A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: Carbon on 1 Aug 2010 18:18 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 17:49:14 -0400, BAR wrote: > In article <d3bcc339-516d-4092-8f49-b0c5e64bda99 > @l32g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > >> Nancy Reagan refused to curtsy to Queen Elizabeth during a visit to >> London, because she considered herself the Queen's equal. > > I wouldn't bow to any King either. I am subservient to no man or > woman. You are subservient to the government/corporate interests that rule the country. Whether you see that or not is irrelevant.
From: BAR on 1 Aug 2010 18:21 In article <5kqb56diek5m92djb6v60r1ilcpl82im5u(a)4ax.com>, donsno2 @charter.net says... > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> > wrote: > > >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark > ><wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> 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. > > It's easier to find physical evidence that mankind (and every other > living thing) evolved from gobs of protoplasm than it is to find > evidence that there is a creative mind behind it all. It's in the > DNA. Where did the DNA come from? I am not a propoent of intelligent design, never have been and never will be. But, someone is going to have to come up with an explanation of what caused the Big Bang. Chaos theory can be used to describe DNA oringination on Earth but, if we start finding DNA in other parts of he Solar systme, Galaxy or Universe there will have to be some re-Sciencing going on.
From: BAR on 1 Aug 2010 18:23 In article <4c55f2b5$0$15837$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 17:49:14 -0400, BAR wrote: > > In article <d3bcc339-516d-4092-8f49-b0c5e64bda99 > > @l32g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, johnb505(a)gmail.com says... > > > >> Nancy Reagan refused to curtsy to Queen Elizabeth during a visit to > >> London, because she considered herself the Queen's equal. > > > > I wouldn't bow to any King either. I am subservient to no man or > > woman. > > You are subservient to the government/corporate interests that rule the > country. Whether you see that or not is irrelevant. You can't read can you?
From: Carbon on 1 Aug 2010 18:26 On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:55:31 -0400, BAR wrote: > In article <4c55cc7c$0$12238$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 15:11:22 -0400, BAR wrote: >>> In article <wclark2-48697E.13012701082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- >>> state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... >>>> In article <MPG.26bf30409b5cfafb98a175(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR >>>> <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >>>>> In article <alangbaker-6FE270.23073531072010(a)news.shawcable.com>, >>>>> alangbaker(a)telus.net 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. Hey, "dude". So am I. Wife is starting her fourth degree in the fall. I don't think you're retarded necessarily, because even morons are sensible at least some of the time. So I assume that you're basically just trolling.
From: Carbon on 1 Aug 2010 19:06
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 14:46:54 -0700, Don Kirkman wrote: > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> > wrote: >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark >> <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> 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. > > It's easier to find physical evidence that mankind (and every other > living thing) evolved from gobs of protoplasm than it is to find > evidence that there is a creative mind behind it all. It's in the > DNA. An excellent point, Don. |