Previous 21 - 30 Next
Can everyone say "death panels"?
Hmmm ... In Iran-Contra the House select committee had 9 Democrats to 6 Republicans. SO was that a kangaroo court as well?
Dying to Interview’ Hillary Clinton ... Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, Vince Foster and perhaps many more.
Just an observation: why is Lois Lerner always either looking down her nose or picking something out of her eye?
AAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!! The stupid! It hurts!!!
So people born before Christ lacked integrity and honesty? Guess that pretty much calls into question the whole Old Testament then, since it was written by dishonest people.
As an arrogant moron, you are clearly number one.
No, you're not a numbers cruncher ... a lying arrogant propagandist, yes, but not a numbers cruncher.
^^^ So irritated and confused he can't even comment on the article. He's too afraid to shout "Benghazi, Benghazi" because now it's clear beyond all doubt that Benghazi is a helluva lot more than a 'phony scandal.'
Why are you playing the liberal word game? You know as well as I what the meaning is. Reality as in that which can be perceived by the senses and with which one can tangibly interact. Tell me, if God is real, what does He smell like? Have you ever bought God a drink? Try this one: go out and get drunk and have God drive you home. Now I'm really not trying to be rude or offensive, but you are. The structure of Frekki's comment was clear: the first sentence addressed how one interacts with God; the second how one interacts with the real world. You're just trying to play a rather rude word game - a game that can too easily be turned back at you.
WJF - Question: "Hive"? You operate under the misconception that science claims to have all the answers. It doesn't, and no real scientist would claim that it does. Not only does science not have all the answers, but it sometimes guesses wrong and has to start from scratch. I, for one, find that adaptability and ultimate humility to be a virtue of science. Whatever science suggests is forever up for endless scrutiny and revision. I'll point out that real theologians operate in a somewhat similar fashion. While they might have a handful of concepts that they hold as inviolate, real theologians adapt their ideas. Thus St. Augustine was willing to say that much of Genesis was probably apocryphal, and we've gotten out of the habit of burning witches. Now for some physics. Classical physics holds that energy can be neither created nor destroyed; that it can only be transformed from one form to another. If you use this to talk about the Big Bang you run into the obvious problem that - oops! - where did the energy come from to start with? The first word of the paragraph has the possible key - classical. While energy from nothing violates 'classical' physics, it doesn't violate quantum physics. One of the corollaries of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is that the law of conservation of energy can indeed be violated if the time period is incredibly small. And when I say small, I mean very very small. So, the Big Bang may have been the result of a random fluctuation in the quantum vacuum. Of course, again, real science permits the possibility that this may need revision as more data comes to light.
Previous 21 - 30 Next