"Charles Bull" wrote in message
...


http://www.chler.com/198shtml


Funny that the only two posts to this group were to bash the President.
Your agenda is no better than his.

President Bush has my support (as well as a tiny bit more than
half the rest of the US population too-he did win-twice) to take the
fight with middle eastern muslim terrorist to the middle east.
Sorry you don't approve but you can keep drinking.
Robert Smith

Charles Bull wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:40:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"Charles Bull" wrote in message
...

http://www.chler.com/198shtml

Funny that the only two posts to this group were to bash the President.
Your agenda is no better than his.

No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is
he drinking again? If he is let us all pray for him otherwise, we will
be on the marching to another war before the present war in Iraq end.

"Charles Bull" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:40:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"Charles Bull" wrote in message
...

http://www.chler.com/198shtml

Funny that the only two posts to this group were to bash the President.
Your agenda is no better than his.

No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is
he drinking again? If he is let us all pray for him otherwise, we will
be on the marching to another war before the present war in Iraq end.




ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Dope

"Charles Bull" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:40:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"Charles Bull" wrote in message
...

http://www.chler.com/198shtml

Funny that the only two posts to this group were to bash the President.
Your agenda is no better than his.

No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is
he drinking again? If he is let us all pray for him otherwise, we will
be on the marching to another war before the present war in Iraq end.


You are nothing more than an ignorant liberal. You actually believe such
using the source you listed?

I really feel sorry for ya.

As mentioned post something useful or bug off.

Chris

"Charles Bull" wrote in message

No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is
he drinking again?

Sure. Thanks for the explanation. I'll never doubt you again.

With all my love,
your friend,
Ed

http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 00:40:41 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"Charles Bull" wrote in message
...

http://www.chler.com/198shtml

Funny that the only two posts to this group were to bash the President.
Your agenda is no better than his.

No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is
he drinking again? If he is let us all pray for him otherwise, we will
be on the marching to another war before the present war in Iraq end.

In article ,
Charles Bull wrote:

http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml

Wow... I didn't know George had stopped drinking.
I knew Yeltsin and Churchill liked to have a few.
But George's behaviour does bolt on to a definition of an alcoholic I
heard once:
An alcoholic is a megalomaniac with an inferiority complex.

I'm at least glad that the 'chortler' piece gave credit where it was
due..the National Enquirer..... which is probably more accurate than Fox
news ? G

In a few years you won't be able to find anybody who will admit to have
voted for Bush..kinda like Nixon.

In Canada, NOBODY voted for Brian Mulroney. Nobody.

Ooops, I slipped, I wasn't getting into political discussions..G

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:21:03 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"Charles Bull" wrote in message

No bashing or any other agenda intended, but rather a question is
he drinking again?

Sure. Thanks for the explanation. I'll never doubt you again.

Thank you for your understanding and no where in my posts
did I bash anyone? OK, I'll retract the Iraq war stuff. There
rumours floating around he's starting drinking again. I really
cannot see anything wrong drinking as hundred of millions
people drinks every day. I don't drink so I don't know if it's
addictive

Take care and have a good evening:-).

With all my love,
your friend,
Ed

Robatoy wrote:
In article ,
Charles Bull wrote:

http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml

Wow... I didn't know George had stopped drinking.
I knew Yeltsin and Churchill liked to have a few.
But George's behaviour does bolt on to a definition of an alcoholic I
heard once:
An alcoholic is a megalomaniac with an inferiority complex.

I'm at least glad that the 'chortler' piece gave credit where it was
due..the National Enquirer..... which is probably more accurate than Fox
news ? G

In a few years you won't be able to find anybody who will admit to have
voted for Bush..kinda like Nixon.

In Canada, NOBODY voted for Brian Mulroney. Nobody.

Ooops, I slipped, I wasn't getting into political discussions..G

Ever since George Bush got elected President, I've been drinking.

"Charles Bull" wrote in message
...


http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml


If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it.

"Ever since George Bush got elected President, I've been drinking.


Good for you, did you turn 21 on his first inaugural? Or is your drinking
problem his fault as well...

"Leon" wrote in message
. ..

"Charles Bull" wrote in message
...


http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml


If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it.


It appears that you liberals will believe anything the slam sheets have to
say. Especially, if it's against someone you don't like.
Who are you liberals going to pick on after Bush leaves office. John Mc
Cane? You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we will
have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I
suggest you move to Canada. Who on the Dem side could handle what's going
on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one),
Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on the
Democrat side that the masses would support. You'd be hard pressed to find
one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party is
not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There
are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party.

"Scott" wrote in message
news:uXc_e.371082$_o.20361@attbi_s71...

It appears that you liberals will believe anything the slam sheets have to
say. Especially, if it's against someone you don't like.
Who are you liberals going to pick on after Bush leaves office. John Mc
Cane? You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we
will
have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I
suggest you move to Canada. Who on the Dem side could handle what's going
on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one),
Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on
the
Democrat side that the masses would support. You'd be hard pressed to
find
one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party
is
not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There
are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party.


Getting a Democrat back in the White House is much easier thatn you think.
Take Jimmy Carter for instance. He won the presidency simply because he did
not run Republican.

"Charles Bull" wrote in message
...


http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml


Dunno - but he sure as hell SHOULD be.

"Leon" wrote in message
. ..

"Charles Bull" wrote in message
...


http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml


If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it.



Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time,
drinking is the least of his problems.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:46:50 GMT, "Scott" wrote:

"Charles Bull" wrote in message

...

http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml

If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it.

It appears that you liberals will believe anything the slam sheets have to
say. Especially, if it's against someone you don't like.
Who are you liberals going to pick on after Bush leaves office. John Mc
Cane? You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we will
have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I
suggest you move to Canada. Who on the Dem side could handle what's going
on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one),
Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on the
Democrat side that the masses would support. You'd be hard pressed to find
one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party is
not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There
are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party.

What has Liberals got to do with this? The question is do you think he start
drinking again?

Huh? Is it possible that W wants to divide, and be disliked? Meaning,
he's earned it, with the guidance of Rove.

Maybe, in reality, your dividing people into two groups so
simplistically is not possible. It is silly. Most folks come down in
different parts of the spectrum (progressive, conservative,
reactionary) on different issues, and for you to categorize and judge
anyone makes as little sense as the converse. (Ever hear of McCarthy
and "pinko"?)

Some would conjure a different name for "the phony one."

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:46:50 GMT, "Scott" wrote:

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Charles Bull" wrote in message
...


http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml


If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it.


It appears that you liberals will believe anything the slam sheets have to
say. Especially, if it's against someone you don't like.
Who are you liberals going to pick on after Bush leaves office. John Mc
Cane? You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we will
have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I
suggest you move to Canada. Who on the Dem side could handle what's going
on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one),
Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on the
Democrat side that the masses would support. You'd be hard pressed to find
one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party is
not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There
are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party.



Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling
his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a
Democrat.

If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned
near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be
in a prefect position to run.

I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat.

(Good Lord, I am so grateful to live in a country where even babbling
idiots have the vote.)


Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
news:1127866962.33e4903b676fc2c52d30c2210b271c03@t eranews...
Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling
his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a
Democrat.

If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned
near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be
in a prefect position to run.

I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat.

It's pretty telling that the #1 option that Democrats have is that John
McCain will switch parties.

todd

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:34:37 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote:

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
news:1127866962.33e4903b676fc2c52d30c2210b271c03@ teranews...
Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling
his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a
Democrat.

If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned
near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be
in a prefect position to run.

I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat.

It's pretty telling that the #1 option that Democrats have is that John
McCain will switch parties.


Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a
Republican for years. :-(

Probably the only thing that saved him from recall was 9/11 -- the group
doing the recall petition suspended its activity in the interest of
preserving unity. A favor which McCain did not return


todd




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:22:39 -0400, Tom Watson wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:46:50 GMT, "Scott" wrote:

"Leon" wrote in message
m...

"Charles Bull" wrote in message
...


http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml


If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it.


It appears that you liberals will believe anything the slam sheets have to
say. Especially, if it's against someone you don't like.
Who are you liberals going to pick on after Bush leaves office. John Mc
Cane? You all better get used to a Republican President. I predict we will
have one for at least the next 12 years and if you libs don't like it I
suggest you move to Canada. Who on the Dem side could handle what's going
on today, Al Gore (what a big dumb Ox he is), Kerry ( the phony one),
Hillary (what a joke), Biden (the phony big mouth)? Name one person on the
Democrat side that the masses would support. You'd be hard pressed to find
one. Tell the truth who would you suggest that has any class. That party is
not the party I grew up with when they were for the working person. There
are no more Sam Nunn's left in that party.



Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling
his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a
Democrat.

If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned
near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be
in a prefect position to run.

I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat.

(Good Lord, I am so grateful to live in a country where even babbling
idiots have the vote.)


You better be, that's the only reason you will get a Democrat president.
;-)





Tom Watson - WoodDorker
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/ (website)



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:50:51 -0500, "Battleax"
wrote:


"Leon" wrote in message
...

"Charles Bull" wrote in message
...


http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml


If he has had a drink he certainly deserves it.



Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time,
drinking is the least of his problems.


... as opposed to believing a theory that, for its fundamental premise
violates all logical and scientific principles? (i.e, substituting "from
nothing, nothing comes" with "from nothing, everything comes")


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:

: Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a
: Republican for years. :-(



He's been an old-style, fiscal conservative, pro-military,
anti-interventionist Republican.

What he hasn't been is the new style of spend like money is free,
interfere anywhere and all the time, anti-soldier-respect, screw the
Constitution neo-con.

And for that he should be commended.

-- Andy Barss

On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:08:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

: Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a
: Republican for years. :-(



He's been an old-style, fiscal conservative, pro-military,
anti-interventionist Republican.

What he hasn't been is the new style of spend like money is free,
interfere anywhere and all the time, anti-soldier-respect, screw the
Constitution neo-con.



McCain-Feingold meets those criteria? The most egregious attack on the
first amendment in recent times? Hardly.

And for that he should be commended.

-- Andy Barss

The one thing I will give him commendations for has been his steadfast
support for the war effort and maintaining unity with the President on this
issue.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 20:22:39 -0400, Tom Watson wrote:

(Good Lord, I am so grateful to live in a country where even babbling
idiots have the vote.)

Maybe we should deprive these babbling liberal idiots their civil right
or the right to votes like we did to the black in the South? Should we
now segregate these damn liberal too, including anyone who doesn't
look like us or think like us?

Good Lord we are heading in the right direction?

Vic Baron wrote:
"Charles Bull" wrote in message
...


http://www.chortler.com/19866ittas.shtml


Dunno - but he sure as hell SHOULD be.

He claims to have quit around his 40th birthday. That and using
cocaine.

Not because he had any REAL problems with booze and coke, mind you, but
because he got religion, and the religion he got doesn't approve of
mind-altering drug use.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:34:37 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"
wrote:

"Tom Watson" wrote in message
news:1127866962.33e4903b676fc2c52d30c2210b271c03@ teranews...
Once John Mc Cain gets tired of the people in his party misspelling
his name, he will switch over to the Party Of The People, and run as a
Democrat.

If that doesn't happen quickly enough, we have Hillary, who has damned
near shed that 250 pounds of embarrassing fat ( Bill). And should be
in a prefect position to run.

I have to tell you, these are promising days to be a Democrat.

It's pretty telling that the #1 option that Democrats have is that John
McCain will switch parties.


I don't know that he is yet, or ever will be willing to abandon
the Republican Party to the backsliding religious nut-jobs.


Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a
Republican for years. :-(

To the extent that is true, it is true for the same reason
that Ronald Reagan gave for leaving the Democratic party.
In actuality, they didn't change that much, beyond maturation.
Their respective parties changed, leaving them rather than
vice-versa.


Probably the only thing that saved him from recall was 9/11 -- the group
doing the recall petition suspended its activity in the interest of
preserving unity.


Meaning, I suppose that Pat Robertson realized that the recall
campaign was serving to prove exactly what McCain had said
about him and so bailed when the opportunity presented itself.

A favor which McCain did not return

A blatant lie. McCain 'buried the hatchet' and has been a
strong Bush supporter since then.

--

FF

In article , says...
Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time,
drinking is the least of his problems.


... as opposed to believing a theory that, for its fundamental premise
violates all logical and scientific principles? (i.e, substituting "from
nothing, nothing comes" with "from nothing, everything comes")


Last time I looked, the theory of evolution had nothing to do with the origin of the
universe. So you're bringing up a false statement and then refuting it. Nice try.

And for what it does cover, it has a lot more supporting evidence than the so-called
"intelligent design".

Perhaps you should be arguing the "big bang" theory with the astrophysics group.

Or writing letters to the editor :-).

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever

lgb wrote:
In article , says...
Hey, the guy thinks dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time,
drinking is the least of his problems.


... as opposed to believing a theory that, for its fundamental premise
violates all logical and scientific principles? (i.e, substituting "from
nothing, nothing comes" with "from nothing, everything comes")


Last time I looked, the theory of evolution had nothing to do with the origin of the
universe. So you're bringing up a false statement and then refuting it. Nice try.

And for what it does cover, it has a lot more supporting evidence than the so-called
"intelligent design".

Perhaps you should be arguing the "big bang" theory with the astrophysics group.

Or writing letters to the editor :-).

The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design",
or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both
mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost
any kind of sentience could have avoided.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 03:08:48 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

: Not so much switch parties as acknowledge reality. He hasn't been a
: Republican for years. :-(



He's been an old-style, fiscal conservative, pro-military,
anti-interventionist Republican.

What he hasn't been is the new style of spend like money is free,
interfere anywhere and all the time, anti-soldier-respect, screw the
Constitution neo-con.



McCain-Feingold meets those criteria? The most egregious attack on the
first amendment in recent times? Hardly.


McCain-Feingold reminds me of the necessity to destroy a villiage
in order to save it.

Even so, it is not as bad as denying habeas corpus in order to
preserve freedom.

But of course, McCain is not the subject of this thread.

A couple of months ago I came home from work, flipped on the tube
and discovered that George W Bush was holding a press conference.
I hadn't realized noe was scheduled. As I watched, I was impressed
that this one did not seem to be a sham, scripted in advance. He
responed to the questions, for the most part addressing the substance
of the query. When he was evasive, he was skillfully evasive. Unlike
other press conferenes, even the scripted ones, and the debates
he did not repeat the same phrases like "we were attacked" and
"it's hard work" over and over again.

I'v enot made habit of listenign to him speak at every opportunity
but hav eheard him a dozen or so times. Unlike any other situation
in which he had to compose what he said on the fly or even in many
when he was simply reading from a teleprompter this time his
anunciation was good, there was little indication of the aphasia
(or whatever) that is responsible for so many of his humours
misstatements. He acted and sounded like an experienced polititican,
a man of above average intelligence, with a college education and
experience with public speaking. He sounded Presidential.

A few hours later it finally dawned on me that he probably
was sober.

--

FF

Charlie Self wrote:


The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design",
or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both
mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost
any kind of sentience could have avoided.

You would seem to be presuming a benevolent intelligence.

Ever see _At Play in the Fields of the Lord_?

--

FF

wrote:

I'v enot made habit of listenign to him speak at every opportunity
but hav eheard him a dozen or so times. Unlike any other situation
in which he had to compose what he said on the fly or even in many
when he was simply reading from a teleprompter this time his
anunciation was good, there was little indication of the aphasia
(or whatever) that is responsible for so many of his humours
misstatements. He acted and sounded like an experienced polititican,
a man of above average intelligence, with a college education and
experience with public speaking. He sounded Presidential.

A few hours later it finally dawned on me that he probably
was sober.


Or he had entered that euphoric arena of a good buzz, which I think is
more likely. It is a stage similar to what I imagine an epiphany to be,
and there is just enough alteration of the system that the brain
actually works as if it is well-oiled (pun intended) for a change. Two
more drinks/lines, and things collapse into Babble, while a drink less
brings on the aphasia you mention.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design",
or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both
mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost
any kind of sentience could have avoided.


With all due respect, you have described the results of the devils influence
on the world.
When you were young did you not once ever think that your parents were way
off kilter a time or two. Did they not seem way more intelligent than you
at one time? What better way to really learn right from wrong than to live
in a world that shows both. I am not so arrogant to think that I know which
way to learn is best, I leave that to the more intelligent designer.
Something to think about. The entire universe did not just happen, it had
to be created.

In article ,
"Leon" wrote:

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design",
or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both
mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost
any kind of sentience could have avoided.


With all due respect, you have described the results of the devils influence
on the world.
When you were young did you not once ever think that your parents were way
off kilter a time or two. Did they not seem way more intelligent than you
at one time? What better way to really learn right from wrong than to live
in a world that shows both. I am not so arrogant to think that I know which
way to learn is best, I leave that to the more intelligent designer.
Something to think about. The entire universe did not just happen, it had
to be created.

We have the answer, it's 42.
All we need now is the question.

WTF are we doing here and why?....and I'm not talking about UseNet.

On one end of the scale is the absolute smallest our little, horribly
inadequate, brain can comprehend, and at the other end of the scale is
the absolute humongestly huge thing we can get out feeble little brain
around. And here we are...at the exact middle of that scale. We are, in
fact, nothing more than an equal sign in the equation of knowledge.

Hydroponically grown, you say....*bursts out laughing*

Robatoy wrote:
In article ,
"Leon" wrote:

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
The person who believes mankind is the result of "intelligent design",
or that the earth in general is, needs to take a better look at both
mankind and the world. Both are plenty screwed up, in ways that almost
any kind of sentience could have avoided.


With all due respect, you have described the results of the devils influence
on the world.
When you were young did you not once ever think that your parents were way
off kilter a time or two. Did they not seem way more intelligent than you
at one time? What better way to really learn right from wrong than to live
in a world that shows both. I am not so arrogant to think that I know which
way to learn is best, I leave that to the more intelligent designer.
Something to think about. The entire universe did not just happen, it had
to be created.

We have the answer, it's 42.
All we need now is the question.

WTF are we doing here and why?....and I'm not talking about UseNet.

On one end of the scale is the absolute smallest our little, horribly
inadequate, brain can comprehend, and at the other end of the scale is
the absolute humongestly huge thing we can get out feeble little brain
around. And here we are...at the exact middle of that scale. We are, in
fact, nothing more than an equal sign in the equation of knowledge.

Hydroponically grown, you say....*bursts out laughing*

Leon isn't arrogant enough to think that he knows which way to learn is
best. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that God is made in my
image--or me, in his. Nor am I arrogant enough to think I know God's
will.

In article .com,
"Charlie Self" wrote:

Leon isn't arrogant enough to think that he knows which way to learn is
best. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that God is made in my
image--or me, in his. Nor am I arrogant enough to think I know God's
will.

....and I'm not arrogant enough to question anyone's faith.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
oups.com...

Leon isn't arrogant enough to think that he knows which way to learn is
best. I'm not arrogant enough to believe that God is made in my
image--or me, in his. Nor am I arrogant enough to think I know God's
will.


What some may perceive to be the break down of an intelligent design
created in his own image started when we all began to sin.

In article ,
says...

What some may perceive to be the break down of an intelligent design
created in his own image started when we all began to sin.


Leon, I'm pretty sure the use of logic against faith is a losing game, but just for a
minute stop and think about this.

There are at least 20 major religions in the world. I'm not talking Methodists vs
Baptists, but the major divisions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc..

Now unless you've stuidied them all and made a logical choice among them, your chance of
having picked the right one is, at best, 5%. It may be zero, they may all be wrong.
That was the conclusion I came to.

But in any event, the only possible answer to how the universe began is "I don't know."
And evolutionary theory doesn't address that question at all.

P.S. Any time you'd like to jar your intelligent design belief, get a good book on the
Burgess shale fossils :-).

--
BNSF = Build Now, Seep Forever