So, you believe that your English translation of the Bible is the inerrant word of God? Are you a "young Earther", believing that the Earth is only some 5000 years old? Do you believe that the Flood occurred as described?

If you've ever been to a good museum, like the Smithsonian, you may have seen the fossil history of the horse. From the first known horse fossil to the current horse, the record shows a continuing evolution of traits: the more recent, the larger the horse, the more specialized the foot (see [url]http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/relatives10.htm[/url]),
in a clear, continuous flow. Check out [url]http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/fhc.htm[/url] for a description of this evolution. Let me know why evolution is not the best explanation of what happened.

Next lesson: the fossil history of the whale.

Ken Lehner

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Next lesson: the fossil history of the whale.

I got that National Geographic also. Here's what bothers me. A few years ago NG ran a cover story and had like a 10 page article about a reptile fossil that had feathers. This was THE proof for evolution. Done deal. Signed, sealed, and delivered.

Later it was found to be a hoax (still a pretty hot topic on the internet), and NG ran a one paragraph announcement in the back of the book. Doesn't seem to be much "unbias" on either side.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

Nice, factual reply. Next time, actually address the issue.

Ken Lehner

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Wow! What I'm reading is totally amazing. Just when I think a person has come up with all the right answers someone comes up with an even better question. If any of us have a screwed moral compass in they eyes of another does it matter if we're are religious, gay, or anything else for that matter? These debates on right or wrong based on religous beliefs has me troubled though. And to be honest I'm not sure how to account for my view on the matter. To be sure I think marriage is a religous ceremony when it takes place in a church (which is not to say one can not have a religous ceremony outside of one) and the whole religous leader leading it reading from a bible..etc etc. I haven't the foggiest where it all got started (marriage and ceremonies and the like) but a marriage with the above criteria (give or take a few..damn my indifference) are, by and large, religous based. That said for government to step in and say that someone whould be allowed to be married in a church (or of religous ceremony for those of other faiths) because it is constitutional is a load of crap. The same with a religous group of any sort trying to bend a law to suit their beliefs is totally wrong. Say I create my own religion and part of my faith lets me shoot people who try to run over cyclists (hey, all for that). Should the government allow that as an excuseable reason to shoot willy nilly everyone who opposes your religion...don't think so. Nor do I think if a religion says we won't marry gays..do I think the government has a right to say they have to. You know what...this thread has me far too confused.

Yeah we are living in a pretty messed up society (and we don't have to look too far beyond the front page of the local newspaper to see that). How do we fix it? Who knows. What one person thinks is fair for all is bound to be taken out of context by, or not apply to, at least one other person. Thereby throwing the whole, well intended, plan out the window. What I want to know is where it all started to spiral out of control. Yeah, there have been messed up people for as long as there have been people..but how on earth did we get them into office and allow them to change laws. Is it ever going to get better? Are the smart getting smarter and the dumb getting dumber? Rich richer/poor poorer? Should any of it be allowed or should those in a lesser position get off their ass and do something about it?

It's a dog eat dog world out there and too many dogs are looking out for themselves (not to imply looking out for yourself is a bad thing). At some point in time we stopped giving a damn what happened to anyone else but ourselves and I really think that was the beginning of the end. Yes we are all independant beings capable of living all by ourselves. And some of the time I really think there are people that need to stay that way. But when was the last time we really cared about the other guy? If we did, we wouldn't be having debates on right or wrong or drafting..then again..maybe we would. You've all given me way too much to think about and now my brain hurts. I'm climbing on the trainer and sweating it out of my system. Thanks the lot of you..however right or wrong you may be to one another.

Kent

Thanks you for making my point

>Along comes Jesus. In Luke 22:20, Jesus makes reference to the "new covenant." This is the forgiveness of sins through His shed blood, abolishing the Levitical laws.<

So the dietary laws were abolished, but not the prohibition of homosexuality? Sorry, if you want to use the Bible as your guide, you don't get to pick and choose which parts of the "law' you get to keep and which ones to throw out.

>marriage between a same-sex couple that I know to be morally wrong

Just I'm sure there were plenty of white folks who KNEW that blacks were genetically inferior and allowing them meaningful intereaction with white society would be wrong.

And by the way, I have read the first 5 books of the Bible and pork is specifically prohibited

Deut 14:8 Also the pig is ritually impure to you; though it has divided hooves,14 it does not chew the cud. You may not eat their meat or even touch their remains

---

_______________________________________________

Jhc Point well made...

">marriage between a same-sex couple that I know to be morally wrong

Just I'm sure there were plenty of white folks who KNEW that blacks were genetically inferior and allowing them meaningful intereaction with white society would be wrong."

It's truely unfortunate that some use the bits and pieces of christian writings to justify what is simply wrong and hurtful to a group that doesn't conform to a biased and sanctimonious defininition of what is "moral". In short, prejudice sees what it pleases and can not see what is in plain sight. Or, as A. Stevenson said, "Ignorance is stubborn and prejudice is hard." This is specially true when the ideas of prejudice are defined in complex terms of religion and emotion instead of simplier terms of logic and thoughtfulness.

Joe Moya