| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/31/2008 07:12:13 PM · #176 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
The Creation account has been around since Moses wrote it down inspired by God (He was there obviously). Never once has it changed and never once as any actual EVIDENCE come to light that contradicts it.
Amazing when you divorce yourself from the hype of evolution and actually look at the facts. |
Hmmm let me see:
The Creation account has been around since [insert author of any creation story] wrote it down inspired by God (He was there obviously). Never once has it changed and never once as any actual EVIDENCE come to light that contradicts it.
Yup - works to confirm the validity of every creation story. The only trick is to figure out which one of them tells the truth. When you want to do so without using any evidence that's quite a challenge, but I am sure that you're the one to assess the options objectively and present us a fair and balanced reason why the Jewish creation story is the accurate one.
Message edited by author 2008-08-31 19:13:48.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2008 07:18:13 PM · #177 |
Hey Matthew, do you believe the universe is expanding?
|
|
|
|
08/31/2008 07:19:19 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
When did affordable health insurance become free healthcare? |
It's already affordable for most and those that cannot have public heath care. No one is turned away in this country. They may incur debt, but they will be treated for emergencies.
When did health insurance become a "right"? Never. |
Oh really? What do you call affordable? $750 a month with a $5000 deductible? |
I know I'm late on this part of the conversation, but something needs to be done with the health care in this country. It isn't really affordable for most that can't get under a group coverage. Two years ago my daughter was born 7 weeks premature. At the time my wife worked for the DNC and luckily we had really good coverage. The hospital bills ended up being about $180,000. If we weren't covered at 100% we would have gone bankrupt with something like that on a 10% or 20%. Then my wife didn't work and my boss died and the company I worked for went out of business. We payed $1500 a month for COBRA insurance cause I wanted to keep insurance on my daughter. We did everything we could to try and cut that down. No private insurance companies would touch my wife or daughter cause they were considered 'high risk'. We tried to get her on the child state insurance for low income families. What really got me is that we both were on unemployement for a time and we got denied coverage because we were told we made too much which was asinine. We both were unemployed.
I do think something needs to be done with the health care and the big insurance companies. I lived in and seen other countries and ours is a little messed up. |
|
|
|
08/31/2008 07:23:27 PM · #179 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Evolutionist hang a story on the evidence... and that story keeps changing as new evidence is found that confounds their story. |
Incidentally - if you were to find some verifiable evidence that contradicted the occurrence of evolution, it would be an instant-Nobel prize level of international recognition for you (since you would be the first person to do so). It would dramatically advance the cause of creationism and religion. You could speak on the world stage and be taken seriously (unlike here).
Given the strength of your conviction, perhaps it would be worth you devoting some serious time to this exercise?
|
|
|
|
08/31/2008 07:38:25 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Hey Matthew, do you believe the universe is expanding? |
I don't "believe" it as an article of faith.
There is more than one way to read the available evidence. It has not been proven beyond all doubt because the necessary measurements are difficult to take: we are not yet able to measure some things that we theorize must exist. If we find out that these things do not exist, or have properties different to those that we expect, then we will have to revise the current theories and models.
We are spending billions collecting the evidence that will either help prove some elements of those existing theories, or contradict them (eg the LHC). I would hate to say that it will go one way or the other - we'll find out in a few months. Either way, it is pretty fascinating.
However, the explanation that best fits the evidence currently available is that the universe has expanded (dramatically at first then more slowly) and appears still to be doing so. You can see observe this for yourself if you chose to do so with a powerful telescope (by measuring the red-shift patterns of the sky's stars, which indicates their direction and speed of movement).
Edit: what do you believe?
Message edited by author 2008-08-31 19:51:55.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2008 07:51:31 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The Declaration says that you have a right to the PURSUIT of happiness - it does not say that you have a right to the ATTAINMENT of happiness. The ATTAINMENT of happiness is, to a large degree, under your control. |
Hi RonB. I would be interested to know your views on a woman taking the VP role. After all, doesn't the bible indicates that women should not take on leadership roles?
Isiah 3:12 indicates that when men leave leadership roles to women that society is weakened. From the beginning, God placed men in the role of leader and provider (Genesis 3:16-19) and women as partners with their husbands and homemakers (Genesis 2:18; 3:16). Paul's instructions in Titus 2:4-5 verify that these roles did not change under the New Covenant.
That's pretty incontrovertible proof, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
08/31/2008 07:51:50 PM · #182 |
Fascinating indeed. So, it could be that something is expanding into an area that does not exist? Wow! And we can see this by looking at something that is gazillions of light years away, so far away that what we are seeing may have been long gone billions of years ago, which may mean the universe might be shrinking? Holy cow man, God has a great sense of humour doesn't He?
|
|
|
|
08/31/2008 08:01:52 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Fascinating indeed. So, it could be that something is expanding into an area that does not exist? Wow! And we can see this by looking at something that is gazillions of light years away, so far away that what we are seeing may have been long gone billions of years ago, which may mean the universe might be shrinking? Holy cow man, God has a great sense of humour doesn't He? |
Erm - you might need to read up a bit. That's a gross misunderstanding of what people are doing to understand the evidence. I am guessing that you have not studied much physics.
One of the beautiful things about studying things that are very far away is that you can study things that happened billions of years ago. In fact, that is exactly how we can know how the universe came into existence - by studying the remnants of the big bang "explosion" that have travelled a very great distance and are still reverberating around us.
Edit to add an interesting article about observations of the universe at 300k years old (when galaxies were first being seeded) that competing theories to that of inflation would have difficulty explaining.
Message edited by author 2008-08-31 20:18:55.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2008 08:10:12 PM · #184 |
Really, all this you take by faith. The math does not compute without faith.
Ever learning, Never coming to the knowledge of The Truth.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2008 08:22:50 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Really, all this you take by faith. The math does not compute without faith.
Ever learning, Never coming to the knowledge of The Truth. |
I don't really understand what you mean by that, but it seems rather belittling of man's abilities, don't you think?
I was slow editing an interesting article in my last post - about observations of the universe at 300k years old (when galaxies were first being seeded) that competing theories to that of inflation would have difficulty explaining.
Do you think that the people observing these early scenes are lying or mistaken?
|
|
|
|
08/31/2008 08:42:11 PM · #186 |
Since some hate this I will continue typing up here. BTW no you did not type that your hilighted it and turned it to bold anyone who does not believe the person is lying look up top at the original post by me. Number two I never said I was making you happy I said its seems like you would be happier if I left. Please Don't twist my words around. Look I know the air can get thin up in Tennessee but really all you can tell is the last few post and yeah I have been bored with photography lately but do engage in other parts of this board. For instance a few technical sections for people who were asking how to fix a setting on their pc's You can search if you as inclined to. BTW the pot calling the kettle black is meant your attacking me in a rant forum but then attacking me for participating in a rant forum. And actually I like poking bees and spazmos and Jebs and Mathews..... Also I have only the privilage as all of us paying and nonpaying users of this site until Langdon decides otherwise.
Originally posted by RKT:
Originally posted by coronamv:
It's like the pot calling the kettle black. I could ask you the same thing. Is this your way of saying I should leave so you can be happy? I don't enter contest without something that may have a chance of scoring decent. I also if you did your homework am not the one who starts these post. So they you go. Now can someone please answer my post about gun control? Why is everyone hiding from that one. Hey at least Spazmo said something!
|
Bold added by me.
Huh?
You're the one who needs to do some homework, starting with actually taking a look at my profile. I am a paying member who participates in ALL areas of this website. I rarely participate in rants but was for some reason moved to do so this time. My mistake. I know there are others who start these posts...they also participate in other areas of this website. I took a look at your thread participation history and it speaks for itself. You didn't answer my question...why are you here? Do you just like to poke bees?
As far as gun control...really not at the top of my priority's at the moment. My husband is concerned about the 2nd amendment and that's why he's a Libertarian.
And as far as you thinking your being here has anything to do with my happiness? You need to get over yourself...the sooner the better. |
|
|
|
|
08/31/2008 08:47:04 PM · #187 |
BTW if they started too then I would not vote for them Either... It is that simple we vote for who has our best interest at heart. If your into believing the world is a safer place without guns in the hands of the civilians than that is your opinion. I'm not saying that is your opinion but since you have not gave one and oppose me without an answer to my question I posted then I must asume it is so.
Originally posted by RKT:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Corollaries and usage
There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[2] than others invented later.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").[6]
Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. It does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime.[citation needed] Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, because although mentioning and trivializing Nazism in an online discussion, this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.
However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's Law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons.
So if it is applicable then it is you that has abused Godwins Law acording to it's definition. BTW I was rebutting a statement compairing the U.S. To Hitler's Germany in the 30's
Originally posted by RKT:
I call Godwin's law. |
|
I think not. I know I said I was going to leave this thread alone, but you  coronamv are one of the most...words defy me at the moment.
And if you think for one minute the Republicans wouldn't be happy to take away you're guns under the guise of keeping all of us safe from terrorists...you are a fool. |
|
|
|
|
08/31/2008 08:51:30 PM · #188 |
Come on is this not one sided since you can do the same with many others here in the rant forum.. So what if we like arguing amongst each other. I kind of have to agree as long as langdon lets the rant forum exist then people are going to argue their opinion. You can turn it off or not engage in the dialect if you feel it offends you. But at least have the curtesy to look at the bigger picture. There are many of us that this is what we check first. And in a sick sense enjoy the most out of this website. Quite frankly I have not found a photo I feel worthy of entering in a challenge in a while. Been to busy with other hobbies and making money.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2008 09:54:39 PM · #189 |
"Ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Timothy 3:7)
|
|
|
|
08/31/2008 10:27:23 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by RonB:
The Declaration says that you have a right to the PURSUIT of happiness - it does not say that you have a right to the ATTAINMENT of happiness. The ATTAINMENT of happiness is, to a large degree, under your control. |
Hi RonB. I would be interested to know your views on a woman taking the VP role. |
I view it as no different than if a man were to take on the VP role.
Originally posted by Matthew:
After all, doesn't the bible indicates that women should not take on leadership roles?
Isiah 3:12 indicates that when men leave leadership roles to women that society is weakened. |
No, It doesn't. A simple look at the book of Judges Chapters 4 and 5 would show that the Bible does not indicate that society is weakened under a woman's leadership:
Judges 4:4-5: "And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment."
Mind you, Deborah was head of the Judicial Branch of Government rather than second in command of the Executive Branch as Ms. Palin would be, if elected.
Originally posted by Matthew:
From the beginning, God placed men in the role of leader and provider (Genesis 3:16-19) and women as partners with their husbands and homemakers (Genesis 2:18; 3:16).
Paul's instructions in Titus 2:4-5 verify that these roles did not change under the New Covenant. |
True, but if Ms. Palin is elected, she will not be my spouse, nor I hers. She should remain a partner and homemaker to her husband, and respect his role as leader of their family. But Paul's instructions concern a woman's relationship to her HUSBAND, not to her neighbor's husband, or to her village, or to her tribe, or to her country.
Originally posted by Matthew:
That's pretty incontrovertible proof, isn't it? |
Absolutely not.
And let me just say ahead of time that Paul's instructions in 1 Timothy 2:11 concern women not taking a leadership position over men in matters of the CHURCH, not in matters of the STATE. Since the U.S. is not a CHURCH, the instruction is not applicable to the office of VP.
( edited for spelling )
Message edited by author 2008-08-31 22:29:22. |
|
|
|
09/01/2008 11:30:53 AM · #191 |
I can't speak for coronamv ( nor would I want to ), but as for me, the reason I hang aroung to play in a rant forum is because if I didn't, the readers would only get exposed to either a) ONE view of an issue that presents unsubstantiated arguments or b) an opposing view that also presents unsubstantiated arguments. I participate to hopefully expose both so that readers can make an informed decision. Note that I seldom challenge OPINIONS, just misleading or utterly false statement of FACTS - that are not, in fact, facts.
I feel it my duty to counter false claims about Scripture.
And there ARE some arenas in which FACTS are not known ( e.g. which is FACT, macro-evolution or creationism? ) |
|
|
|
09/01/2008 12:56:10 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I can't speak for coronamv ( nor would I want to ), but as for me, the reason I hang aroung to play in a rant forum is because if I didn't, the readers would only get exposed to either a) ONE view of an issue that presents unsubstantiated arguments or b) an opposing view that also presents unsubstantiated arguments. I participate to hopefully expose both so that readers can make an informed decision. Note that I seldom challenge OPINIONS, just misleading or utterly false statement of FACTS - that are not, in fact, facts.
I feel it my duty to counter false claims about Scripture.
And there ARE some arenas in which FACTS are not known ( e.g. which is FACT, macro-evolution or creationism? ) |
Actually, you usually derail threads with extraneous red herrings, but at least you're well-intentioned. |
|
|
|
09/01/2008 01:26:46 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Louis:
People like him are happy so long as the candidate can oomph out support for theocracy, denialism, bellicosity, and various and sundry other self-serving and deadly absurdities. |
Originally posted by Louis on 6/10/2008 in another thread:
Thank you for your opinion. Please accept mine as a possible counter to your position. In so doing, please refrain from mistaking my argument as either an opinion on your personality, or an attack against your character. |
How can one be mistaken, when you are not presenting an argument at all? This is obviously an attack on someone's character. |
Actually, it's an attack on a position. I didn't say anything about the warts on anyone's nose, their bad breath, or their horrible table manners. But if you ran in here just to judge my small response to his vitriol as a "character attack", I'm pleased to accept the charge. |
Saying something about the warts on someone's nose, their bad breath, or their horrible table manners are not attacks on their CHARACTER. Saying something negative about what makes them "happy", is.
I'm glad to see that you acknowledge your hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Louis:
But let's see what your friend had to say, and then wonder out loud where you stand on his language. First, he called Obama a "loser" within the first four words of this thread. Now that's seasoned debate. Then, he compared Biden with Jacqueline Kennedy using a puerile but patently offensive image, the undercurrent obviously being that Obama is ripe for the sniper's target, and he tried to pass that off as "satire". Then it was simply gales of derisive laughter in response to a comment involving Palin. Then Obama is a "loser", a "moron". Then your friend's bigotry is revealed with "Oreobama". Then Obama is a puppet. Then someone's wife should be "corrected". Then he called someone's intellect and reading skills into question for exposing his hypocrisy. Then Obama is "Brak Hussein Osama". Then he is an "empty suit, empty mind, empty character". His bigotry is further revealed when he calls The Trinity United Church of Christ "a front for black social change in the guise of a Christian church" (later backpedaling rather lamely). Then Roman Catholicism is not Christian. Then, scientists and others who understand evolution are feces-flinging sub-humans. |
1) Attacks on Senators Obama, Biden, and McCain, Governor Palin, President Bush, VP Cheney, etc., even if published or televised, are exempt from libel/slander litigation, as they are "public figures". In that regard, anything is fair game. If someone were to make unfounded accusations of malfeasance or moral turpitude against Obama, I would not support such accusations, but "empty suit, empty mind, empty character" are such obvious expressions of opinion that no substantiation is required. MANY in the Rant forum have made vile accusations about President Bush, VP Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, etc. with no word of condemnation by you - so why would you expect me to respond to such accusations about Obama?
2) Given the highly publicized rhetoric from Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., former pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ, calling the church "a front for black social change" is not entirely without merit. I personally would not go so far as to say it was operating under the "guise of a Christian church", because I have not done enough research on that church's positions and actions to make a determination of whether it does or does not model the teaching of Christ.
3) A lengthy discussion/debate about Catholicism and Christianity took place in another thread. To the best of my knowledge, NO-ONE in that thread EVER said that Catholics ( people ) were not Christians ( people ). They DID maintain that the tenets of Catholicism ( the ideology ) were at odds with the tenets of Christianity ( the ideology ).
4) Scientists who support the Theory of Evolution ARE feces-flinging sub-humans - or at least they Evolved from feces-flinging sub-humans, if the Theory they support is anywhere close to being true :-).
Originally posted by Louis:
All served up with exactly zero substantiating evidence -- as if you could provide evidence for why Barack Obama deserves to be called "Oreobama".
Align yourself with the views of, or defend this sort of individual if you like. I for one make no apologies for feeling revulsion at this kind of spectacle. He assuredly deserves ridicule of the highest order. Whether he is a good father, a good driver, a good baker, I could care less. He has shown his character in this thread -- as have you, as have I, as have all the respondents -- and in my estimation his character is flawed, his views vile. If this admission is tantamount to a character attack from your point of view, then I happily stand so accused. |
You are certainly entitled to your views - but as I stated in another thread, when you DO make your personal views known, and we compare the expression of those views to your stated cautions about posting in these threads, you DO run the risk of exposing yourself as being hypocritical.
Message edited by author 2008-09-01 13:27:22. |
|
|
|
09/01/2008 02:43:56 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Scientists who support the Theory of Evolution ARE feces-flinging sub-humans - or at least they Evolved from feces-flinging sub-humans, if the Theory they support is anywhere close to being true :-). |
Your theory has them coming from dust. Why is theirs more far-fetched? |
|
|
|
09/01/2008 03:31:15 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by RonB:
Scientists who support the Theory of Evolution ARE feces-flinging sub-humans - or at least they Evolved from feces-flinging sub-humans, if the Theory they support is anywhere close to being true :-). |
Your theory has them coming from dust. Why is theirs more far-fetched? |
Because theirs does not provide for any "intelligence" behind the existence of something as complex as RNA, let alone DNA, and certainly no provision for anything as complex as the audacity of "hope" ( pun intended ). When the Theory of Evolution can be used to explain a scientific, purely genetic reason for "hope" or "faith", then I may have cause to reconsider my position. Frankly, I don't see that happening. |
|
|
|
09/01/2008 10:34:51 PM · #196 |
An excerpt from the article you linked to:
"The economists said half of the $400 billion in losses will be borne by leveraged U.S. financial institutions, many of which took risky bets on subprime mortgage securities that turned sour when delinquencies rose." ( emphasis mine )
To me, that sounds more like the blam for the housing crises rests squarely on the shoulders of the greedy financial institutions, coupled with the foolishness of those who took on more than they could afford. It CERTAINLY can't be blamed on the Bush administration.
All true. But that is neither Bush's fault, nor an indication that the U.S. is in "deep shit".
To quote the article you linked to:
"Homeownership rates, the number of cars per driver and the ownership of a whole range of consumer durables hit new records. But many consumers became overextended, and now American growth has hit a temporary limit. Consumer retrenchment is likely to go on for a while, probably through most of 2009, producing an extended period of slow growth and quite possibly a recession."
Note, once again, that it was not the fault of the Bush administration that consumers took on more debt than they could afford.
Incidently, how do you feel about this statement from that same article?
"Demands for a rollback in free trade are particularly troubling, but so are calls for a return to punitive tax rates, significantly enhanced regulation and a retreat from America's commitment to underwriting global security."
The Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress says ( ref here ):
"Economists have studied the job-destroying features of a higher minimum wage. Estimates of the job losses of raising the minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.15 have ranged from 625,000 to 100,000 lost jobs. It is important to recognize that the jobs lost are mainly entry-level jobs. By destroying entry-level jobs, a higher minimum wage harms the lifetime earnings prospects of low-skilled workers."
Nevertheless, Congress DID increase the minimum wage and now YOU validate the JEC's claim by pointing out that increases in unemployment actually DID follow the increases in the minimum wage. FWIW, in June, 2007, before the first of two July increases in the federal minimum wage, unemployment was 4.5 percent. It has risen nearly monthly since then.
If you are providing this link as proof that the U.S. is in "deep shit", then you must acknowledge that Canada was in "deep shit" just a few years ago, since Nova Scotia also provided energy assistance payments to it's residents ( ref here ):
"A $35-million plan to help Nova Scotians adjust to rising energy costs will provide immediate financial relief for those with the greatest need, while helping everyone, including government, conserve energy and save money in the future."
Do you suppose that the government takeover by the Conservative Party in Canada occurred just in time to prevent more widespead energy crises?
Originally posted by Jac:
As for the fuel costs you posted. It's a normal trend for them to drop a little at the end of summer, it happens every year. Anyways, the numbers you posted are irrelevant to the fact they have been rising for the past 3 years at a record pace, nonstop.
What are the projections calling for? Seven dollar a gallon in not too long. Or 3 direct Gulf of Mexico hits by category 5 hurricanes and we're all riding bikes to work for a bit. |
U.S. vs Canada Prices for Gasoline ( in U.S. dollars per gallon )
Date /// US Price /// Canadian Price /// Difference
9/1/2003 /// $1.70 /// $3.00 ///
9/1/2004 /// $1.85 /// $3.10 /// U.S. up .15, Canada up .10
9/1/2005 /// $2.80 /// $4.05 /// U.S. up .95, Canada up .95
9/1/2006 /// $2.60 /// $3.75 /// U.S. down .20, Canada down .30
9/1/2007 /// $2.75 /// $3.95 /// U.S. up .15, Canada up .20
9/1/2008 /// $3.70 /// $4.95 /// U.S. up .95, Canada up 1.00
If the price of gas in Canada so closely parallels the price of gas in the U.S., and is consistently a buck or so higher, you would have to acknowledge that if gas price increases prove that the U.S. is in "deep shit", then they prove that Canada is, too.
Now I know why you hate playing the link game. Ready to play some more? |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 08:13:21 AM · #197 |
| We are starting to get complaints about uncivil behavior in this thread. For sure it's a topic about which some are passionate; please be sure to respect the viewpoints of others or we will have to lock this thread. Thanks! |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 09:18:02 AM · #198 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by RonB:
Scientists who support the Theory of Evolution ARE feces-flinging sub-humans - or at least they Evolved from feces-flinging sub-humans, if the Theory they support is anywhere close to being true :-). |
Your theory has them coming from dust. Why is theirs more far-fetched? |
Because theirs does not provide for any "intelligence" behind the existence of something as complex as RNA, let alone DNA, and certainly no provision for anything as complex as the audacity of "hope" ( pun intended ). When the Theory of Evolution can be used to explain a scientific, purely genetic reason for "hope" or "faith", then I may have cause to reconsider my position. Frankly, I don't see that happening. |
Why can't "intelligence" be behind evolution? Science makes no attempt to disprove God. It began as an attempt to better understand God's creation, and many scientists still think of it that way, including biologists. Trying to get science from the Bible is like trying to get blood from a stone. Trying to get faith, hope and Intelligent Design from science is also like trying to get blood from a stone. The conflict between Religion and Science is due to a misunderstanding of both fields. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 09:56:07 AM · #199 |
People passionate in this thread? The OP is pretty much telling half of the people that they are wrong (in a low-brow manner of course) - so apparently he wanted to generate some passionate conversation.
In that spirit: McCain lost the primaries in 2000 ... so apparently he's the loser, and so was this country under Republicans.
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Obama is a loser, no question thereΓΆ€Β¦ |
|
|
|
|
09/02/2008 09:57:40 AM · #200 |
|
