Neither article quite says that some responsibility must fall to the administration's footdragging on global warming.
Geez! Give it a break, will you? How about:
CBS News today carries a story indicating a scarcity of female leadership in the news sector. The article doesn't quite say that some responsibility must be assigned to the inherent superiority of men over women.
...that isn't really liberty at all. Anyone who is following the dogma of any religion is incapable of understanding what true liberties are.
Everyone is a slave to something. It's simply a matter of choosing your master.
2 Peter 2:18-19
For when they speak great swelling [words] of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
Is there anything that America doesn't "wage war" against? It's like a mentally retarded child who responds in the same way, regardless of stimulus.
Well, since the document in question isn't really about waging war against the internet, but rather waging war "on" the internet (ie, protecting vital infrastructure and attacking the enemy's infrastructure in the event of a war), I'd say the "mentally retarded children" who always "respond the same way, regardless of stimulus" might be those of us with anti-American knee-jerk reactions [1].
However, evolution is one of the most well-established theories that science has to offer. It is supported by evidence extremely well and is validated by hundreds of new observations every day.
Don't you think that this is a bit of an overstatement?
The creationist view that species have been steadily losing genetic information through the ages is just as plausible as the evolutionary view that they have been gaining it. The reason the two groups can't see eye to eye is that the creationists discard out of hand any theory that presupposes that God does not exist, while the evolutionists discard out of hand any theory that presupposes that the God of the Bible does exist... and by "God of the Bible" I mean a God that:
Created man in His image.
Gave man reason and free will... allowing man to exercise that free will to his detriment and that of the planet that was entrusted to him.
Sacrificed His only Son so that man would not necessarily have to pay the consequences of his rebellion.
One could always believe that evolution is just a tool in God's hands. That way it's possible to believe in intelligent design without denying facts, that Earth is older than a few thousands years, etc.
Unless you believe that the Bible is the inspired unerring Word of God...
The Bible says the universe was created in six literal days. The only places in the Bible where "days" does not means days are rather obvious, like "in the days of Jeho-whatsisface".
The world was corrupted after Adam and Eve rebelled. Only at this point does death enter the picture. This is incompatible with long ages of death and struggle prior to the advent of man.
The Bible says man is created in the image of God. This is in direct opposition to the view that man and ape share an ancestor.
The list goes on and on. The point, however, is that in order for the two ideologies to co-exist, one must believe that the Bible is not God's inspired word.
Science is based on consensus of opinion and may change over time.
I'm going to have to call bullshit on this one...
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. --Michael Crichton, Aliens Cause Global Warming
When I accept that F=ma, I do so because it is what it is. That's the law. That's how things work. It's been observed, tested, tried, questioned, proven. Time and again. Not because it's the prevailing consensus.
Slashdot Mirror
Geez! Give it a break, will you? How about:
Everyone is a slave to something. It's simply a matter of choosing your master.
2 Peter 2:18-19
For when they speak great swelling [words] of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
Is there anything that America doesn't "wage war" against? It's like a mentally retarded child who responds in the same way, regardless of stimulus.
Well, since the document in question isn't really about waging war against the internet, but rather waging war "on" the internet (ie, protecting vital infrastructure and attacking the enemy's infrastructure in the event of a war), I'd say the "mentally retarded children" who always "respond the same way, regardless of stimulus" might be those of us with anti-American knee-jerk reactions [1].
[1] See parent.
Don't you think that this is a bit of an overstatement?
The creationist view that species have been steadily losing genetic information through the ages is just as plausible as the evolutionary view that they have been gaining it. The reason the two groups can't see eye to eye is that the creationists discard out of hand any theory that presupposes that God does not exist, while the evolutionists discard out of hand any theory that presupposes that the God of the Bible does exist... and by "God of the Bible" I mean a God that:
Unless you believe that the Bible is the inspired unerring Word of God...
The list goes on and on. The point, however, is that in order for the two ideologies to co-exist, one must believe that the Bible is not God's inspired word.