unlogical" is no word, but how could wanting evidence, verification and notions that are in line with observation be illogical?

I'm less interested in what people believe than why they believe what they do. If I notice a falsehood or irattional thought involved in the decision making process, I'll point it out. I'm not trying to shatter anyone's faith, but there is nothing wrong with questioning how one became a person of faith.

I don't. I make my assessment after stupidity has been demonstrated, and even then I'll cut a little slack for things lack bad days or lack of opportunity to be educated as a youth. I also recognize that people have strengths and weaknesses. A lot of people consider me fairly above average in intelligence, but I do dumb things all the time, and I suck horribly at math.

The people that bother me are those who have apparent disdain for knowledge, intellectual achievement, etc.

Every individual does not have to be a genius, but as a species, our cognitive abilities are one of the only things keeping us at the top of the food chain, and we should respect that and encourage the growth of knowledge. In other words, dumb people aren't really the problem, its the people who are dumb on purpose.

Nothing. Heck, "for all we know" God IS a mosquito...

Never say never. Or...errr....

Very rarely say never.

Sometimes you can save money and time with these bits of advice. There are some damn stupid ones out there though.

Hmm....how about platsypus?

I always thought that the saying should be "You Don't Need Money to find Happiness", rather asserting flat-out that it can't bring it to you. Money CAN bring joy, but if that's the only method you have of getting happiness, I feel sorry for you.

While wastefulness is certainly a huge problem that needs to be weeded out of our society post haste....it is not responsible for our world being a sphere.

No, no, no...it was the Cat Fancier Association that had Curiosity exiled from Earth in the first place.

Its the smelly side.

Its a mime.

Waldo wears red and white stripes, glasses and a different cap.

Lol. No, eating ice cream for breakfast is something Americans normally only do in that first week after moving out of their parent's house.

Yes. But millions of American children love them. They went off the market, but apparently they are coming back by popular demand.

Lol. Never heard of some one who doesn't eat pancakes for breakfast :P

cream filled fried sugar bread tube thing that supposedly has a shelf life of hundreds or thousands of years due to its preservatives.

Some people here eat fried twinkies too...

Oh yeah, there's a whole section of the country (The Grain Belt or maybe the Midwest) that eats these things 2 or 3 times a day. Sometimes even for desert....

...Okay I was kidding about that last part, but still.

A prophet purports to spread information that only he or she has access to.

Darwin spread information that anyone else could have obtained if they knew what to look for.

Indeed, he wasn't the only person in his time to identify natural selection, he was simply the first to get published.

Besides...evolution and atheism are not interchangeable. Atheists existed before he came along and he didn't need to be atheist to come to his observations.

Decades after the discovery of AIDS, they still account for over half of the new aids cases even though they are only like 2% of the population.

1. This is much less true of lesbians. Would you be more inclined to allow them to adopt?

2. Okay, so don't allow couples with AIDS to adopt.

3. This is only concerning sexual activity. Does not say a word about other aspects of their lives. How many straight parents have had affairs or other sexual indiscretions? Should they too be banned from parenthood?

4. There are biological reasons why gays are much more likely to transmit AIDS via sexual activity. It has nothing to do with self control.

Very little, because my faith would trump any bizarre sexual desires a may or may not have.

That's pretty easy to say when you were born finding members of the opposite sex attractive.

However, it is TOTALLY accurate to say that we DID NOT descend from monkeys or chimpanzees. In those cases, the "common ancestor" line is perfectly appropriate.

An ape is a tailless catahrhine primate in the superfamily hominoidea. Humans are all of those things, as were our ancestors going back several "generations".

Humans and all of our proposed direct ancestors are Hominids. Hominids are also refereed to as great apes. Apes include the families hominidae and hylobatidae (lesser apes). Yes, we descended from apes, just not any that are alive today. We are STILL apes.

yep. The most virile subspecies is known as homie erectus.

Yes. Yes they are.

I'm not sure that is warranted when one's demonstration includes rampant typos and the word "friggin'". In this case, I believe the proper finale would be "in your face, bitch"...

Different apes evolved from different apes. We evolved from homoe heidelbergensis, as did neaderthals. All are classified as apes as they are hominids.

Chimpanzees and bonobos evolved from a different ape, but it was still an ape.

Ah taxonomy, so important, relatively easy (IMHO) but less understood than the rules of football.

The first one is simply incorrect. And howstuffworks.com isn't always proof checked.

The randi answer uses inconsitent language. He is correct in saying we didn't evolve from modern apes, and that we "share a common ancestor" with Chimpanzee.

and...an answerisngenesis site? REALLY? They don't believe in evolution.

Lets look at some actual experts in the field.

This guy admits there is some controversy, but explains why both historically and by the modern majority, humans are considered apes, and why.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/02/13/the-great-ape-taxonomy-debate/

pr this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

"The word "hominid" in this website refers to members of the family of humans, Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes. Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes, the Hominoidea, the members of which are called hominoids."

We are not descended from any living ape, true, but we are hominids, which is another name for ape.

And...oh look- a freakin' museum...

http://australianmuseum.net.au/Humans-are-apes-Great-Apes

Come on, Hitler, you are smarter than this.

Just google "are humans apes?" and check a few scientifically valid sites. All species fit into groups or clades. An ape is is a branch of the hominid superfamily, which is one of the divisions of the primate family, which is one of the dominant groups of mammals which a part of the Kingdom Anamalia. This is like sixth grade biology right here.

Firstly, if humans are apes, that defeats the theory that we evolved from them as opposed to with them.

That isn't what the theory says though. We evolved from a specific ape species, most like homo heidelbergensis. It was an ape and so are we. And so is what it evolved from.

They are the hairier, more physical-oriented version of what our ancestor would become.

All apes do have specific taxonomic similarities, but hair level and...."physical orientation"...whatever the fuck you think that means, are not part of them.

All dog breeds are considered the same species, bu how similar really is a tarrier to a great Dane. And that's variety within one species! Between species you can get even more variety. But as long as it still contains the assigned characteristics of the group, it is considered a part of that group. And this is still true from our perspective.

Cases where it is appropriate to say "we didn't evolve from x, but we shared a common ancestor"...

Chimpanzee- Our closest living relative, but not an ancestor.

Monkey- the common ancestor in that case was a primate that was neither monkey or ape. I presume its clade is no longer extant.

Meanwhile, increasingly common consensuses is that humans probably evolved from homo heidelbergensis. This and every single seriously proposed "missing link" ALL fit into the category, Ape.

No...an ape is a group of primates. Humans ARE apes. All of the possible missing links are Apes. How did we not evolve from them?

It actually is true to say we evolved from apes. Apes aren't a species, it is a group of primates. Humans are in that group as are oure ancestors and closest relatives. We didn't evolve from existing apes, true, but to say we didn't evolve from apes is like saying a cat didn't evolve from felines.

I understand the point you were trying to make. You aren't exactly treading new ground in your bigotry.

And like a million angry, humorless God-botherers before you, you miss a few obvious points.

1. Sexual orientation does not determine one's ability to parent. There are countless cold, abusive, irresponsible, unattentive straight parents out there.

Everyone walks into parenthood with different experience levels. Somebody who was the oldest of 6 children, as well as baby-sitting for their nephews and neices will be more experienced in raises children and more prepared to deal with the chaos than, say, an only-child.

2. There are plenty of people who either didn't realize they were gay until adulthood, or buried it down due to social expectations and went on to have children. Every day they do the work of parent based on their own merits. Their sexual preference plays very little role in it. In fact, it plays very little role in ANY aspect of their life, aside from who they are attracted to.

How formative is sexual orientation on YOUR character? How much does being straight have any freakin' affect on ANYTHING you do aside from your romantic pursuits?

You said if nature wanted it, it would have made concessions. If nature abhorred homosexuality, there wouldn't be any gays for us to debate about, or they wouldn't have any interest in raising children anyway. I imagine there are plenty of gay men who are more willing and able to play the role of father than I am.

Are homosexuals able to natrually reproduce?

Yes they are. They are gay, not impotent.

Earth: Accretion model. Supported by cosmology, geology and physics.

Space: Inflation, already assumed true, recently supported by even more evidence. While the actual cause of inflation itself is still up for debate, multiple theories in quantum-physics and cosmology have been proposed and are mathematically and observationally viable. Meaning that, at the very least, there are a few possibilities aside from God.

The unfortunate thing about your statement is that you implore us to think...yet you take the side that requires the least amount of thinking.

No. But this guy has, and he's making me really want to see it now:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/8871-300-Rise-of-an-Empire

And go ahead and show me the scientific evidence of this third element.

I bet 10 minutes with google could show a dozen public figures who have done worse things in recent months.

Where's the proof that the earth is millions of years old?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidenceagainstarecentcreation

Nobody has been around that long,so how would evolutionist know that,if they weren't around that long?

You realize that exact same argument can be used against you and what you believe in, right?

In other words,they have no proof to backup what they're saying

They have evidence from every major branch of science. Just because you are ignorant of this evidence doesn't mean it is absent.

If I was in court & said that person killed that woman,because I drew him doing it &/or did computer animations that would never hold in court &,we all know that. So in other words, why aren't evolutionist held to the same accountability?

Ummm....what the hell are you talking about? Do you even know?

They don't know it. They believe it because the Bible tells them. But more importantly, the believe it because they want it to be true. Never mind that outside of the Bible there are few if any reasons the believe that we "go" anywhere but the ground. Never mind that its obvious wish fulfillment to encourage certain behaviors. Never mind that they have to establish a soul to make sense of Heaven. None of this is important to them.

They know its real because they will not let themselves accept that when they die, its all over.