john5746

Yes, you really shouldn't be in the evolution forum. It is entertaining for a few posts, but that's about it. I'm surprised it lasted this long.

I was referring to what I had read in the Bible. When you catch the bird-flu virus' date=' that will confirm evolution. Doesn't mean everything is correct, but evolution does happen. I was playing tongue-in-cheek with your words, so back at you.

I am calm and I appreciate that you are as well. God made the woman, but hey maybe Adam found a nice looking ape also! We also have to remember that it all started over with Noah. I don't know how many humans there were, but you had two of every beast. Including dino's or not? So I guess their genes were great at that point as well.

That is your answer based on your biblical beliefs. This is a great example of how a vague book can be used to justify and explain anything. Maybe Cain and Eve? Abel and Adam? Maybe men could have babies back then? Maybe Adam and a donkey? Why not? Lions didn't eat meat, maybe they could concieve and suckle a litter of humans. Everything was OK back in the good ol days.

There are many websites and posts within this site that can provide many examples. Apostles give differing accounts, etc. And, if they were "inspired" their writings wouldn't be limited by thier knowledge would it? If so, we have learned quite a bit since then, time for a new edition. example This is a decent example, more importantly, details why many christians have no problem accepting that the bible has errors.

More important is when did Bush know and what action will he take now.

That sounds good to me...if they choose to go with it officially.

I chose state an exit strategy, because I don't see one. Rumsfeld himself said Americans could not get rid of the insurgency - so violence will probably continue after we leave. Clear goals - such as X number of troops will be trained within a year, etc should be stated. I don't see why we should give government a blank check when it comes to rebuilding a nation. Rebuilding the military should be the primary focus, with a train the trainer approach. This means they should be able to train themselves after we leave. The military is designed to kill and destroy the enemy, not to hand out Teddy Bears while getting shot in the back. They need clear and attainable goals to achieve. This is really supporting the troops, not blindly saying "stay the course", when we don't even know what the course is. Fight the terrorists there and not here? That is not very smart, since the very act of invasion INCREASES the terrorist ranks. Not to mention do we have the right to keep a country screwed up by attracting terrorist to it so we can fight them? Maybe we can have Bush just say "Bet you can't bomb London again" and fight them there. Immediate withdrawel, no we should not do it, but this government that the right doesn't think can educate our children or do anything well, better pick up the pace on training and start using the military more efficiently.

I was thinking this was probably due to cultural differences, but it appears to be valid, assuming they set up the test correctly

The point as you know, is that sources who wish to remain anonymous will not be forth coming with information if they can be revealed later. So, it is troubling that the government can force the media to reveal sources who may have provided information against illegal actions by the same government.

As long as we are not talking a regime change again. No need to invade the country. Just ask for inspections, concessions with the threat of bombing the plant. Otherwise, there will be "rumors" about WMD again.

I don't know. How are we ever going to leave? Rumsfeld has said only Iraqis can stop the insurgents(terrorists). Will we be closer to leaving a year from now? Who knows? Don't ask questions or complain. The military is made for Nation Building. Surely they are doing a great job with no oversight needed.

I know Libraries and Museums are not as important as Malls, but they do have some nobility. Money may provide a strong influence to push people off their property and it will more than likely be poor or middle class people who have little political influence. Nothing specific as of yet. But, I see the influence they have with government. If they start taking people's property only to make a buck, I will have a problem with it. I won't be able to "vote" against them though.

He clearly states that GOD allowed the US to be attacked. Not liberals, but the US. Maybe we should make women cover their faces? If any comment would incourage the terrorists, this one would have, because it is what they believe - that GOD is against the US.

Then Falwell said, "What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve." Robertson replied, "Well, Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven't begun to see what they can do to the major population." Falwell said, "The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I'll hear from them for this, but throwing God...successfully with the help of the federal court system...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen." Robertson said, "I totally concur, and the problem is we've adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system." Falwell added, "Pat, did you notice yesterday that the ACLU and all the Christ-haters, the People for the American Way, NOW, etc., were totally disregarded by the Democrats and the Republicans in both houses of Congress, as they went out on the steps and and called out to God in prayer and sang 'God bless America' and said, let the ACLU be hanged. In other words, when the nation is on its knees, the only normal and natural and spiritual thing to do is what we ought to be doing all the time, calling on God." This was the Robertson/Falwell interview comments in context. They later apologized for the remarks. Are you going to defend even this? RevPrez, I'm confused by your remarks. Are you saying the country isn't or is divided liberal/conservative? The main problem I have with Rove's comments is that he is talking political ideology, not about specific groups. It leads people to believe that the country is divided into two groups, with one group(The non-BUSH crowd) being the liberals.

I agree, this apology stuff is idiotic. People need to be able to say stupid things without everyone crying about it. They still should be called on it though. What really bothers me is not being able to disagree with the military. If the US invades Britan tomorrow, can we complain about it without "offending" the soldiers? They are following orders. Doesn't mean everyone needs to agree with the orders. Saddam and Iraq have been compared to the Nazi's and WWII many times. Do people need to apologize for that? No. Is it inaccurate? Yes.

But perhaps the most important difference between conservatives and liberals can be found in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and said God was punishing the US for our transgressions. The Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and supported the President in a bipartisan effort to destroy the Taliban and Bin Laden. This comment is equally valid. This is one reason why Washington can't get along. He truly believes that 50% of the US is wrong on every issue. "You are either with us or against us". Can't think for yourself and have both liberal and conservative views on different subjects. What an idiotic statement.

My guess would be the tall, skinny guys would have the greatest speed. Thier hand is farthest from the shoulder. But Force requires mass also, so big arms, body and strong legs would generate the biggest wallup.

Military court?