Not absurd at all considering your ignorant, uneducated, naive, idiotic claims on abortion and gun rights.
But just paste where in the constitution it states abortion is a right and i'll de-conflate for ya
Fiorina Strikes Back At Pro-Abortion Critics
- Thread starter Nuk'EM Heels
- Start date
Not absurd at all considering your ignorant, uneducated, naive, idiotic claims on abortion and gun rights.
But just paste where in the constitution it states abortion is a right and i'll de-conflate for ya
No, the 2nd amendment protected the rights of states to form militias up until 7 years ago when the Supreme Court ruled that it also protected the rights of individuals to own firearms. You insult my education but you aren't even familiar with the Supreme Court cases that are relevant to your argument....
But hey since you need some help I'll even link to the case for you. Note the year, 2008
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Yea i do insult your intelligence. The case in question WAS A CHALLENGE TO DC GUN LAWS WHICH SCOTUS FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE......get ready for it...the 2nd amendment covers individuals. It ALWAYS HAS! This wasnt a new revelation. It was a confirmation of what was ALREADY A RIGHT.
I don't disagree that the 2nd amendment should protect the rights of individuals to own guns. I don't like the government telling me I can or can't do anything, even if its an abortion. But just like I think a doctor should be qualified before he performs one, an individual should be qualified before they own a gun.
Sorry, that's flat out wrong. The 2nd amendment now covers individuals, but it has not always. You can disagree in principle but that was the letter of the law.
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[10][11]
"...an individual should be qualified before they own a gun."
Now, I have absolutely no problem with this whatsoever... Perhaps the only sensible thing you've ever posted here...
aiy yay yay
Dude, SCOTUS doesnt change the constitution! IT INTERPRETS IT!!! Do you not understand that??!!!! Their interpretation of the 2nd amendment was that it DID APPLY TO INDIVIDUALS! They didnt change it to apply to individuals. They said It ALREADY DID!
So to summarize
YOU claim the right didnt exist til 7 yrs ago
SCOTUS claims it always existed as defined in 2nd amendment
Lets try this again.
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[10][11]
Lol try it a thousand times for all i care. U claim the right didnt exist til 7 yrs ago. SCOTUS disagrees. I'll go with their interpretation and u can go with the '39 decision. Good luck.
Your reading comprehension is lacking. I never said the right didn't exist. I said that under the interpretation of the SCOTUS the 2nd amendment has not always protected individuals. That is clearly the case
Hmmmm here is what u said
"A court interpretation is what gave you the individual right to bear arms. Up until 7 years ago the 2nd amendment only protected the rights of states to form militias."
So u said it was the court interp which gave the right (which is wrong btw its the constitution) This interp was 7 yrs ago.
Ergo BY YOUR STATEMENT we didnt have the right before then
Also u then said "up until 7 yrs ago" it only protected states and mulitias.
Ergo before then BY YOUR STATEMENT Ind rights werent protected.
Thats TWICE u claimed the right didnt exist til 7 yrs ago.
Maybe u should practice reading comp
On YOUR OWN FKING POSTS!
What is CLEARLY THE CASE is that SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amend protects individuals. They didnt change the amendment. They INTERPRETED IT! THEY INTERPRETED IT IN THE FACE OF DC GUN LAWS WHICH PEOPLE CLAIMED WENT AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION 2nd AMENDMENT RE IND RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!!!!!!!!!
And guess what?
SCOTUS SAID THEY WERE RIGHT!!!!!!!
(Drops the mike)
I'm done. Have the last word if u like. Good luck convincing me you're right and SCOTUS was wrong
"A court interpretation is what gave you the individual right to bear arms. Up until 7 years ago the 2nd amendment only protected the rights of states to form militias."
So u said it was the court interp which gave the right (which is wrong btw its the constitution) This interp was 7 yrs ago.
Ergo BY YOUR STATEMENT we didnt have the right before then
Also u then said "up until 7 yrs ago" it only protected states and mulitias.
Ergo before then BY YOUR STATEMENT Ind rights werent protected.
Thats TWICE u claimed the right didnt exist til 7 yrs ago.
Maybe u should practice reading comp
On YOUR OWN FKING POSTS!
What is CLEARLY THE CASE is that SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amend protects individuals. They didnt change the amendment. They INTERPRETED IT! THEY INTERPRETED IT IN THE FACE OF DC GUN LAWS WHICH PEOPLE CLAIMED WENT AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION 2nd AMENDMENT RE IND RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!!!!!!!!!
And guess what?
SCOTUS SAID THEY WERE RIGHT!!!!!!!
(Drops the mike)
I'm done. Have the last word if u like. Good luck convincing me you're right and SCOTUS was wrong
How is determination made as to whether or not a person is qualified to own a gun?
That is an excellent question. But nobody here knows the answer. The difference is that I don't pretend to know because a really old book told me so. And it an absurd non-sequitur to suggest that if secularism hasn't provided an answer YET, then it must be god. That is referred to as the "god of the gaps"
There are currently a lot of theories. In my opinion the most plausible is panspermia
I find it amusing when the religious call us secularists the arrogant ones, but scientists revel in not knowing the answers. They don't pretend to have answers they don't have. Its the religious who claim to know things they cannot possibly know. Such as the origins of life. The shift from chemistry to biology is perhaps the most interesting question in all of science. We've got theories, and they can actually be tested.
I don't pretend to be an expert, but I don't see why a practical test on gun safety should be off the table. You have to prove you can drive a car safely so you aren't a threat to others, I don't see why the same shouldn't be true of guns.
You can slam me for being a "liberal" but the fact is I have defended people's rights to own AR-15's, high caliber handguns, and all kinds of other guns. I enjoy shooting AR's immensely and I think banning guns is about as likely to work as banning drugs.
What planet are you on? Of course secularism has provided it's answer to this fundamental question... It's been pushing that answer since Scopes Monkey Trial...
Evolution is not an explanation for the origins of life, its an explanation for the process that took place after life began. Origins of human life sure, but not life itself. We do share 99.9% of our genetic code with chimpanzees, and unfortunately with comments like that, it shows.
You are completely full of it! Of course evolution has addressed the origins of life itself!!!! Absolutely astonishingly dishonest on your part, that much is obvious.
You clearly don't know anything about evolution. Evolution simply states that through the process of natural selection, organisms evolve. That makes no assertion as to where the first complex organism originally came from. We dont know how chemistry shifted into biology. Neither do you
Your so full of bull crap your eyeballs are brown... If you think you are anything close to being a "scientist" you are completely deluded; and, if other wanna-be scientists are anything like you, we are completely screwed.
From a very simple google search:
How did life originate?
Living things (even ancient organisms like bacteria) are enormously complex. However, all this complexity did not leap fully-formed from the primordial soup. Instead life almost certainly originated in a series of small steps, each building upon the complexity that evolved previously:
- Simple organic molecules were formed.
Simple organic molecules, similar to the nucleotide shown below, are the building blocks of life and must have been involved in its origin. Experiments suggest that organic molecules could have been synthesized in the atmosphere of early Earth and rained down into the oceans. RNA and DNA molecules — the genetic material for all life — are just long chains of simple nucleotides.
- Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection.
All living things reproduce, copying their genetic material and passing it on to their offspring. Thus, the ability to copy the molecules that encode genetic information is a key step in the origin of life — without it, life could not exist. This ability probably first evolved in the form of an RNA self-replicator — an RNA molecule that could copy itself.
Many biologists hypothesize that this step led to an "RNA world" in which RNA did many jobs, storing genetic information, copying itself, and performing basic metabolic functions. Today, these jobs are performed by many different sorts of molecules (DNA, RNA, and proteins, mostly), but in the RNA world, RNA did it all.
Self-replication opened the door for natural selection. Once a self-replicating molecule formed, some variants of these early replicators would have done a better job of copying themselves than others, producing more "offspring." These super-replicators would have become more common — that is, until one of them was accidentally built in a way that allowed it to be a super-super-replicator — and then, that variant would take over. Through this process of continuous natural selection, small changes in replicating molecules eventually accumulated until a stable, efficient replicating system evolved.
- Replicating molecules became enclosed within a cell membrane.
The evolution of a membrane surrounding the genetic material provided two huge advantages: the products of the genetic material could be kept close by and the internal environment of this proto-cell could be different than the external environment. Cell membranes must have been so advantageous that these encased replicators quickly out-competed "naked" replicators. This breakthrough would have given rise to an organism much like a modern bacterium.
Cell membranes enclose the genetic material.
- Some cells began to evolve modern metabolic processes and out-competed those with older forms of metabolism.
Up until this point, life had probably relied on RNA for most jobs (as described in Step 2 above). But everything changed when some cell or group of cells evolved to use different types of molecules for different functions: DNA (which is more stable than RNA) became the genetic material, proteins (which are often more efficient promoters of chemical reactions than RNA) became responsible for basic metabolic reactions in the cell, and RNA was demoted to the role of messenger, carrying information from the DNA to protein-building centers in the cell. Cells incorporating these innovations would have easily out-competed "old-fashioned" cells with RNA-based metabolisms, hailing the end of the RNA world.
- Multicellularity evolved.
As early as two billion years ago, some cells stopped going their separate ways after replicating and evolved specialized functions. They gave rise to Earth's first lineage of multicellular organisms, such as the 1.2 billion year old fossilized red algae in the photo below.
These fossils of Bangiomorpha pubescens are 1.2 billion years old. Toward the lower end of the fossil on the left there are cells differentiated for attaching to a substrate. If you look closely at the upper part of the fossil on the right, you can see longitudinal division that has divided disc-shaped cells into a number of radially arranged wedge-shaped cells, as we would see in a modern bangiophyte red alga.
Studying the origin of life
The origin of life might seem like the ultimate cold case: no one was there to observe it and much of the relevant evidence has been lost in the intervening 3.5 billion years or so. Nonetheless, many separate lines of evidence do shed light on this event, and as biologists continue to investigate these data, they are slowly piecing together a picture of how life originated. Major lines of evidence include DNA, biochemistry, and experiments.
Origins and DNA evidence
Biologists use the DNA sequences of modern organisms to reconstruct the tree of life and to figure out the likely characteristics of the most recent common ancestor of all living things — the "trunk" of the tree of life. In fact, according to some hypotheses, this "most recent common ancestor" may actually be a set of organisms that lived at the same time and were able to swap genes easily. In either case, reconstructing the early branches on the tree of life tells us that this ancestor (or set of ancestors) probably used DNA as its genetic material and performed complex chemical reactions. But what came before it? We know that this last common ancestor must have had ancestors of its own - a long line of forebears forming the root of the tree of life - but to learn about them, we must turn to other lines of evidence.
Origins and biochemical evidence
By studying the basic biochemistry shared by many organisms, we can begin to piece together how biochemical systems evolved near the root of the tree of life. However, up until the early 1980s, biologists were stumped by a "chicken and egg" problem: in all modern organisms, nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) are necessary to build proteins, and proteins are necessary to build nucleic acids - so which came first, the nucleic acid or the protein? This problem was solved when a new property of RNA was discovered: some kinds of RNA can catalyze chemical reactions — and that means that RNA can both store genetic information and cause the chemical reactions necessary to copy itself. This breakthrough tentatively solved the chicken and egg problem: nucleic acids (and specifically, RNA) came first — and later on, life switched to DNA-based inheritance.
Another important line of biochemical evidence comes in the form of surprisingly common molecules. As you might expect, many of the chemical reactions occurring in your own cells, in the cells of a fungus, and in a bacterial cell are quite different from one another; however, many of them (such as those that release energy to power cellular work) are exactly the same and rely on the exact same molecules. Because these molecules are widespread and are critically important to all life, they are thought to have arisen very early in the history of life and have been nicknamed "molecular fossils." ATP, adenosine triphosphate (shown below), is one such molecule; it is essential for powering cellular processes and is used by all modern life. Studying ATP and other molecular fossils, has revealed a surprising commonality: many molecular fossils are closely related to nucleic acids, as shown below.
The discoveries of catalytic RNA and of molecular fossils closely related to nucleic acids suggest that nucleic acids (and specifically, RNA) were crucial to Earth's first life. These observations support the RNA world hypothesis, that early life used RNA for basic cellular processes (instead of the mix of proteins, RNA, and DNA used by modern organisms).
You clearly missed the part where scientist had to hypothesize a major step in the process. There are theories as to how we got from single cell organisms to more complex organisms but they have not been proven.
"they are slowly piecing together a picture of how life originated. Major lines of evidence include DNA, biochemistry, and experiments."
I never said they didn't have theories. I said we don't know conclusively how it began. However the rest of the theory of evolution is as watertight as any accepted scientific fact we know of.
"they are slowly piecing together a picture of how life originated. Major lines of evidence include DNA, biochemistry, and experiments."
I never said they didn't have theories. I said we don't know conclusively how it began. However the rest of the theory of evolution is as watertight as any accepted scientific fact we know of.
Right, an RNA replicator cell must have existed... So, that brings you back to how that could have occurred to begin with. Which points to something outside of the system influencing the system, putting His fingerprints on the whole thing... That's a real problem for you...
Your logic is insanely flawed. You don't have the answer, therefore you must have the answer. This is commonly referred to as the "argument from ignorance."
Not knowing where the original RNA replicator cell came from does not mean it came from god. Children can understand this.
This came from an evolutionist's website, idiot. The point is scientists who believe in evolution believe they have the answer, and they are very confident about it. And, they know a hell of a lot more than you about this...
So, where did the RNA replicator cell come from, Under-7th-Grader?
Please show me an evolutionist's website that says that god must be responsible for the first RNA replicator?
You literally can't even follow the argument. This is pathetic.
I never said that the evolutionist's website says that God created the RNA replicator cells. I ask you that question, idiot.
You quoted my post which was a refutation of your logic about "god's fingerprint" and you responded by saying it came from an evolutionist's website. Its not my fault you aren't paying attention
Last edited:
Again, I've never claimed to have the answer. If you actually could read you would've realized that was my entire point. That religious people claim to have an answer they cannot possibly have.
Also, this may be hard for you to understand but me not having the answer, doesn't make your answer correct. That's a non-sequitur.
And I happen to believe that a higher power is responsible for the origin of life. I think no less of you for your beliefs.
The actual answer is that certain mysteries cannot be explained. It all comes down to faith.
I have no problem with a practical test on safe handling being required prior to gun ownership.
Great! So, you have no clue how RNA replicator cells could have come into being, but you have complete faith in the science that says that is about the only way evolution could proceed from the formation of life on earth. And, as an atheist you have complete faith in secularism, scientific materialism, evolutionism, and any/all other -isms that would dispel the existence or relevance of God. You insult those who don't believe in your atheist religion with just about every slur in the book, all the while unjustifiably maintaining your intellectual superiority complex. And, you've done this since you started posting here. Your only redeeming quality is that you're only in the 7th grade and you have a long time to un-screw yourself.
Last edited:
We likely will never know the origin of the universe, or even be able to entirely explain the origin of life on our own planet. Which is why we shouldn't be basing public policy on religious morality or metaphysics. Or any other faith based ideology. Not saying you suggested that, but that's why people like me are actively opposing religion. There's simply no use pretending that these ideas don't have a pernicious effect on society at large. That however doesn't mean that every religious person is a bad person, it just means that the institutions of religion are not as benevolent as they would like people to believe.
Not to mention they are all totally arbitrary. Deism is one thing, but if you subscribe to a monotheistic religion, you should assume you are going to hell just as a matter of probability. They are all contradictory and claim to be the only path to salvation. Even if we assume one of them is correct, you're still more likely to go to hell than heaven.
Here's a totally benign question though. If you believe that a higher power created life, then where did the higher power come from? Usually the argument is that life is too complex to not have been designed. Yet any entity that could design such a complex mechanism would have to be immensely complex itself, and thus it becomes an endless rabbit hole.
Atheism is as much a religion as abstinence is a sex position. You make middle school jokes yet your argument essentially boils down to "I know you are but what am I"
Blah, blah, blah... You've said all this before - it has been completely discredited.
