Hype sells!

[PLC1]

The first one was neutral. It was reporting simply what was said.

​

Do you not see the bias? They say "so-called" free trade policies that have "cost this country millions of jobs". That's left-wing drivel.

​

Troubling why? Because he's looking like a republican? Does that not indicate a bias?

Even your own examples, show the liberal media bias. Even when they are criticizing Obama for something, it's only that he's not liberal enough for them. Not because they are neutral reporters of the facts.



Does it make rational sense that trash = war? Only a left wing nut job would think that trash floating in the ocean, some of which is made of plastic, which is made from Oil, some of which might be purchased in the middle east, is thus the cause for the war. That's left wing bias. The reporting is spinning the story with his looney left screw ball conspiracy theory crap. The idea that cleaning up some floating trash in the Pacific would end the war, is absolute insanity.

I see. It's another example of lumping unrelated issues together. Liberals believe in big government, ending war, and cleaning up the oceans. Conservatives believe in limited government, outlawing abortion, and denying evolution. That makes sense, in a way, if you're used to looking at the world in a left to right perspective.

You do make a good point that CNN favors Democrats, I have to admit.

 

[Andy]

I see. It's another example of lumping unrelated issues together. Liberals believe in big government, ending war, and cleaning up the oceans. Conservatives believe in limited government, outlawing abortion, and denying evolution. That makes sense, in a way, if you're used to looking at the world in a left to right perspective.

You do make a good point that CNN favors Democrats, I have to admit.

Huh?

Conservatives believe in denying evolution? Since when? Most of them agree with evolution, which is unbelievable to me since it's clearly unsupportable scientifically. But then most people don't know nearly as much as they think about science.

Abortion is Murder. Is it Human? Yes. Is it alive? Yes. Are we killing it without cause? Yes. What other requirement do you need for it to be murder? Nothing.

Well look, if you read around on this forum, it won't take you 10 minutes to locate some conspiracy nut who thinks we are in Iraq for Oil (show me the captured oil wells or free oil we have taken from there).

This reporter was clearly on the "Trash = Plastic = Oil = Iraq = War" conspiracy insanity.

Conservatives have no problem with cleaning up Oceans. However, we don't believe doing so will end wars.

Conservatives have no problem with not going to war, provided the best intel at the time doesn't suggest there's a national security risk, or that one of our allies is not being attacked.

And honestly, as much as Socialists/Liberals claim to be against war, most wars are started by Socialists, and most Liberal/Democrats have no problem with war provided it isn't against someone who's actually a threat. Bosnia, Sudan, Mogadishu, Afghanistan, and many other deployments. But if it happens to be a crazed dictator who gasses his own people, has rape rooms for his sons, and buries his victims in unmarked mass graves, it must be about oil, and thus we shouldn't do anything.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I see. It's another example of lumping unrelated issues together. Liberals believe in big government, ending war, and cleaning up the oceans. Conservatives believe in limited government, outlawing abortion, and denying evolution. That makes sense, in a way, if you're used to looking at the world in a left to right perspective.

You do make a good point that CNN favors Democrats, I have to admit.

I'm sure Lil' Andy appreciates your full-support.

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

But then most people don't know nearly as much as they think about science.

.....And, who's a better-example (of that), than you? ​

 

[PLC1]

Huh?

Conservatives believe in denying evolution? Since when? Most of them agree with evolution, which is unbelievable to me since it's clearly unsupportable scientifically. But then most people don't know nearly as much as they think about science.

So, you're saying that evolution is unsupportable, but a conservative can disagree and still be a conservative? Do you mean to say that I don't have to try to deny the science of evolution to be a conservative? Well, that makes it a little bit easier. How about the science of climate change? Can I believe what scientific research has discovered about that, or is that too liberal?

Abortion is Murder. Is it Human? Yes. Is it alive? Yes. Are we killing it without cause? Yes. What other requirement do you need for it to be murder? Nothing.

Sure, but do only conservatives, i.e., believers in limited government agree with that position? More to the point, do only conservatives want to give the government the power to decide whether a woman will have a legal abortion, or an illegal one?

Remember John Kerry? He was anti abortion. He was not willing to give the government the power to enforce his belief, but he stated his position quite clearly. Was Kerry a conservative?

 

[Andy]

So, you're saying that evolution is unsupportable, but a conservative can disagree and still be a conservative? Do you mean to say that I don't have to try to deny the science of evolution to be a conservative? Well, that makes it a little bit easier. How about the science of climate change? Can I believe what scientific research has discovered about that, or is that too liberal?

I guess I had not heard that a belief on evolution is part of the conservative world view.

Generally conservatives who believe or disbelieve in AGW, generally accept the either way, the government does not, or should not have the right to dictate the free-market by using it as an excuse.

Of course, scientifically AGW is unsupportable to.

Sure, but do only conservatives, i.e., believers in limited government agree with that position? More to the point, do only conservatives want to give the government the power to decide whether a woman will have a legal abortion, or an illegal one?

Do you believe that one of the reasons government is a necessary evil, is to enforce the law? If yes, then is the law against murder, a law that government should enforce? If yes, then should all murder be prohibited, or should murder be allowed for some reason?

Remember John Kerry? He was anti abortion. He was not willing to give the government the power to enforce his belief, but he stated his position quite clearly. Was Kerry a conservative?

I think he was a liar. I think what he said was completely a political position designed to gain the support of pro-abortion crowd because they knew he really didn't believe what he said, or that he was too much of a wimp to stand for his beliefs. And to at the same time gain the support of pro-life people by saying he really does think it's murder, he just isn't going to do anything about it.

It was a political move. If you have conviction on an issue, you wouldn't smooth over murder by saying you can't do anything about murder, or it's not your place to stop murder.

Honestly, I have higher respect for someone who simply believes what they believe, than someone who tries to play both sides, and does this lame I'm on your side, but I'm also on their side, I really on everyone side....

 

[PLC1]

I guess I had not heard that a belief on evolution is part of the conservative world view.

Good. Maybe creationism is just a part of the Christian Right philosophy. Along with their literal interpretation of the Bible, it is a religious stance rather than a political one. It is still nonsense, of course, but religious nonsense that has become mixed with political nonsense. It must be possible to be a "conservative", then, and still accept scientific research, just not a Christian Conservative.

Of course, scientifically AGW is unsupportable to.

Um Hum... and the glaciers aren't really melting, and no one is trying to exploit newly accessible areas that once were under sea ice, no.

Do you believe that one of the reasons government is a necessary evil, is to enforce the law? If yes, then is the law against murder, a law that government should enforce? If yes, then should all murder be prohibited, or should murder be allowed for some reason?

Yes, one of the reasons for that necessary evil is to enforce the law. There is no law against abortion.

I think he was a liar. I think what he said was completely a political position designed to gain the support of pro-abortion crowd because they knew he really didn't believe what he said, or that he was too much of a wimp to stand for his beliefs. And to at the same time gain the support of pro-life people by saying he really does think it's murder, he just isn't going to do anything about it.

It was a political move. If you have conviction on an issue, you wouldn't smooth over murder by saying you can't do anything about murder, or it's not your place to stop murder.

Honestly, I have higher respect for someone who simply believes what they believe, than someone who tries to play both sides, and does this lame I'm on your side, but I'm also on their side, I really on everyone side....

John Kerry, the Vietnam Vet who had the courage to oppose that war did so for political gain? Hardly. He would have gone a lot further had he mouthed the "we're fighting godless Communists" mantra of the warmongers of the time. Being anti war was not too popular, just ask Gene McCarthy.

No, I believed him when he said he was anti abortion, but anti government control of same. I have the same opinion.

And no, I still didn't vote for Kerry, but it was despite his stance in abortion, not because of it.

 

[Andy]

Good. Maybe creationism is just a part of the Christian Right philosophy. Along with their literal interpretation of the Bible, it is a religious stance rather than a political one. It is still nonsense, of course, but religious nonsense that has become mixed with political nonsense. It must be possible to be a "conservative", then, and still accept scientific research, just not a Christian Conservative.

I know many non-christian conservatives who believe that teaching evolution is fine, provided that the opposing view is taught as well. Why? Because both take faith. There is no "scientific" support for evolution. It's a faith issue.

Um Hum... and the glaciers aren't really melting, and no one is trying to exploit newly accessible areas that once were under sea ice, no.

Of course glaciers are melting. They have been since the last ice age. Of course people are capitalizing on newly accessible areas. Why wouldn't they?

Yes, one of the reasons for that necessary evil is to enforce the law. There is no law against abortion.

Funny, I could have sworn we had laws against murder.

John Kerry, the Vietnam Vet who had the courage to oppose that war did so for political gain? Hardly. He would have gone a lot further had he mouthed the "we're fighting godless Communists" mantra of the warmongers of the time. Being anti war was not too popular, just ask Gene McCarthy.

One of the things I've noticed about ex-military men who have been in combat is, they almost never talk about what happened. It's not something they are proud of. It's not something they walk through life waving around like they accomplished something. War sucks. It's hell. No one like what they did, but they did it. That's how my brother-in-law is.

John Kerry tells seemingly everyone on the planet that he's a Vietnam Vet. I've even heard him say things like "I don't talk as much about me being a Vietnam Vet, as much as other people claim I do". It's ridiculous.

No, I believed him when he said he was anti abortion, but anti government control of same. I have the same opinion.

And no, I still didn't vote for Kerry, but it was despite his stance in abortion, not because of it.

This is a man that when the war seemed to be the popular position, he voted for it completely. Then when it was the unpopular position, he voted against it. His statement "I actually did vote for the $87 Billion (to fund the war), before I voted against it (to gain political support)".

Think about that? Where is the conviction? How do you really know where he stands on anything, when he's willing to flop around whenever needed on something as important as funding our troops?

 

[PLC1]

I know many non-christian conservatives who believe that teaching evolution is fine, provided that the opposing view is taught as well. Why? Because both take faith. There is no "scientific" support for evolution. It's a faith issue.

Not if you understand scientific methods, it is not a "faith" issue. Faith involves believing things for which there is no proof, or even concrete evidence. Faith is believing in things hoped for. Science is based on facts and observation. The only reasons anyone would want to question an established theory are: (1) additional facts have come to light, or (2) it goes against what they want to believe.

Humans have a huge capacity for believing what they want to believe, regardless of fact and observation.

Of course glaciers are melting. They have been since the last ice age. Of course people are capitalizing on newly accessible areas. Why wouldn't they?

Because they aren't really melting. Global warming is a myth, remember?

Funny, I could have sworn we had laws against murder.

Can you show any law against abortion?

One of the things I've noticed about ex-military men who have been in combat is, they almost never talk about what happened. It's not something they are proud of. It's not something they walk through life waving around like they accomplished something. War sucks. It's hell. No one like what they did, but they did it. That's how my brother-in-law is.

John Kerry tells seemingly everyone on the planet that he's a Vietnam Vet. I've even heard him say things like "I don't talk as much about me being a Vietnam Vet, as much as other people claim I do". It's ridiculous.

He didn't talk so much about being a Vietnam Vet as he did his conviction that the invasion of Vietnam was a terrible mistake.

This is a man that when the war seemed to be the popular position, he voted for it completely. Then when it was the unpopular position, he voted against it. His statement "I actually did vote for the $87 Billion (to fund the war), before I voted against it (to gain political support)".

Think about that? Where is the conviction? How do you really know where he stands on anything, when he's willing to flop around whenever needed on something as important as funding our troops?

You are assuming that he opposed the war in Iraq based on political expediency.

Anyone who saw the result of the invasion would have had second thoughts about having supported it in the first place.

What is surprising is that he supported the invasion of Iraq after his experience in Vietnam. Maybe he really did think that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Andy]

Not if you understand scientific methods, it is not a "faith" issue. Faith involves believing things for which there is no proof, or even concrete evidence. Faith is believing in things hoped for. Science is based on facts and observation. The only reasons anyone would want to question an established theory are: (1) additional facts have come to light, or (2) it goes against what they want to believe.

I have faith in the promises of G-d, because I have seen the fulfillment of his prior promises. I have no guarantee he will do as he says, yet I do have a factual basis for my beliefs.

Science is based on facts and observation. Evolution is not. There is no real scientific evidence for evolution, and much that counters it.

Because they aren't really melting. Global warming is a myth, remember?

I never said it was a myth... remember?

Can you show any law against abortion?

Yes. Murder is illegal last I checked.

He didn't talk so much about being a Vietnam Vet as he did his conviction that the invasion of Vietnam was a terrible mistake.

You must have been watching different clips than me. He promoted himself as being a vet so often, it was practically "Hi I'm John Kerry the Veitnam Vet!". I'm exaggerating, but that's how often he did it.

I disagree with him on the point anyway.

You are assuming that he opposed the war in Iraq based on political expediency.

Because he didn't before he did.

Anyone who saw the result of the invasion would have had second thoughts about having supported it in the first place.

Absolutely terrifying. Formerly gas targets, these Iraqis are celebrating their freedom and democracy. Darn good thing some senators are opposing all this joy and happiness.

What is surprising is that he supported the invasion of Iraq after his experience in Vietnam. Maybe he really did think that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Like Clinton, Reid, Schulmer, Edwards, Daschle, Rockefeller, Biden, Miller, Dodd, Lieberman, and amazingly Feinstein, plus a bunch of other democrats.

And that's just the Senate.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program" -President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs" -Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct, 9th, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep Nancy Pelosi Dec 16th 1998.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile programs to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies" -Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen Bob Graham and others Dec 5th 2001.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" -Al Gore Sept 23rd 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction" -Senator Ted Kennedy Sept. 27th, 2002

Well Sherlock, you think any of them, maybe even all of them, thought Saddam had WMD and needed to be dealt with?

 

[PLC1]

I have faith in the promises of G-d, because I have seen the fulfillment of his prior promises. I have no guarantee he will do as he says, yet I do have a factual basis for my beliefs.

Science is based on facts and observation. Evolution is not. There is no real scientific evidence for evolution, and much that counters it.

Evolution is a scientific theory, no less than the theory of relativity or the germ theory of disease. The only difference is that the latter doesn't contradict the literal interpretation of Genesis.

I never said it was a myth... remember?

Oh. It's not a myth, then? It's real, so we don't need to debate if further.

Yes. Murder is illegal last I checked.

Oh. Well, then let's call the cops and have all of the abortionists arrested.

You must have been watching different clips than me. He promoted himself as being a vet so often, it was practically "Hi I'm John Kerry the Veitnam Vet!". I'm exaggerating, but that's how often he did it.

I disagree with him on the point anyway.

On the point that he was a vet, or that the invasion of Vietnam was a tragic mistake?

Absolutely terrifying. Formerly gas targets, these Iraqis are celebrating their freedom and democracy. Darn good thing some senators are opposing all this joy and happiness.

Yes, isn't it? So, who is that in the background setting a IED down in the path of US soldiers?

Like Clinton, Reid, Schulmer, Edwards, Daschle, Rockefeller, Biden, Miller, Dodd, Lieberman, and amazingly Feinstein, plus a bunch of other democrats.

And that's just the Senate.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program" -President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs" -Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct, 9th, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep Nancy Pelosi Dec 16th 1998.

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile programs to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies" -Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen Bob Graham and others Dec 5th 2001.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" -Al Gore Sept 23rd 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction" -Senator Ted Kennedy Sept. 27th, 2002

Well Sherlock, you think any of them, maybe even all of them, thought Saddam had WMD and needed to be dealt with?

Yes, I expect they were taken in as well. Bush isn't the only one who misjudged the threat of Iraq. He gets most of the heat for it, of course, as he is the commander in chief. Had he been just a little less headstrong and anxious to go and fight this little short term conflict that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney were promising, had he, in other words, been a leader, maybe the whole mess could have been averted despite the darned Democrats and their beating of the war drums.

 

[Andy]

Evolution is a scientific theory, no less than the theory of relativity or the germ theory of disease. The only difference is that the latter doesn't contradict the literal interpretation of Genesis.

Intelligent design is also a scientific theory, no less than any other.

Oh. It's not a myth, then? It's real, so we don't need to debate if further.

Of course not. The debate is on AGW, which is a myth. Everyone knows global warming is true.

Oh. Well, then let's call the cops and have all of the abortionists arrested.

Agreed.

On the point that he was a vet, or that the invasion of Vietnam was a tragic mistake?

On him being a vet.

Yes, isn't it? So, who is that in the background setting a IED down in the path of US soldiers?

Likely not someone in that crowd celebrating the end of Saddam Hussien.

Iraqi children being given care by US forces. I suppose the children are of terrified parents who hate the US, and really are just putting down IEDs in our troops path?

Yes, I expect they were taken in as well. Bush isn't the only one who misjudged the threat of Iraq. He gets most of the heat for it, of course, as he is the commander in chief. Had he been just a little less headstrong and anxious to go and fight this little short term conflict that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney were promising, had he, in other words, been a leader, maybe the whole mess could have been averted despite the darned Democrats and their beating of the war drums.

Head strong and anxious? The Iraq war did not start until March 20, 2003. Do you realize when we first considered going to Iraq? It was shortly after September 11, 2001.

So "anxious" to you, is to wait a full year and 6 months?

And I'm always a little ticked when people who have never lead anything important in their life, claim others are not leaders. Now granted I don't know you. But what important life or death leadership experience do you have?

Tell me that you would know exactly what to do, when all of congress is saying we got to do something about Saddam, many of your closest allies are saying Saddam is in some bad stuff, all of your intelligence organizations are saying he's building WMDs, and developing nuclear weapons, and you have reports on your desk saying Iraq is making nuclear waste bombs, un-manned aerial vehicles, and getting mapping software for the lower 48 states that would be useless anywhere else in the world...

You can tell me that you would know what to do in that situation? You think you have a clue what it's like knowing if these reports from Intel, Allied nations, and Congress, are all true, and you do nothing, that millions of people could die? And right after watching a 78 story build fall killing 3000 people.

And guess what would be happening right now if GWB had done nothing, and the reports had been true. What if a un-manned aircraft flew a dirty bomb into the middle or L.A. or Houston? What if a terrorist attack used chemical weapons traced back to Iraq?

You'd be screaming that a leader would have read all those same reports and listened to Congress, and listened to our allies. A real leader would have gotten the best intel at the time and taken deceive action.

But no, since the reports were not completely accurate, a leader is really one is waits, and gathers more data, and ignores Congress and our allies.

Opinion or not, I have a real problem when people arrogantly start thinking they have the experience to know what leadership is, when they have never been the one to lay awake at night sweating over the lives that could be lost if their inaction leaves thousands more dead from a terrorist attack, or the thousands that may die in a war.

Unless you have actually been in that position, I respectfully suggest you grow up.

 

[PLC1]

Intelligent design is also a scientific theory, no less than any other.

LOL Intelligent design is a scientific theory? What is the rational basis for it? What facts and observations support it?

No, sorry, but intelligent design is a philosophical idea, not a scientific theory. That doesn't make it wrong, you understand, just not anything even resembling science. Comparing intelligent design and evolution is like comparing trees and rocks. There are trees, and there are rocks, but no one has to decide whether to believe in one or the other. They are completely different things.

Of course not. The debate is on AGW, which is a myth. Everyone knows global warming is true.

Not everyone, but far more than used to acknowledge that it is true.

Likely not someone in that crowd celebrating the end of Saddam Hussien.

Iraqi children being given care by US forces. I suppose the children are of terrified parents who hate the US, and really are just putting down IEDs in our troops path?

Who, then?

Head strong and anxious? The Iraq war did not start until March 20, 2003. Do you realize when we first considered going to Iraq? It was shortly after September 11, 2001.

No, it was much earlier than that. The attack of 9/11 simply gave the neoconservative voices in Washington an excuse to do what they wanted to do all along.

Surely you're not going to try to argue that there is some other connection between Iraq and the attack on the WTC, are you?

That would be even less supportable than the assertion that creationism is a scientific theory.

 

[Andy]

LOL Intelligent design is a scientific theory? What is the rational basis for it? What facts and observations support it?

In order for DNA to exist, it requires RNA. RNA is the chemical basis for DNA. Nevertheless, RNA has never been produced outside of a biological system. It can't be produced inorganically, or synthetically.

In short, DNA requires that RNA be produced, yet RNA requires a functional cell with DNA, to produce it. Which came first? Do you suggest a complex DNA system evolved parallel to RNA, when technically there was no way for DNA to know it needed RNA, or way for RNA to know it was needed for DNA? This is a scientific impossiblity short of an intelligent designer.

Further, DNA is a code. Like any code, it means nothing without an intelligence to know what the code means. Even if the Chicken and the Egg, were to somehow be accident, be developed together, which is still impossible, how would the living cell know how to decode the DNA strands? How would it know what any section of the code meant? That this part is how to make a heart, or another is to make a hand?

In short, without having an intelligence to create the code to begin with it would be asdgn ekdusmdlo cidskdfn dgmndgjss sdfs guddwiql.... nothing but random strands of acids.

Not everyone, but far more than used to acknowledge that it is true.

Can't help you there. Everyone I know believe the globe has warmed. Not many believe man is causing it. I can remember people saying that 20 years ago.

Who, then?

Obviously Al Qaeda, the militia of Iran, the one crazy dude, former members of the Ba'ath party. In short, not the average citizens of Iraq, anymore than William Aires blowing people up, represented the entire public here.

No, it was much earlier than that. The attack of 9/11 simply gave the neoconservative voices in Washington an excuse to do what they wanted to do all along.

Show me. Before 9/11, the only things I heard in favor of dealing with Saddam, went back to 1998 and Clinton. The push to deal with Saddam, prior to 9/11, was the same movement that had been there since 1998. The left simply found they could off-load the blame for the push onto Bush since he won the election.

Surely you're not going to try to argue that there is some other connection between Iraq and the attack on the WTC, are you?

There is no direct link no. What's that got to do with the fact we saw him as a threat that needed to be dealt with?

 

[PLC1]

In order for DNA to exist, it requires RNA. RNA is the chemical basis for DNA. Nevertheless, RNA has never been produced outside of a biological system. It can't be produced inorganically, or synthetically.

In short, DNA requires that RNA be produced, yet RNA requires a functional cell with DNA, to produce it. Which came first? Do you suggest a complex DNA system evolved parallel to RNA, when technically there was no way for DNA to know it needed RNA, or way for RNA to know it was needed for DNA? This is a scientific impossiblity short of an intelligent designer.

Further, DNA is a code. Like any code, it means nothing without an intelligence to know what the code means. Even if the Chicken and the Egg, were to somehow be accident, be developed together, which is still impossible, how would the living cell know how to decode the DNA strands? How would it know what any section of the code meant? That this part is how to make a heart, or another is to make a hand?

In short, without having an intelligence to create the code to begin with it would be asdgn ekdusmdlo cidskdfn dgmndgjss sdfs guddwiql.... nothing but random strands of acids.

That's just another of the arguments ascribing to God what we don't understand. It doesn't prove intelligent design.

Personally, I think that evolution does a good job of explaining, at least in broad terms, just how god created life on earth. While there is no empirical evidence that god was, in fact behind it, there are volumes of evidence explaining how evolution works. Just picking out one thing we don't understand and saying it is proof of god does not make a scientific theory.

Your belief in a creator, my belief in a creator, anyone else's belief, is just that: A belief. It doesn't even come close to being a scientific theory.

If you want evidence of a creator, try to explain where the first life came from. Science has no explanation, at least not yet. That, of course, is still another thing we don't understand, and is not scientific proof that there is a creator.

Can't help you there. Everyone I know believe the globe has warmed. Not many believe man is causing it. I can remember people saying that 20 years ago.

This is somewhat more recent than that.

Obviously Al Qaeda, the militia of Iran, the one crazy dude, former members of the Ba'ath party. In short, not the average citizens of Iraq, anymore than William Aires blowing people up, represented the entire public here.

So, the rest of them were perfectly happy with the infidel invading their nation by force, and the soldiers were actually welcomed as liberators, just as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Cheney predicted? Great!

Does that mean the war is over now, it having been far longer than the predicted six months already?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333328,00.htmlhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333328,00.htmlShow me. Before 9/11, the only things I heard in favor of dealing with Saddam, went back to 1998 and Clinton. The push to deal with Saddam, prior to 9/11, was the same movement that had been there since 1998. The left simply found they could off-load the blame for the push onto Bush since he won the election.



There is no direct link no. What's that got to do with the fact we saw him as a threat that needed to be dealt with?

The link is that the attack of 9/11 gave the neoconservative voices within the administration an excuse to take out Saddam Hussain, and to convince a gullible public that the invasion of Iraq was a part of the response to that attack. That is the only link. Iraq did not attack the US, nor did it have to power to do so had it wanted to.