Originally posted by Liberator
Yes, I am [a creationist]. But, I believe that humanity as a species has been around a lot longer than the ~7,000 that most do.
That's interesting. So you actually do believe that the Universe is 12 billion years old, as astronomy has hypothesized? Or did God tell you it was a different number? Tell me, Libby, what did your faith tell you about how old the Universe is? Did you use scientific and reasoned analysis to come up with a number or did your faith come up with a random number?
"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." ~Ashley Montagu
Originally posted by Liberator
It's a matter of Faith, so as an Atheist I don't expect you to understand. But, reference [irrelevant quote of the Bible] and [another irrelevant quote of the Bible].
God destroyed one of the Ancient world's more populace cities because of the perverted behavior of the population.
Once again, you're quoting the Bible thinking that it's scientific truth when the Bible is NOT a scientific document. If you can come up with definitive and/or mathmatical and/or archaeological proof that God exists and "hates gays," then you can come talk to me. But seeing as God, by his very nature is unknowable and unprovable, I expect I'll be waiting a loooooong time for you to come up with definitive proof that he exists.
And, please, don't quote the Bible again when I ask you for scientific proof. We all know that the Bible has NO scientific basis whatsoever. Don't waste your time trying to say otherwise. We all (yourself included) know better.
Originally posted by Liberator
As far the Amendment goes, the Activist Judges in the various federal courts around the nation have given us no choice. They have been amending the Constitution by Fiat for years and we have finally had enough. I for one, probably the only one on this forum, support the President in this effort and am saddened it came to this.
Of course, you're saddened. That's why conservatives all over the country are overjoyed at the prospect of writing discrimination into the US Constitution for the first time. Cry me a river, Libby. If you're crying at all, it's nothing but crocodile's tears.
Don't get me started about "activist judges." Conservative judges have absolutely no problem in interfering with states' rights when the state comes up with a result that displeases them. Just look at John Ashcroft. Granted, he's not a judge, but he is the US Attorney General, a position of HIGHLY important legal significance. (In law school, we studied a number of cases where conservative judges were activist, but I can't come up with any on the top of my head right now. More on that in a later post.) Remember when Oregon had a referendum in 2001 and voted to legalize self-assisted suicide? The first thing John Ashcroft did was to instruct the Justice Department to federally prosecute any doctor in Oregon who gave terminal patients any sort of drugs that would assist in their suicide. And he did all this despite that in Oregon doctor-assisted suicide was legal.
I'm not even going to talk about Bush v. Gore, where the conservative justices on the US Supreme Court usurped Florida's state right to count its own votes.
Conservatives are all for states rights unless the state decides to do something conservatives don't like. It happened in Oregon and it's happening in Massachusettes right now. Don't kid yourself, Libby. Don't talk to me about activist judges because you and I both know conservatives are just as activist as any "liberal" judge.
