Ham

Of course. Squirrels are still here. And we remember Mr Marx when he was Uncle Harry.

Atheists in a hundred mile radius.. easy, hands down.. I wonder how they feel about genetically modified corn, infesting their fields.. God only knows what DNA has been diced and spliced to work with corn.. Genetically modified crops outnumber them.. and this has been by agreement. They've rented out old ROA fields..

Wiccans in a hundred mile radius probably outnumber them..

Acid? who said Acid? I've been looking for some for a couple decades.. last I knew the real suppliers got busted inside of an abandoned missile silo or something. If have have any acid left over: forward it to: The Squirrel New Knoxville, Ohio. *they* will know where to send it.. If you offer me morning glory seeds.. well, I will generally spit in your direction.

This would turn dear mr geero into an extortionist.. besides other charges against his character.. and they still buy his classes. God help them..

I've only s**t on four or five people in my way days.. and that is hard enough for me to face and deal with even now. some of these numbnuts did it to hundreds before they figured out it was wrong.. if the ever even did. I don't see how they can live with themselves. maybe they have a good supply of the right kind of pharmaceuticals..

I wonder how vince feels about this now..

maybe then the righteous should be more bold..

I can't say that Michigan was heaven sent. I still don't belong here..

On a global point of view it would make sense.. depending on which conspiracy theory one current subscribes too.. Maybe this is not the place.. There is too much to analyze. I need some help here.. so we have a World food Producer.. producing terminal seed. That is, the sower is always bound to one supplier of the seed.. some claim it causes guaranteed infertility within three generations.. in human terms that will be about or less than 100 years.. maybe the status quo must go.. It's just a (an insane) thought.

To me, this opens up an entirely different can of worms.. if both sides are correct. somebody, or something had the ability to dice and splice DNA over a million years ago, give or take.. which brings us to today. Super Computers.. able to work in the relm of the human genome.. What kind of dicing and splicing has been going on.. is it a natural progression?

from Socks link. This seems to be a pretty good argument as well..

Thanks for your contribution Socks.. its the same to me. Interesting, but not a deal breaker. But it is a (perceived) deal breaker for quite a lot of us.. I like the rest of your post as well..

Duels with inaccurate firearms at twenty paces might do the trick. At the best, you both can be lucky enough to miss.

ha... hehehehehehehheeheheheh.. The Hayflick limit. so every time dna duplicates itself, it throws off a little bit of its tail. Eventually.. no tail.. what does it do? Less "junk" DNA to distinguish the end of the tail.. in english that is how I understand the suggestion. If only I had a tail.. another strand of DNA is under the same tortured environment (and consciousness perhaps?).. I can look through agenda here. Everybody has one.. or two, or three.. I'm the "problem" in democracy. I'm the.. swing voter.. you can always just assassinate the swing voters, and duke it out among yourselves..

Very interesting.

I am still waiting for meaningful dialogue regarding the DNA. Junk science, yes or no? Why or why not? If you want to just go home and refuse to debate on the DNA.. so be it. Charges of "unfair, you are biased.." "you have an agenda here.." or something like that seem pretty ludicrous, at least to me. The "other side" has its agendas as well..

Ever seen this? http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

I've reached out a few times.. looking back, "may" might indicate the possibility of "not". I've met some, who are terrified of love..

at last, someone agrees with me..

I dunno. On the other hand.. Animals do seem to have a very limited amount of freedom.. mainly influenced by man's encroachment on their environment.. here I could agree. then.. we had a cat who gave birth to seven offspring. Absolutely, positively without the influence of man. In other words, a degree of freedom- technically she did not need us. For anything. She would have gone out slaying rabbits to feed her offspring if she had to.

Why the earth is less than 15,000 years old. The fundamentalists issued a counter-argument. 1. The rotation period of the earth is lessened by a measurable degree, every year.. and this is the missing part of the argument: 2. Given that this rate has at all times been constant: 3. If we went back six million years, taking into account the (constant) effect of atmospheric drag, with the speed of rotation back then, dinosaurs would have to be flying off the earth due to the centrifugal force. Personally.. I think they assumed point number two. Maybe there was not always a nice, rich atmosphere, and lots of water vapor from the oceans to cause this kind of drag on the earth's rotation.. That was a highly polished presentation I saw as well- pictures of dinosaurs flying off of the earth, due to the extreme rotation of the earth.. I think that was a poor argument. Maybe they haven't come up with a good counter argument for the current challenge.. the human genome evidence seems fairly convincing to me. But I'm not a geneticist.

As far as I see it.. the ball is now in the fundamentalist's court. I haven't seen a reply yet.. maybe they have, I just haven't found it. I'd like to see a reasonable reply framed.. maybe find something else in the human genome.. assassinating the character, or the motives of one whom one is debating to soften the relevance of some proposed facts.. I mean, that's Congress. not a debate..

I think the most interesting part of this presentation- well, given he is convinced that there is scientific evidence that supports the idea of evolution- is that it fundamentally does not effect his spirituality. He still practices Roman Catholicism. Still believes in a creator, God.. on the other hand- the "opposition" with bible literacy and inerrancy, and so on would consider their very existence to be threatened if what he says is true. At least that's my impression of the situation.

A few personal thoughts about this- I don't take this presentation like what he's saying is "see, see, you're WRONG, you dumb intelligent creationists.." I think the intelligent design camp views this as a chess game, and suddenly they have been issued a check, which very well might be checkmate.. maybe the assertion is that the "intelligent design" people don't exactly have all of the facts straight.. maybe things got intelligently designed slightly a different way than they think.