Rather than an insult to American patriotism, the Democrats here engaged in an insult to the intelligence of New Yorkers:

They are merely following Obama’s lead. Nothing newsworthy about that.

Such is todays Democrat Party.

You’ve gotta love a Man/God who’s first recorded miracle was to keep the party going. :)

Rogue Traveler on July 1, 2009 at 10:25 AM

And take it up a notch!

It simply doesn’t follow that they would embrace that which they first deemed impossible, unless it happened.

OhEssYouCowboys on June 30, 2009 at 6:34 PM

Sure, but considering they wrote this decades after Jesus was executed, it’s easy for a skeptic to make the claim that they never really doubted, that, that part of the story was just put in their to make them appear more credible.

LevStrauss on June 30, 2009 at 6:53 PM

Not really doing much for me. I prefer the “brood of vipers” take down instead.

Really. Perhaps someone else did write those words and I just couldn’t remember off the top who it was. Did you ever think of that? I guess not.

MB4 on July 1, 2009 at 12:34 AM

In that case, I’ll rephrase my post.

You’re better when you stick to citing words other people wrote.

Better?

Hint: Lev was the cat, not you.

MB4 on July 1, 2009 at 12:37 AM

So I should just ignore his hypocritical whining because he might hurt me? Yeah, still makes no sense.

Honestly, I’ve always liked that one. In Christianity, God isn’t some being for whom our personal happiness isn’t worth consideration. Not only did he make wine, it was good wine, the best that had yet been seen at that wedding, which is really saying something.

But then, I like wine, so that might be a personal issue.

Esthier on June 30, 2009 at 5:45 PM

You’ve gotta love a Man/God who’s first recorded miracle was to keep the party going. :)

One member plays exies no erasies with the podium

Ed, not to sound too prolish but many of us don’t speak Latin (or French) so maybe a little less of the cliches please.

OldEnglish on July 1, 2009 at 8:40 AM

Well the article was about dems not standing for the pledge, but I got here very late so I went with the flow.

Apparently these things can take on a “stream of unconsciousness” kind of flow.

Why should wild speculation be given any credence, especially when it goes against laws of physics, basic reasoning, and common sense?

LevStrauss on June 30, 2009 at 5:16 PM

I agree. Like the fantasy that life spontaneously began in a pool of slime (how many laws of biophysics does that one break?) and then “improved” itself randomly (by ignoring “entropy”?).

Or the universe spontaneously exploding from nothing – (that would throw the first and second laws of thermodynamics out the window), then inflating faster than the speed of light (e=m something or other).

I love how you guys can pick and choose where to apply the rules of science. That kind of makes you all powerful and all knowing. I’m beginning to think you atheists have “god complexes”.

Take for instance, Darwin’s theory. There is absolutely no mathematical possibility that random mutations could create something as simple as a finger, let alone a complex brain. In spite of the impossibility, many atheists cling to the theory for no other reason than the alternative leaves open the possibility of the existence of a God.

Simply put, minute, random mutations would take hundreds of generations to produce a finger that gave it any sort of survival advantage…so how does “survival of the fittest” ensure the survival of something with a few “finger bumps” when it has no discernible advantage to creatures from previous generations? And if such mutations are truly random, then it’s equally possible the next generation would evolve away the “finger bumps” as they would be to further evolve the fingers.

Let’s say it only takes 10 generations to evolve a finger, and there is a 1 in 100 chance that a finger is the item to be evolved (I’m being way, way generous here). That means the chances of growing a simple finger would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that’s like breaking 1 in a million odds three times in a row, then breaking 1 in 100 odds for good measure). Now extrapolate my generous predictions to circulatory system, or the nervous system.

Did a different person write each of the above three paragraphs?

Random chance, my ass. The math says “hell no”.

ynot4tony2 on June 30, 2009 at 6:25 PM

You “math”, all three versions of it, is very incomplete.

Well if you knew the reason I asked you would not have quoted that…
Don’t let quoting be a substitute for thinking – right2bright

right2bright on June 30, 2009 at 5:23 PM

Don’t let ad hominem be a substitute for thinking. – MB4

If you would just think more, and ad hominem less, you just might realize that great care goes into my selection of quotes. – MB4