Comments Thread For: Manny Pacquiao's Senate Run Feels No Sting From Controversy

[SHO_RULEZ]

Don't have a problem with gays. Do what they do...I just have a problem with it being thrown in your face. I'm actually okay with two hot chick's going at it ...it's not gay sex, chicks naturally get more affectionate with each other than men. Kissing, so why not ...

Two men, I'm being honest, I'm not comfortable with that at all. Quentin Tarantino is obviously gay, bi, or just has a sick gay sex fetish. Instead of just making a gay ****o, he'll shove a sly gay sex scene in the faces of unsuspecting moviegoers to his films.

Just don't put it in peoples face, that's all...

[Reloaded]

Don't have a problem with gays. Do what they do...I just have a problem with it being thrown in your face. I'm actually okay with two hot chick's going at it ...it's not gay sex, chicks naturally get more affectionate with each other than men. Kissing, so why not ...

Two men, I'm being honest, I'm not comfortable with that at all. Quentin Tarantino is obviously gay, bi, or just has a sick gay sex fetish. Instead of just making a gay ****o, he'll shove a sly gay sex scene in the faces of unsuspecting moviegoers to his films.

Just don't put it in peoples face, that's all...

Exactly , dont parade it in my face and I dont care how any adult chooses to live their life .

[b Murphington]

"I stand firm on my stance because the information and data available are overwhelming."

clearly you did not understand or refuse to understand the import of what i posts...presently, your so called overwhelming information and data available have not proven beyond doubt that man came from apes...for recent scientific findings are pointing that that is not so...

"I love how something Pacquiao said spawned such a debate."

i separately want to discuss this issue as this one clearly shows that people tend to expand an issue really beyond what it really is...

pac aired his objection to same sex marriage in a very wrong manner...that hurt the lgbt sector....so hurt that it seems pac's apology was not really accepted...

but some posters here that want pac's head begun to expand the issue to the teachings of the bible....and if you really did take a reading of the other related threads or posts, that really expanded the issues too wide and too thin...

and evolution was thrown in to the ring...

and here we are now...

It took me a while but I finally found an article on what you were discribing. The F.A.L.S.E acronym. I read/skimmed through it and I gotta say, it was somewhat interesting read. I think that's the first time I heard an opposing evolution theory that had some logic built into it. However, it still doesn't really prove anything and a lot of what it's based on can be discredited. As the theory states, theories can never really be proven. Only reworked and revised. And this F.A.L.S.E thing is just that, another theory, and a theory that just tries to poke holes and discredit evolution. Hard to come to a conclusion on something that predates written history, but I would still say that evolution makes much more sense than the whole creator theory, just based on the fact alone that there is more science and physical evidence behind it. But at the same time, what do I know? Couldn't religion and evolution co-exist? Surely it can. We can just say it's Gods plan for evolution to take place and he's the one who created the Big **** right? That's the only theory I'm aware of as to how the universe was created.

As for the Pac thing. He clearly identifies as a hardcore Christian. Well, doesn't the teachings of the bible go directly against evolution? Wouldn't be to far of a stretch for me and other posters to say he's more than likely against the theory of evolution, is it?

So actually, yes, Pacquiao in a way, spawned this debate, no matter how stretched out or thin it is. After all, if he never said those things, I wouldn't be here now in this forum replying to your post.

But anyways, I've proven my points here. Believe what you want to believe sir, but I know your type. You're one of the overly confident intellectual types who will continue to get technical with me because you feel like you need to "prove" you're more intellectual than everyone else who questions it, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

[Mr. Punch-Out!!]

hahah holy ****! This the first time im reading about his post and bible verse. He knew what he was getting into saying that. If this really is his last fight then he's probably like "**** it. Ima just saying what i feel and not care what anyone says. Im going back to the philippines"

There was nothing wrong with posting the bible verse.

[b Murphington]

read the following:

All About Science: Darwin's Theory Of Evolution - A Theory in Crisis

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [6]

Ohhhhh I apologize, you weren't basing your argument on the F.A.L.S.E theory, you were basing it off of this book. My mistake. Didn't have time to read it, but from what I read, it got negative reviews from professional scientists. Oh well, they always say all geniuses start out as crazy people.

[tangalog2200]

Ohhhhh I apologize, you weren't basing your argument on the F.A.L.S.E theory, you were basing it off of this book. My mistake. Didn't have time to read it, but from what I read, it got negative reviews from professional scientists. Oh well, they always say all geniuses start out as crazy people.

darwin's confession that existence of irreducible complexity breaks down his theoy...

The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex...

the eye, the ear and the heart are examples of irreducible complexity...

[b Murphington]

darwin's confession that existence of irreducible complexity breaks down his theoy...

The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex...

the eye, the ear and the heart are examples of irreducible complexity...

Right, complexity I get it. But this doesn't disprove evolution. Darwin's original work was early evolution. That work was done in the mid 1800s. It wasn't even really evolution, just natural selection. Plus, you're comparing man made machinery to biology. Doesn't work like that.

The universe in general is complex. Look at the world, it's complex. But guess what. It changes. The universe changes over time. Stars explode, everything is constantly moving around, black holes forming. DNA can even change over time. Is it that far of a stretch that species change over time?

Not really. Nothing in life is static.

Also, you don't have an answer to how our DNA. Our genetic coding. Is 96% the same as chimpanzees. 96% identical. The chimp might as well be your far removed cousin. I posted a scientific article. All you're talking about is how unique humans are. We are unique. Our brain is one of a kind and this world proves that. Even so, that doesn't disprove the theory of evolution.

Maybe in a few years some sort of scientific break through will change my stance. Until that time comes. I stand firm.

[b Murphington]

darwin's confession that existence of irreducible complexity breaks down his theoy...

The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex...

the eye, the ear and the heart are examples of irreducible complexity...

Plus, you're using theories that are largely discredited by the scientific community. Until there's a break through, evolution reigns supreme. Go out and do a few scientific studies that undeniably disproves evolution and get back to me, k?

[KillaMane26]

Don't have a problem with gays. Do what they do...I just have a problem with it being thrown in your face. I'm actually okay with two hot chick's going at it ...it's not gay sex, chicks naturally get more affectionate with each other than men. Kissing, so why not ...

Two men, I'm being honest, I'm not comfortable with that at all. Quentin Tarantino is obviously gay, bi, or just has a sick gay sex fetish. Instead of just making a gay ****o, he'll shove a sly gay sex scene in the faces of unsuspecting moviegoers to his films.

Just don't put it in peoples face, that's all...

How i feel.....Cant watch MTV without da shlt being put in my face like Teen wolf etc. lol.

I mean I dont want my kids to think da shlt is normal ya know

[b Murphington]

How i feel.....Cant watch MTV without da shlt being put in my face like Teen wolf etc. lol.

I mean I dont want my kids to think da shlt is normal ya know

Well, all that's happening is acceptance. Tolerance at the very least, which is being okay with it, but it still irritates you slightly. I really do think there is a gay gene. I don't know if I'll get heat for stating that lol. But that doesn't necessarily make it 'bad' or 'wrong'. ****** people just don't like the idea of someone being different from themselves. Almost like people aren't comfortable with their sexuality. They think it's a disease or something, lol. Very ignorant. Very fearful almost.