From: Howard Brazee on
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark
<wclark2(a)> wrote:

>Oh, and it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in evolution.
>That's just another creationist crock.

The big objection isn't in evolution - some evolution was obvious long
before Darwin.

The objection is in natural selection, as long as "natural" means "not
done by God or by Man". And of course, the idea that humans evolved
from something else.

"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: BAR on
In article <4c55cc7c$0$12238$9a6e19ea(a)>,
nobrac(a) says...
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 15:11:22 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > In article <wclark2-48697E.13012701082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-
> >>, wclark2(a) says...
> >> In article <MPG.26bf30409b5cfafb98a175(a)>, BAR
> >> <screw(a)> wrote:
> >>> In article <alangbaker-6FE270.23073531072010(a)>,
> >>> alangbaker(a) says...
> >>>>
> >>>>> So you are telling us that atheistic evolution isn't faith based?
> >>>>
> >>>> Answer me one question, Greg:
> >>>>
> >>>> How many years old do personally believe the earth is?
> >>>
> >>> Research says it is some 4 to 10 billion years old.
> >>
> >> Ah, in other words scientific evidence says so. Not 6,000 years, no
> >> dinosaurs with saddles on?
> >
> > You, Carbon and Baker are laughable each and every time you bring this
> > up. You are under the misguided impression that anyone who is in
> > disagreement with you is a fundie or some religious nut.
> Not necessarily. If you had any idea what the scientific method was you
> probably wouldn't jump to conclusions quite as much.

Dude I am married to a real scientist, someone who does real science 5
days a week. She is degreed in geology and chemistry and is an expert in
the battery field, with 25 years of experience.

I understand Science and the scientific method just fine. However, I
don't pray at the alter of Science like some of you.
From: BAR on
In article <wclark2-7FFEA6.13503501082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio->, wclark2(a) says...
> > > Bertie, Bertie, your syntax meter seems to be as far out of whack as
> > > your ethical one. Who builds roads in the US? You?
> >
> > You need to do some research Billy before you ask that question. You
> > would be surprised by what you find.
> OK, so who builds the roads you and I drive on? Simple question, but I
> am not surprised you refuse to answer it.

Remember you said "roads".

The roads are mostly built by the developers and individuals. The
county, city or state comes along after the road is completed and takes
over maintenance.

In my county the developers cannot start building houses until they have
either built the roads or acquired bonds to complete the roads. And, no
construction can be started on housing developments until schools and
other infrastructure is built. This is all funded by those new
homeowners by the levying of special taxes in special taxing districts.

Do you know what front footage benefit charge is and why you pay it? The
rates you pay for electricty get the power lines to your house, the
electric company does not run the lines for free.

So, to answer you question the people pay to have the roads built.
From: BAR on
In article <wclark2-F996FF.13495201082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio->, wclark2(a) says...
> > >
> > > No, by the Dept. of Ag. If you disagree, please cite the source for "the
> > > knowledge of Obama and the DOJ", or else withdraw. Another cheap attempt
> > > to smear from a moral pygmy who defends Breitbart.
> > > >
> > > > The DOJ just confirmed that political or patronage position like US
> > > > attornies can be fired at any time for any reason. Sherrod was a
> > > > political problem for Obama and the Democrats
> > >
> > > More typical BS.
> >
> > The newsgroups most prolific liar is demanding that I withdraw an
> > opinion.
> >
> > You really don't keep up with politics Billy.
> >
> Just your usual. Why don't you just spend the rest of the day looking
> for your moral backbone?

What's the wording? Oh, that right "I win."
From: BAR on
In article <4c55baf5$0$4961$9a6e19ea(a)>,
nobrac(a) says...
> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:43:00 -0400, BAR wrote:
> > In article <4c559b53$0$7916$9a6e19ea(a)>,
> > nobrac(a) says...
> >
> >> The press is not allowed to libel and defame. There is a legal
> >> distinction involved that you are apparently too stupid to grasp.
> >
> > Replaying a video of you speaking your own words is not libel or
> > defamation. Journalists and make editorial decisions all of the time
> > as to what is relevant to the story and what is not relevant to the
> > story. The problem Sherrod has is that they are her words and her
> > words alone. What is really funny is you and the other libtards are
> > going apoplectic about this issue.
> >
> > If the government steps into this situation it will be seen as
> > censorship and it will become a first amendment issue.
> Actual quote: "Some people say I killed him, but I swear I did not."
> Brietbart: "...I killed him..."
> You're obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you
> understand what Breitbart did. You're just playing the fool. Again.

Breitbart didn't do tanything that other media/press outlets havent done
in the past without reprecussions.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?