I'm only "universally scorned" amongst jackasses, and guess what? I don't even LIKE jackasses, much less care what they think.
to protect state and individual rights from a national govt - religion ---
that WALL has been breeched - demolished by liberals !
"The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any ... national ecclesiastical establishment --- which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage * * of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . . ." (Footnotes omitted.)
Check out the link above !
Old wall constitutionalist ... keep govt out ---
new wall constitutionalist (( sharia )) --- keep God out !
... * * ... guess who --- rag heads - liberals !
Medved sure had a way with words, no wonder the evos had to get rid of him.
Anyways, since this thread has officially been deemed 'dead' by the pontifex maximus of the Church of Darwin, I guess I might as well end it with some scientific questions regarding evolution.
To claim that evolution is science, evolutionists would first have to answer several questions:
1. what exactly is THE theory of evolution? The one which has supposedly been scientifically verified? Without a theory it could not have been scientifically verified.
2. how can evolution give proof of descent from hundreds of millions of years back when it cannot even give proof of descent with the same kind of evidence (fossils) in the present time.
3. how can evolution be science when there is no evidence for transformations of species?
4. how can evolution be science when there is no explanation for how complex systems come about?
5. how does it scientifically answer the questions posed by opponents (other than calling them nincompoops)?
6. how can evolution be science when it denies causation, and natural laws - the basis of all scientific advances?
7. how can evolution be science when its propositions are constantly refuted by science?
8. how can evolution be science when its criteria for 'proof' is imagination, not observation?
9. how can evolution be science when it cannot point to any benefits to humanity being derived from applying it?
Since they cannot do so, it shows quite well that evolution is not science. Their failure to respond to this post (as they always do when asked to back up their claims) will be even more proof that evolution is not science.
funny!