FOX 'COSMOS' RATINGS DISASTER... (Drudge Headline)

Resurrection is not bad. Not sure how far they can stretch the story but not horrible.

They had best finish the story in one season. If they do, it should be good.

It’s true what they say, one should never start drinking before noon. :)

... the moon Titan got all that oil and fossil fuel - from what fossils?

I'm sure to the leftists that proves there was life on Titan...dinosaurs, then man, then cars, then they were all doomed because they didn't have any batteries and windmills.

Man is a danger to ~~nature~~ the universe, ban man!

They had best finish the story in one season. If they do, it should be good.

To me it seems very similar to "Lost". It was interesting at the start, but the producers and writers didn't know what to do after that. But that last six or eight seasons.

Still ancient history which is what was my point.

Or just plain a much thicker atmosphere in general. At the same pressure height, the Venusian atmosphere is roughly the same temperature as Earths’.

A “greenhouse effect” works so much better when the atmosphere is 100X as dense....

I get that. My point is that their point was wrong.

Simply stating False to my statement does not make it so. Again all religions have some type of doctrine. Policy is based on doctrine hence all religions police their own.

Heresy is the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith, or a having a different opinion than the established churches doctrine. I am willing to bet that all of the thousands of common people put to death for heresy by the Roman Catholic church would have wished that heresy only applied to those in a position of authority. While Protestants are heretics by virtue of their beliefs, Bruno had little choice. Since you have been remarking on Bruno your inclusion of Martin Luther into the conversation is a moot point that has no bearing on any of this.

I don’t know or understand why my argument is laughable. I find it well opined and factual. I would suggest that you brush up on history, refrain from utilizing straw men, and not resort to smug supercilious comments when responding to those with whom you disagree. It tends to show your lack of breadth in the subject matter.

“Christ died for OUR sins. Not the sins of Klingons or Vulcans or whatever is out there. “

I think the second part is indeterminate, and beyond the scope of the information given. Did he die for their sins too? Perhaps. Did he do it at the same event, or separately? Either is possible, and also not relevant to the first sentence. From Gods point of view, who is “us”? I think that’s for him to define.

from an incident 400 years old(around the time the constitution was written)

Are you Sheila Jackson Lee?

Democrat Rep. Believes Our Constitution is 400 Years Old

Friday, March 14, 2014 1:21:24 PM · by Kaslin · 43 replies
Townhall.com ^ | March 14, 2014 | Michael Schaus

The Republicans introduced (and passed) a bill that would require the President of the United States to enforce laws as they are written. Republican Trey Gowdy summarized the sentiment behind the bill nicely when he explained that Congress passes laws… Not suggestions. The bill is in response to the President’s most recent unilateral changes to Obamacare. But, the fact that it takes a literal “act of Congress” to make the President do his job, is not really the point of this article. I’m afraid it is far more basic than that. Representative Sheila Jackson, a Democrat from Texas (yes…...

Sheila Jackson Lee: We’ve lasted some 400 years operating under the Constitution…

Wednesday, March 12, 2014 9:28:04 PM · by chessplayer · 43 replies
Hotair ^

I don’t typically like to give anyone too much grief for what could easily be an innocent mental-to-verbal lapse, but… c’mon, now. Given that she took to the House floor to explicitly argue against the constitutionality of the GOP’s proposed Enforce The Law Act, I must say that her argument might have been a teeny bit more convincing if she was a little more firm in her background knowledge of the actual Constitution. Yikes.

Sheila Jackson lee: us has been operating under Constitution for 400 years

Wednesday, March 12, 2014 3:51:29 PM · by mandaladon · 72 replies
Breitbart ^ | 12 Mar 2014

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) either misspoke or showed her historical ignorance in a speech on the House floor when she declared that United States has been operating under our Constitution for 400 years...

Sheila Jackson Lee Thinks the Constitution is 400 Years Old

Wednesday, March 12, 2014 2:16:32 PM · by smoothsailing · 86 replies
Washington Free Beacon ^ | 3-12-2014 | Staff report

Sheila Jackson Lee Thinks the Constitution is 400 Years Old It isn't BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff March 12, 2014 4:08 pm VIDEORep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D., Texas) declared the U.S. Constitution to be 400 years old Wednesday on the House floor, which would mean it was signed in 1614. “Maybe I should offer a good thanks to the distinguished members of the majority, the Republicans, my chairman and others, for giving us an opportunity to have a deliberative constitutional discussion that reinforces the sanctity of this nation and how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years,...

Everyone knows that Chris wrote the constitution on his ship before landing in 1492...

I never said that. Don’t make up stuff to try and defend your limited view.

You stated my points very well. Thanks.

Simply stating False to my statement does not make it so. Again all religions have some type of doctrine. Policy is based on doctrine hence all religions police their own.

Your statement is that ALL religions police their own. If it can be shown that even one doesn't, then it is demonstrably a false statement. Given that there are situations too numerous to mention where religions were changed by strong individuals rather than disciplining the wayward individual, your statement is not just wrong but widely so.

Heresy is the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith, or a having a different opinion than the established churches doctrine.

Thank you for the dictionary definition. However, since we're talking about its application in history (specifically by the Catholic Church), I think the Church's definition should be used. As I said before, it is not simply unbelief or even willful rejection (as you say), it is a corruption of dogmas. The common man's unbelief has no bearing on the dogmas of the Church. Only those in positions of authority can have such an impact and will find themselves subject to sanction. Unfortunately, this also understandably includes their followers.

I am willing to bet that all of the thousands of common people put to death for heresy by the Roman Catholic church would have wished that heresy only applied to those in a position of authority.

Here you show your ignorance of history. The main inquisition that most people point to is the Spanish Inquisition. This process arose out of driving out the Moors from the Spanish Throne and the restoration of the Catholic monarchy. Unfortunately, there were many in the Spanish Court who still held anti-Catholic biases that were feared to undermine their tenuous rule. They called on the Church to set up the Inquisition (which is really just a court proceeding by modern standards) to root out the heretics in the Court.

Over time, the Spanish Crown became very brutal in their tactics and political in their targets and the Church pulled back Her support. The Spanish Court continued the Inquisition in the name of the Church for hundreds of years following and most abuses can be laid correctly at their feet. Here is an article for more information on the subject of the inquisition: New Advent.

While Protestants are heretics by virtue of their beliefs, Bruno had little choice. Since you have been remarking on Bruno your inclusion of Martin Luther into the conversation is a moot point that has no bearing on any of this.

You seem to gloss over the fact that Bruno was a clergyman much the same as Martin Luther. The bearing is in the fact that both elicited sedition within the Church and this isn't something the Church can ignore given the peril to souls. Both men led souls away from the teachings of the Church to where we have had Christians fighting Christians ever since.

I don’t know or understand why my argument is laughable.

Understandable.

I would suggest that you brush up on history, refrain from utilizing straw men, and not resort to smug supercilious comments when responding to those with whom you disagree. It tends to show your lack of breadth in the subject matter.

I can but hold the mirror for you.

You said, quote, “Water = potential for life.” Water means nothing to a limitless God. Defend a limited God who needs water to raise up sons of Abraham. Don’t post glib crap if you don’t want to defend and discuss it rationally.

For you to argue against the actual point I made rather than the one you are trying to fabricate, you would be arguing that water does NOT equal the potential for life.

Is that what you are saying? I didn’t think so.

The only glib crap here is what you have posted and tried to attribute to me. Go play your baby games with someone less intellectually astute.

So your argument is to complain that I missed your brilliant assertion and rather than take a minute to explain it you play the my-ego-is-bigger-than-yours card? Bravo sir, well played.

It certainly doesn’t fit in with their normal programming. What were they thinking?

Nope. Again, not what I said. I did explain it...apparently it is beyond your ability to grasp, so you act out rather than simply saying “I was wrong.” or “I don’t get it.”

Whatever.

Thank you for your response. It merely substantiates my previous posts. Your posts tend to continue to grow each time with additional information that that was not part of your original post.

You are welcome for the dictionary definition as that is the accepted norm for defining words. I did not know we were allowed to make our own up. You state the definition and then go on to validate what I had written concerning innocents being executed for heresy. Ok fine if that works for you.

You have no idea concerning my level of knowledge with respect to history. I do find it fascinating your continual inclusion of things that were not in your post. You are all over the place. I never said anything about an inquisition. I could care less about the Spanish Inquisition as it started a hundred years before the Bruno incident. Again, more moot information on your part. There have been several Inquistions, big deal. I do not need information that has not a thing to do with what you have previously posted. It doesn’t make you appear smarter or more intelligent. It also does not impress someone such as myself who is already fully aware these things.

I can but hold the mirror for you -Touche` well played.
Anyway have a nice day. We will agree to disagree.