Check out his story in his site and see what you think. What's his site?
philomedy
T-O's an ego-maniac. I'd want someone helping me wade through his arrogant garbage. What's there to wade through? You tune him out.
The Roberts trash job? Where they accused him of defending AND condoning Abortion Clinic Bombings? They just pulled the ads because they said it had been 'misconstrued'. No, As Factcheck.org said, it was not even misleading. it was outright false! Oh, right. Just to get this straight, you do now tha
Genetic manipulation, which is what ID is all about. I'd say ID is more about who or what is manipulating those genes, not the manipulation of the genes themselves.
After their latest slander, I guess you are going to have to keep your blinders on. What did they do?
With the advent of cloning, I think it does. How does cloning lend scientific credibility to ID?
All they want to do is let kids know that Darwins theory has been the source of great debates, that the theory of ID exists, and if the kids want to learn more they will have to check it out on their own Why mention that ID exists, but that no other theories of creation do? It is just as "intolerant" to
In time that may be an option. But for now, I want to see it exposed to students so that perhaps one day they can prove or disprove it. Why is this the only theory to expose students to, though? Why not all theories of how life began? <TABLE cellpadding=8 width="95%" align=center bgColor=#FFF
It is McCarthism in that they are questioning associations. You know full well that calling something McCarthyism implies far more than simply "questioning associations." <TD class="mb-Body-Quote-Text"
They just try to cheapen it by trying to call it a fetus, when in fact it was indeed and is a baby. There is a time to drop your blinders even if you agree with pro choice. It also, in fact, was a fetus. I will drop my blinders when you take off your "I hate NARAL" glasses and accept the possibility th
Better recheck your arbitrons. Nothing against #3 though, huh?
When someone in intellectual authority, who dictates your success by grading what you write, spends 50 minutes grinding away at your beliefs, sometimes it doesn't help that 6 months later you get a bit of vindication in another class. The way that certain horrible teachers go about their job is not "the
He now thinks he is McNabb's pr person as since that whole thing, McNabb has been doing great. Well, not to burst his bubble, but regardless of what he said, McNabb was doing great before he said that too.
ok, I did, And it sucks. and your point is? That that's what my article was about. I'm sorry if the Rush joke offended you, but that wasn't the point of what I wrote.
That's why I think it is a bit difficult to discuss teaching something in class when no one wants to address what is going to be taught (when most people aren't suggesting anything be "taught" at all). I think this would be remedied if the proponents of teaching it proposed teaching it in a philosophy
No. He is a football fanatic. Are you perhaps referring to the nonissue of him accusing the media of promoting McNabb as the Black QB? There were a lot of disputes in football this year. Noble Rush didn't offer to mediate between Brett Favre and Javon Walker. He didn't offer to mediate between Randy M
Rush already came clean and indeed, he would not have been buying the stuff on the black market if he was really Doc Shopping,Think about that. It was a joke, and not even the main point of the article. Under the new law, your information can be stolen and no one is obligated to tell you. <
"Taught" is pretty general in this case, and doesn't really describe what the cases most often cited are even about. It's what the article is about. I think the reality i
Link Rush Limbaugh, humanitarian that he is, has offered to help Donovan McNabb and Terrell Owens settle their dispute. The obvious question that comes up here is "Huh?", along with "What the hell...?" and "Why?" Are his ratings slipping? Is he getting desperate
Again, look at the climate. Make that same claim about Iceland, or a large part of Africa. I can't, which is why I used India Anyways, I was not trying to put forth some universal truth, just to refute drguy's point th
Link George W. Bush has signed into law a bill that would create an electronic monitoring system to prevent the abuse of prescription drugs. Do you hear that folks? No? Here, quiet down. Listen again...there in the distance. Do you hear it? Rush Limbaugh weep
Maybe, MAYBE if you consider first world countries these ideas about "automated farms" might pan out, but we can't feed the world now as it is. I tend to think if we did away with meat a large percent of the world would starve. You can't use that argument to say that we eat meat to survive, though. When
I agree, but you do not take into consideration that most people do not have access to meat substitutes. We do, they dont. It isn't necessary to have meat subsitutes in order to be a vegetarian and healthy. I don't think that people in India have access to the meat substitutes we do, but there they are.
Do I advocate teaching it in science class? NO! I believe in teaching it in philosophy as I think all my answers are consistent with. After all, no one can prove (yet) that it is
No, we eat meat to survive as we are omnivors. It is only recently that science has come up with alternatives to replace the meat in our diet. Howver our ancestors did not have the benefit of that science. My point was meant to refer specifically to the day and age in which we live. In the past, certa