Can't the Post simply note, nobody worth our endorsement running so we're withholding an endorsement in this race? Though the Post's editorial positions are nowhere near Dougie's, they're nothing near what a reasonable person would call "liberal", so why not just admit the bulk of thoughtful folks in that district will continue to have no representation and leave it at that?
Why would the Indy illustrate this story with a photo of a road in the farthest southwest corner of the state?
"We began to declare that the weather patterns would come into order so that the fire could be put out," he says. "And I was watching the news like everybody else, and they kept saying every day, every day they would say, 'It's going to be the same conditions — it's going to be hot, it's going to be dry, low humidity, the winds are going to blow.' And every day, every day it would be just the opposite."
What alternative reality are these people living in? If I said anything like that, I would be rightfully called delusional (especially if I claimed being responsible for bringing about these "opposite" conditions); but, since these good folks are living in the cradle of evangelism, nobody dares call them on their version of facts. I was here at the time, and can personally testify that the weather was in fact dry, low humidity, and the winds blew for the first week of the fire and longer. Eventually, conditions did improve as they inevitably would, and I would say their influence on that was about as much as that of a rooster who causes the dawn.
But, do they have the right to discriminate in hiring against people who don't have their "family values"? I would expect to be grilled about how well I could make a chicken sandwich and make my customers happy, not whom I go home to at night.
JML, I've been thinking for myself for a good 40 years now (after 20 years or so in training), based on those age of reason baselines in previous comments. I learned a little about geology and realized that the Rocky Mountains didn't rise in the same timelines as the Appalachians. The Rockies are much younger than the ancient mountains to the east, which show evidence of continental collision (yes, Africa caused the Appalachians and Ozarks to rise). That ain't happening in 6000 years. The San Andreas Fault shows evdence of tens of millions of years of slippage across itself, even though it is a relatively young geological entity. And, within that very long geological timeline is plenty of room to accommodate the fossil evidence that supports the evolution of life on earth today that we know. This is the scientific method that you so misuse. Is there a better explanation based on the physical evidence before us? Invoking mysticism, yes. Using known physical laws, I haven't seen it yet. None of this evidence speaks to whether there was an actual creator who designed the laws of physics and set the whole thing in motion, or other force that has yet to be uncovered by astrophysics. Doesn't matter to me. Hell, you can even call it "Intelligent Design", even though that's an opinion. Intelligent or not, it's evolution.
But talk of floods inundating the earth, the sun stopping in the sky, day and night being created days before creation of the sun that would to the rational person give rise to day and night, well, to me this is nothing but stories told around the campfires of primitives.
If you invoke science, then use science. You know, within the known rules of physics? If you invoke mysticism, then no one can argue because there is no limit on this. Remember my comment on God channeling David Copperfield?
Hey, thanks for the chuckle, JML. I like how you have me thoroughly classified as a result of my brief comment. What color are my eyes? The heathen part, I will admit to. But athiest? Not all who reject a literal reading of the Bible are athiests. For all you know, I could believe in a god who designed the laws of physics and initiated the whole evolutionary process. That wouldn't make me an athiest, but rather a diest like the god-fearing founding father Jefferson.
And as far as your naive understanding of what constitutes the current scientifc understanding of evolution, I accept that the guy in my profile photo is my cousin, not my grandfather. Apes and humans have a common ancestor, and are not different stages of linear evolution - a fact that doesn't bother or diminish me a bit. We're all made up of DNA, much of it not so different between species.
So who of us hsa evolved more? By the way, you still haven't told me where all that water went.
Thank you for displaying your scientific prowess in citing the tallest of the Tall Tales from the Old Testament as irrefutable truth. Let's see - first pairs of polar bears and kangaroos, not to mention every other species on earth, traveled to Syria or Turkey or wherever old Noah was hanging out. Then, he constructed a vessel capable of holding this diverse collection of flora and fauna (God supplied the blueprints) as well as a supply of food suitable for each species. (Ironically, food for one species might be another species of animal.) Of course, Noah had to maintain order among his passengers during this ordeal (God supplied valium?) Then, setting aside his law of conservation of mass, God found enough water to inundate the earth to a depth of 30,000 feet and then later found a place to put this water as it receded (to where?). Finally, the species preserved on the ark --- including Noah's family --- had to perpetuate themselves through several generations of incest until, presumably, their DNA began to vary enough to reduce the number of incidences of regressive mutations exhibiting themselves.
I love these Biblical stories of God channeling David Copperfield.
All content © Copyright 2013, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation