latest

You and many others completely miss the point of the militant Gay/Lesbian "community."

Remember, I said Militant.

If a Lesbian couple walk into my photography studio and start trying to book me to photograph their wedding, and I tell them that homosexuality is against my religious tenets, that based on my religious beliefs, I can't not photograph their wedding, the next day I get hit with a lawsuit for discrimination.

If two Gay men walk into my bakery and start picking out a wedding cake and I tell them that I do not do wedding cakes for Gay couples because it's against my religious principles, I get sued.

I don't know if you are truly not aware, or just willfully ignoring the fact that photographers and bakers have already been put out of business because of those exact scenarios. One of those [the photographer] was victim to that scenario in New Mexico, and the cake shop in Denver that refused to bake the cake is also out of business.

I haven't read the Arizona Bill, but from all accounts, it was poorly constructed. That may be so. I wouldn't know how to start to write a law that actually does give businesses the absolute right to refuse service and protect that business from a discrimination lawsuit if it refused to provide service to a Gay/Lesbian couple, based on the business owner's religious beliefs.

But I know that the Militant Gay/Lesbian "community" has successfully used a person's religious beliefs to hammer them into submission, and I know it isn't right.

If a Muslim cab driver will not allow a blind person into his cab with a guide dog, based on the Muslim belief that dogs are unclean, the Muslim cab driver should have the absolute right to refuse service.

To my knowledge, no Muslim cab driver has been sued, although many refuse to allow people with service dogs into their cabs.

Gays/Lesbians will not cross a Muslim. No way, no how, but it's open season on Christians, and that runs the gamut, every phase of Christian life is under assault, and not just from Gays and Lesbians, but they are the most vocal and the most militant.

The idea that so many have expressed is that a Gay/Lesbian couple will just go to another purveyor of service if that purveyor has strong religious beliefs about Homosexual marriage is silly.

They won't seek another purveyor, they will sue.

They have and they do and they will continue to sue.

"I see no problem with theory (and speculation)."

Nor do I, but when every aspect of a "science" consists solely of theory and speculation; when there is no possible way to test and falsify theory and speculation; when theory and speculation become quasireligious doctrine; when theory and speculation are are enforced by the legislatures and courts; when we are told that our kids cannot understand the natural world unless they are required to base their understanding on theory and speculation; when the true believers in theory and speculation attack as "ignorant" and "unscientific" anyone who dares to question the theory and speculation; then theory and speculation cease to be rational and becomes cultic.

As for artists' drawings becoming evidence, need one mention the infamous Nebraska Man, Hesperopithecus haroldcookii? Why have evolutionists swept it under the carpet rather than openly admit that it was bullshit from the getgo?

For the curious, Nebraska Man was the centerpiece of the preposterous Scopes "Monkey Trial" in 1925, immortalized in the egregiously inaccurate movie, "Inherit The Wind". Ol' Nebby's species, an entire race of early "man", was fleshed out from a single tooth, and the invented creature was used as proof of evolution. The smug, arrogant evolutionists sneered, "See THAT, you blankety-drat creationists? Evolution is a FACT!"

Evolutionists have been strangely silent about this lamentably bad science ever since the single tooth was later discovered to have come from an extinct peccary — a pig.

A pig made monkeys of evolutionists. Not surprisingly, Hollywood did not make a sequel titled, "Disinherit The Windbags".

When you lament that your kids' rooms look like pig sties, remember their predecessors.

At least Southwest Colorado Man had a somewhat more noble ancestry. He was invented from the tooth of a horse. The evolutionists never owned up to that blunder, either.

Did Kettlewell see peppered moths landing on tree trunks and being eaten? No. In fact, he glued them there for his infamous photos. Peppered moths almost never land on tree trunks. They much prefer the underside of leaves where they are not visible to hungry birds. And, Kettlewell did not explain why this mythical "evolution" did not occur in even one of the hundreds of other species of moths and butterflies that inhabit the British Isles and were therefore exposed to exactly the same influences. Lastly, he did NOT elaborate on the fact that the various shadings of peppered moths have existed together for however long they've been around, and that changes in populations of existing species do not constitute evolution.

Why is Ernst Haeckel's "recapitulation theory" ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") still found in textbooks even though it has long since been proven to be a colossal fraud? Ditto the Piltdown Man, another hoax created by a Jesuit priest name Tielhard de Jardin, who was trying to harmonize evolution with Christianity and had to invent his own evidence when nature failed to provide it.

• The Java Ape Man, Pithecanthropus erectus, was constructed from a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh-bone, and three molar teeth, found over a year and a range of 70 feet in a river bed full of bones of extinct animals. There is no consensus of opinion on its worth.
• Another Pithecanthropus found in Java in 1926 was invented from the kneebone of an extinct elephant;
• Every trace of Peking Man has vanished;
• Etcetera etcetera.

In Origin of Species alone, Darwin used subjunctive-mood expressions such as "Let us assume", "We may well suppose..." etcetera over 800 times. That's a mighty schitteload of assuming and supposing for the so-called "central theory in biology".