1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Terrorism's Useful Idiots

Bob502 Wrote: 16 mins ago (12:30 PM)
Alas, the dangers of knowing less than you think you know are not limited to liberals. Sometimes they afflict conservative columnists like John Nantz. Does Nantz seriously believe that the biblical description of the land promised to Israel should prevail today? The biblical description of the land extends northward all the way to the Euphrates, an area that incorporates much of modern Syria. This full extent of the land was actually achieved during the reigns of David and Solomon. But does Nantz really believe that Israel should seek to make it so again? Christianity has suffered much at the hands of those who read with a newspaper in one hand and a Bible in the other. It makes for bad politics and worse theology.
In response to:

Cease the Cease-Fires

Bob502 Wrote: Jul 29, 2014 11:25 AM
People speak of Palestinians as if they were some distinct ethnic group. They aren't; they are Arabs. There are any number of Arab countries into which they could be assimilated except that those countries refuse to accept them. Since 1948 they have preferred to consign their own fellow Arabs to refugee camps or other sub-standard living situations in order to foment trouble for Israel. Golda Meir was right when she said that there will not be peace in the Middle East until the Arabs learn to love their own children more than they hate Israel.
In response to:

Impeachment!

Bob502 Wrote: Jul 29, 2014 11:01 AM
Reading some of the comment posted here is depressing. What our liberal friends don't seem to understand is that we are fighting to preserve their liberties right along with our own. Right now this President is seeking to expand his power in order to accomplish things they agree with. They do not realize that the insatiable hunger for power will inevitably chew them up as well.
In response to:

George Patton's Summer of 1944

Bob502 Wrote: Jul 24, 2014 5:21 PM
A strong argument can be made that Eisenhower personally had the strongest positive impact on the American economy of any President in the twentieth century. The interstate highway system, which has facilitated trillions of dollars worth of commerce, was his personal idea, conceived in the 1930s when as a junior officer he was on a cross-country convoy. As President he implemented it. He originally conceived of the system for transporting military personnel and equipment across country quickly. The development of air transport rendered the system obsolete, at least as regards transporting personnel; but the benefit to the economy of fast and inexpensive transport of goods, both alone and in tandem with the railroads, is enormous. And it was Eisenhower’s idea.
This is not about Soviet-like vs. socialist vs. capitalist. This is about spending money we don't have to finance programs we cannot afford at a rate such that it is inevitable that eventually the entire productive capicity of the country will be insufficient to pay the interest on the national debt. That is the course we are currently on. This is not political philosophy. This is arithmetic. You can say you don't like it all you want, but that doesn't change anything. The numbers say that collapse is inevitable.
I hope I am, too. My mind tells me something my heart doesn't like. The collapse is inevitable. It will not happen in my lifetime. Perhaps in my children's and almost certainly in my grandson's. Lots of people know it now. More and more will know it as time passes. But even knowing it they will never vote for the policies or policy-makers who might turn it around. We have already passed the point of no return.
My preference is for the battle cons. But the American people have spoken loud and clear that they want big government. That train left the station eighty years ago and it is not coming back. So, the real choice we face is between liberals running it very badly or conservatives running it less badly (we hope). If you think there's another choice, you're dreaming.
The left will never be silenced by facts! They never have; they never will. That's just a fact.
In response to:

Married to Darwin

Bob502 Wrote: Jul 08, 2014 5:47 PM
No, he didn't, and there isn't. There are fossils, to be sure. But what those fossils mean is nothing like extensive and clear. If they were, paleontologist would not argue endlessly as to who may or may not be descended from whom. Calling them hominids establishes nothing of any value. There's more to understanding something than giving it a name. As I said right up front, everything proffered as examples so far can be as adequately explained by progressive creation as by evolution. Simply put, fossils do not prove anything because they cannot prove anything one way or another. Even trying to date fossils is problematic. Q: How do you know how old the fossils are? A: We date them by the age of the rock in which we find them. Q: How do you know how old the rocks are? A: We date them by the age of the fossils they contain. This happens more than you realize. When there are multiples theories proffered to explain the phenomenon of live that we observe on this planet, it is incumbent on partisans of each side to explain not only why their explanation is the right one, they must also demonstrate why the other theories are wrong. But when it comes to the theory of evolution that hasn’t happened. Rather, evolutionary scientists argue that any consideration of God is not scientific. But that is not a scientific argument; it is a definition, an axiom, if you will. But axioms, by definition, are supposed to be self-evidently true, and this one certainly isn’t. There is a huge difference between God as the premise of an argument and God as the conclusion. Evolutionary scientists do not understand that difference and they are wrong not to. And, by the way, neither Herald nor you made any attempt to demonstrate why the fossil record is compatible exclusively with your point of view. Neither did I, but that’s because I know it can’t be done.
In response to:

Married to Darwin

Bob502 Wrote: Jul 08, 2014 3:15 PM
If there’s TONS of irrefutable evidence you should have no problem giving me one example. But you didn’t. I said nothing about gaps, although I could have because, contrary to what you think, the gaps are not being filled in; they’re becoming more sharply defined. I said nothing about gaps because it is ultimately impossible positively to identify any intermediate form. Consequently, any discussion of gaps is futile. You, apparently, think fossils are evidence, but they are not dug up with labels attached. They have to be interpreted, and the interpretation applied is entirely dependent on the interpreter’s framework. Their interpretation is ultimately philosophical, not scientific. As for massive problems, your teachers probably told you about the Miller-Urey experiment and the generation of amino acids, the “building blocks of life” by a supposedly random process. Then they told you that over time these same processes led to greater and greater complexity eventually resulting in life. They left out the part where, after a time, these readily reversible reactions break down as quickly as they form. You do not get greater complexity; you get equilibrium. Maybe you slept through the lecture where they told you that there is no known or even theoretically possible way to explain the “handedness” of biological amino acids and proteins by natural processes. More likely they left that part out. The more we learn about the origin of life, the more clear it become that it could not possibly have happened by chance. The argument that it must have happened because here we are is nothing more than a belief in miracles, but without a miracle worker. This barely scratches the surface of the problems with evolution. There's no adequate theory to account for the origin of DNA. Time is not the enabler of evolution; it is its enemy because not all mutations make reproduction impossible and deleterious mutations accumulate faster than beneficial ones. I could go on and on.
1 - 10 Next