Hi Mark , thanks for your comments.  I think I understand what you're trying to say... 

.

Since we're no longer teaching science in school, should we also refrain from teaching math?  To me, math is a form of science...  And while we're at it, history definately has to go, and if history goes so should english....  All of the humanities shouldn't stay, and neither should physical education.  Ok, now that we've settled that, what do we teach them?

Please don't take offense at my sarcasm.  I don't believe science exists to prove or disprove religion.  Science is simply our observations of the world around us.  It exists independent of religion.  Religion is the entity that pits science against religion, not science.  The idea that science is the same type of study as religion, and therefore should not be taught in public school seems pretty ridiculous to me.

.

I hope you have a great evening.

Hmmm..My kids are still being taught science and I hope they plan to continue teaching it. I didn't say it shouldn't be taught, but that the theory of evolution was being imposed on kids today without the benefit of an opposing view..ANY opposing view. As I stated before, neither can be proven to be true by observation. Math, history and chemistry can all be proven by direct observation. If they are allowed to teach one theory, they should be allowed to teach the other. I believe that these theories should be held off on until the Jr high level when kids can take classes concerning such things as an elective. There is no real reason to concern grade school kids with it. The recent debacle in Frazier Park proves that the education system has no interest in being balanced even in elective classes and that the anti-God crowd has no interest in any view other than their own. What are they afraid of? That their kids may decide to give some sort of faith a try? I don't think it is wise for paents to force their kids to go to or not go to church by that age, but that is an argument for another blog. Granted that with the plethora of religious beliefs it would be difficult to get too far from a general class on religious studies, it could still be an option, but the fear of the opposition is too great. I do not fear science( I DO fear math because I stink at it)and would be greatly distressed were it to become an issue in teaching and I, personally, know of no Christian families who believe it should not be taught. These are weighty questions and problematic issues and should not be taken nor dismissed lightly and certainly not dismissed summarily, which the folks on the far ends of both sides tend to do with alarming regularity.

Mark, kids are being taught also that 2 plus 2 equals 4, without any opposing theory.  Where's the freedom of thought in that?  If a religion were to teach specifically that 2 plus 2 equals 10, shouldn't it get equal time?   It's an equally valid equation and our first-graders today are certainly sharp enough to evaluate both.   Shouldn't there be equal time in history courses to teach the theory that the Holocaust never happened?  How about a few communists to teach the alternatives to capitalism in the business-ed classes? 

.

You seem to hint at the answer in suggesting a religious studies class (and I agree), but I suggest you contact a few local Christian ministers for their support in teaching a class depicting Christianity, Buddhism, Islam and Wicca as competing, but equally valid, alternatives.  I'd be fascinated to see the list of supporters. 

Not at all.  I read the entire post.  

.

And what if I could *PROVE* to you that 2 plus 2 is also equal to 10?  I can do so easily.

.

It's possible to *PROVE* that evolution is a fact in the same way it's possible to *PROVE* that 2 plus 2 equals 4.    By that same process of  "observation" you've cited.    And by prediction:  You can predict, that if I have two plus two apples, or two plus two monkeys, or two plus two fnords, that the total will always be four (or 10, if you do it my way).  In the same way, evolution makes *TESTABLE PREDICTIONS* about what you'll find in the Real World(tm) that have *ALWAYS* been proven correct (where they've been tested.)  Always.  If it had failed even *ONE* test, something better would've been substituted, and a Nobel Prize awarded.

.

You, like so many others, have been misled by the "on the other hand" media to the false conclusion that evolution and ID Creationism are equivalent in terms of validity.  It just ain't so.  

.

Sagan was an astrophysicist.   Bright guy who died too young.   There's plenty on a biochemical level to suggest just that--that men and fish had a common ancestor eons ago, much of it found only recently.  Why do cats lack a sense of taste for sweets?  Evolution explains it, ID Creationism doesn't.   Why does sickle-cell anemia exist?  Again, evolution explains.  There's plenty of popular science out there, including Steven Jay Gould's books (another who died too young.)

.

However, in reward for posting the original provoking message, I offer this *FANTASTIC* music video that nimbly argues the ID Creatonist point of view, observing that "evolution is obsolete."  Besides, it has Cheney, Robertson, and even the Flying Spaghetti Monster in it.

http://www.roadrunnerrecord...

>>>the theory of evolution was being imposed on kids today without the benefit of an opposing view..

.

--->It sounds like you are mixing up the term hypothesis with the term theory.  Did you know gravity is only a theory.  That doesn't mean it's disputed by varying reputable scientists, it just means we can't directly observe it....  We can't directly measure it.  The closes we can come to observing gravity is observing it's affects on other things.

.

The theory of evolution will always be a theory because without the benefit of time travel, we'll never be able to observe our own evolution.  We can, however, observe evolution in other species, and we apply those observations to ourselves to come up with that theory.

.

You can't offer an explination by religion of how we came to be here  as an equal alternative theory to the one that has been scientifically derived.  There's one significant problem that prevents you from doing that.  Religion isn't science.  It's not scientific.  It's not subject to the rules of science, it does not adhere to the standards of science, it is just not science.  People can have an irrational belief in anything they want to.  They can teach that belief to their children if they want to.   They do not have a right to teach it to my children in the public school system.  That's all there is to it.

.

>>>If they are allowed to teach one theory, they should be allowed to teach the other.

.

--->Creationism, or intelligent design as it as recently become known, IS NOT SCIENCE!!!!  It's not a scientific theory...  It cannot be compared to, used to replace, be considered better or worse than, science.  It's just religion.  And relligion cannot be taught in the public school system as anything more than an elective course offering an examination of what it is.  It cannot be taught in the public school system as if it were a fact.  That's the law.  That protection from religious zealots is why I serve my country.  When we begin to lose our protection from religion in this country, all of our other rights will quickly follow.

Evolution, too, can be observed and measured.   Changes to genes (mutations) happen at a predictable rate, and scientists can actually make measurements of that change to determine how far back two separate species "split" from a common ancestor by how much change has taken place in the interim.  My "cat" comment above is an example--somewhere the ancestor of modern housecats lost the ability to taste sweets.  (No big deal, they're not big grape-eaters anyway.)  We know it happened before housecats evolved, because lions and tigers and lynx, oh my, have the same problem.)  The math involved is beyond me, alas, but the logic isn't.

.

About the 2+ 2 thing, sure.  2 plus 2 equals 4 only because of the arbitrary "fact" that we use the base-ten numbering system, because we have ten fingers.  Once we use up all our fingers, we put up a "1" and start all over again at zero--"10."   If we had only four fingers instead, we would say that 2 plus 2 was equal to 10 (and probably fail woodshop class.)  Both answers are equally valid.  That happens in things like math (and sometimes physics) but it's not happening with evolution and creationism.  Both answers are not equally "valid," despite the media's tendency to give them equal airtime in the debate.

.

We don't have to convince you that evolution started with a cell in the primordial soup, for two reasons--one, you're not a biochemist doing research which requires you to accept that.  And two, because you're not talking about evolution, but about a related thing, called "abiogenesis" by scientists.  How life *BEGAN,* as opposed to how it became different species.  Nobody knows the answer to that one, but it does seem most likely that a "soup" was involved *SOMEWHERE.*  (Some guesses start with minerals instead.)  

.

Most people who say they don't believe in evolution actually don't believe in abiogenesis.  Most of the so-called "scientific" debate on Intelligent Design Creationism has already given up on arguing about it, or about "missing links."  Instead, they focus on extremely tiny things we can't explain--yet.  (They quite often get it wrong, possibly deliberately, but that's another rant.)  They focus on things like how blood clots.  The humorous term for what they're doing is "creating a God of the gaps," making God so small he can bridge the space between one enzyme and another in blood clottting.  (Me, I'd opt for something a bit grander, but then I'm not religious.)

.

Cruise and Travolta are a special case--they belong to the only "religion" that's been scientifically proven false (because it's the only one that's made testable predictions which have proven wrong.)  That's where old L-Ron made his mistake (well, that and the heavy drug use.)

.

I do tend to get emotional about the evolution/creationism debate; it's exasperation more than anything else.  The "debate" was settled a long time ago, for good and valid reasons.  It's still being waged today only because a small group of people, determined to overturn the scientific method itself, are pushing arguments they themselves *KNOW* are invalid to people who haven't been educated enough to know it's nonsense.  And for a politicial, not a moral, reason.  It stinks, it's dishonest, and I'll fight it where I see it.

.

There is a chance any given religious belief will cause you trouble in the Afterlife.  Most "I've lost nothing by believing" arguments make hidden assumptions that aren't talked about.  Zeus may not approve of someone practicing Christianity, for example.  You won't know till you get there.  In the meantime, if you can live by my Golden Rule--don't hurt anyone unnecessarily--you'll be a good neighbor even if Zeus wouldn't like you.

>>> gravity can be observed and measured. That is what scales do. Weight is a measurement of earths gravitys attraction on masses.
.

--->Exactly my point.  The properties of gravity cannot be directly observed or measured.  The closest we can come is through observing or measuring it's affects on other bodies.  We use mathematics to measure gravity, not direct observations or direct measurements.  That's the exact same technique we use to observe black holes in space.  We observe/measure their affect on other bodies in space, and draw our conclusions from those observations, but like gravity, cannot yet directly observe or measure them.
.

>>> You will never convince me that the evolution of the human race started with a cell in the primordial soup.
.
--->No one is trying to.  All we're trying to convince you of is what a theory is and is not.

Here's a quote for you from wikipedia's entry on theory...

"It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."

Here is the dictionary.com entry on theory of gravity...

"theory of gravity:  n : (physics) the theory that any two particles of matter attract one another with a force directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them"

There you see...  The way we observe gravity is using math to calculate the force of gravity.  Not from our ability to directly measure it.  Ofcourse we have to measure the bodies gravity affects in order to perform the calculations, but certainly you see this is different than being able to directly observe or measure the properties of gravity itself.  Certainly you are not so close minded that you are unable to understand what I'm trying to say.
.
>>> It seems to me that the anti God crowd are the ones who, most often, press their opinions and beliefs and do it more and more loudly each time.
.
--->Is that right?  When was the last time an athiest came to your door and tried to invite you to attend their church, or worse, tried to tell you how awful your lifestyle is and how sinful and "unrightous" and wrong you are according to their religion.  When was the last time you saw an atheist lobby congress for laws that would restrict your ability to make morality and lifestyle choices for yourself. 
.
The reason we are so outspoken right now, and the reason we're getting louder and louder is our civil liberties (including our religious freedom) is in extreme danger right now and we are rallying to protect them.  Times like this where our civil liberties are under attack by the Radical Religious Right is the only time you'll see so many of us united, because unlike most christians, we are a very diverse group of people who rarely agree on anything.
.
>>> if someone asks me, I will tell them without trying to convince them I am right.
.
---->the only thing I would ever try to convince anyone I'm right about (when discussing religion and morality) is that we're all right.  Everyone is absolutely right when making those choices for theirself.  I don't give two shits what religous/moral choices you make for yourself and I would never attempt to say otherwise.   Ofcourse that doesn't stop you and the Religious Zealots of kern County (and the rest of the country) from trying to turn it around on us and make it sound like we're the ones who are actually doing what you are doing.
.
>>>It is good to see people think and offer differing points of view without resorting to name-calling and insults..
.
--->I usually don't start insulting people until someone like pax or mucos comes along and begins to overtly prop up their beliefs/religion as the only legitimate choice and they begin claiming everyone else is wrong.  That's when I usually begin to get nasty.  Becuase ugliness and filth seems to be the only thing that type of person responds to.

I hope you have a nice day.

>>>If your next door neighbor were to say, "God loves you", would you be a good neighbor and simply nod or would you tell them, at length, your view or call them names?

.

--->I would tell him he can take his god and shove it straight up his ass.  I've already done that to one of my neighbors.  The others don't bother me anymore.  I am only nice to those who are nice to me, and impose your religion on me is not nice at all.

Moto, I promise I won't hold your lower IQ against you. :)   

.

The people I'm speaking of are the ones behind the Discovery Institute, and what they're trying to do is no secret anymore.  It's called the "wedge strategy," and its ultimate aim is to discredit scientific input into the major questions of the day--public health, global warming, etc.  The Bush administration (you just KNEW I had to bring them into it ;) are a prime example of pushing aside science in the name of ideology.    They've been operating in a fantasy-land for six years now, and there's every reason to believe the United States will not recover from the damage.

.

The press should know better, but they work for the corporate media these days, not the public interest.  It's not your fault--and I'm certainly not saying it is--that you don't know how bogus the "Intelligent Design" version of Creationism is.  The media and the schools have done an incredibly poor job of informing the public what's going on.  You're a victim, not some kind of oppressor.   The fact that you've been lied to by the ID Creationist crowd isn't your fault.  But then again, I don't see you as one of those people going to school-board meetings to demand that Genesis be put into the curriculum.  Too many people take creationism as--pardon me--gospel and try to make public policy with it.

.

If a neighbor says "God loves you," I'll generally say "thank you."  What else would you say?  People say they're praying for my spouse, not knowing that the past few years have confirmed the non-existence of God to us.    I generally tell people I'm agnostic unless they're particularly obnoxious about it, and thank them for their concern.  As Goat pointed out, you don't generally have roving bands of evangelistic evolutionists on your doorstep. 

.

I think Goat's response (with all due respect, Goat) is unduly harsh.  God is very important to some people.  George Carlin likened it to the lifts put in shoes.  Some people need them to walk straight.  Some have walked with them so long they can't walk straight without them.  The lucky ones don't need lifts in their shoes--and nothing justifies going into the jungle and nailing lifts to the bottom of the natives' feet.

.

More on the Wedge Strategy here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

>>>I think Goat's response (with all due respect, Goat) is unduly harsh.
.

--->None taken.  I appreciate your criticism.  I believe you feel that way because you have not walked my path, and you don't have the benefit (or the curse) of having the experiences I've had.  That's what makes us all unique is our diverse perspectives. 
.
It's become kinda funny where I work...  It comes as a reflex for people to impose their religion onto others whenever someone sneazes.  Most people don't even realize they are saying it, let alone what the person who sneezed may practice.  Anyway, I got fed up with being told "bless you" every time I sneezed, so whenever someoene told me "bless you" I yelled "Moseltov" (I probably spelled that wrong).  People started looking at my really funny (I don't work with any jews and the people at work didn't quite know how to take it at first), finally after I sneezed, someone said bless you, and I yelled moseltov, someone asked me "are you jewish?"  And I said no, but I'm not christian either dam it!  Everyone laughed and now I don't have people trying to bless me incase I have a heart attack every time I happen to get a tickle in my nose.
.
Religious tolerance isn't a buzz word for political correctness.  It's a real state of being we all need to achieve if any of us expect to enjoy any measure of religious freedom in this country, and breaking through people's biases and the patterns that have been programmed into them by society is only the first step in that long, difficult journey.
.
>>>God is very important to some people. 
.
--->I can totally understand that.  My dog is very important to me.  But there is a guy I work with who really hates dogs.  I don't bring in pictures of my dog to show him, and talk about my dog to him all the time, because I understand regardless of how important my dog is to me, he really doesnt' care.  I would appreciate the same respect when it comes to people's religion. 
.
Discussing religion/lifestyle/morality choices and differences in a manner that facilitates understanding and awareness of our diversity and promotes tolerance is wonderful and should be encouraged.  But what we are dealing with is an organized attempt to control the religion, lifestyle choices, and morality of society as a whole by a small group of people (the Jackie Sullivans of the world) who call theirselves christians.  This small group of people is able to control and mobilize and enormous section of our society through guilt, bribes, and threats, to vote for legislation/political candidates that erode the protections we're supposed to be entitled to.  This is what I'm determined to prevent, and if unsuccessful, I'll at least spend the rest of my life resisting them.

The whole sneezing ettiquite thing is a problem for us atheists.  I usually just say "Gesundheit," German for "health."  Of course, I have the ethnic background to pull that off.  I love Yiddish, where "mazel tov" can mean "good luck," or "fat lot of good it'll do you" equally well.

.

Unfortunately, "religious tolerance" all too often means "my religion and nobody else's."  What I mean by it is "they're all on the same level, you get the tolerance you grant."

.

Now, "scientific tolerance" is another matter.   Take no prisoners.  But what that comes down to is the same thing as "religious tolerance":  everybody follows the same rules.  You don't follow the rules, you're out.

I say "God take you" when someone sneezes. Always gets a laugh.

Why do believers say athiests are god haters. Why would anyone hate something that doesn't exist?

>>>The same goes for the anti-God crowd that claim to know so much about the Bible, but who have never actually studied it.

.

--->I don't know who you're calling the "anti-god crowd," I can only assume you're talking about athiests.  All of the athiests I know that claim to know anything about the bible have a much more thorough knowledge of it than almost all the christians I know.  Most christians actually know very little about their own bible. 

.

>>>If you ever told me to shove anything up my ass you would be in serious trouble.

.

--->Oh isn't this fun!  I love threats of violence!

.
>>>I don't fight online, but I do in real life.

.

--->Oh that is exciting.  That definately gets my blood pumping, and makes me feel warm and moist down there in my naughty spot.  We should really do this over the phone, it's much better on the phone.

.
>>>I do not consider athiests God haters. I suppose that still. it is an impractical term. I guess it would more aptly be called "people of faith haters", but that is such a long term!

.

--->It would also be a very inaccurate generalization.  I've been trying to explain to you it's not about what other believe, it's about other people imposing their beliefs onto those around them, but obviously you're not picking up on that.

.
>>>I consider God haters the ones who become emotional and agitated at the mention of God. Anger is a by-product of fear. If you are pissed at something or someone it is because you fear that somehow, you will be affected by the issue at hand.

.

--->Ah, so you're not only a fighter, but also a psychologist.  The fighting psychologist...   That's interesting.  Not exactly as hot as the fighting proctologist, but it'll work I suppose.

.

>>>I can't understand why people get so upset at anothers beliefs.

.

--->That's because you're not listening.  It's not about their beliefs.  People can believe anything they want as long as they don't attempt to impose those beliefs onto others.

Hi Nancy, I love discussing topics/issues in a reasonable, civilized way that promotes understand and tolerance for someone else's point of view.  And believe it or not, I am very tolerant of other people's perspectives, and points of view.   I don't think you realize it because of the change to the new format, but in the old blog system, you and I had several nice discussions in which we did not agree on.

.

What I am not tolerant of is a person who believes/suggests his view is the only legitimate view, and/or a person who decides he's going to do something (legal or illegal) to impair my ability to make those decisions for myself.

.

Anyone who decides they are going to work toward prohibiting gay marriage, legal drug use, prostitution, the seperation of church and state, etc, is going to face fierce opposition from me.  I'll oppose the efforts of others to force their morality onto the rest of us through legislation and social pressures until I'm dead and gone. 

.

Now before people in here lose thier minds and start accusing me of all kinds of stuff, I'll make it clear right up front.  I don't use drugs, I don't visit prostitutes, and I'm not gay.  But I will stand up for the rights of those who do those things because when we start to take other peoples rights for granted, we've just facilitated our own rights being taken away with them.

.

So to answer your question, if you and I are just discussing the benefits vs consequences of using marijuana, or integrating church and state, or the joy of gay sex, or the best way to raise children, and we're listening and talking, not just preaching, and we're respecting each others soveregnty and each others unique point of view, discussion can be very positive and can heal many wounds.   But if Linda2 or Pax or Mucos is going to think they are going to use this as a bully pulpet, or motopoet threatening violence, they can't expect to be treated any better than how they are treating others.  I've alwys been one that stood up to the bullies. 

>>>Goat..sorry..i didnt realize you were a woman.

.

--->I don't know who told you I was a woman...  That's a perfect example of how little you read of what people write, and then you expect to understand what they are saying. 

.

If I might offer you a little advice... (I don't offer advice very often, so this is a privelage for you) When reading/listening to what others are saying, try to understand it from their perspective.  If you try to understand it through the filter of your own biases, you'll never understand what they are trying to say.   

.

>>>You can't seriously expect to never be accosted by some hard assed woman for saying that?

.

--->If a person is stupid enough to commit a crime because of something someone else said to them, then I'll be happy enough to facilitate their incarceration.  CPC 242.

Goat, I'm not sure what sets you off but in most of your posts you have a definite confrontational belligerent style.  Is that deliberate?  I'm not trying to pick a fight but am really curious as to why you always seem to be ready to attack. 

I really love to get into discussions with folks on here and some of the "old timers" and I have gone round and round over one issue or another.  Eventually we all settled into our agree to disagree mode and the personal attacks pretty much stopped.  People respond in all sorts of ways from comments like mine but one of the favorites is "I don't care what you think of me."  I doubt any of us are here to win friends and influence people..we're mostly here to exchange ideas, opinions and thoughts.  I'm just always puzzled as to why it can't be done in a civilized way.

Ah well...what the heck...the ranters and insulters come and they go around here.  Except mocus of course..and neo..funny that they're so much alike and on opposite sides of the fence too.  Amazing

>>>I will state me position, debate it, and move on with my opinions either intact or changed due to something I was unaware of. In this debate, I learned nothing new.

.

---->That's only because you don't listen.  If you had listened, you would have learned something about theories, and their relationships to facts, and how scientists use them, but you are unable to see through your own biases to ever understand anyone else's perspective.

.

>>>Goat. YOU are the one who started being argumentative and belligerent.

.

--->Well if arguing is argumentative, then we're all guilty of that.  You took offense because of what I said I would say to one of my neighbors.  Isn't that just silly?  Aren't you the one who said in another thread "Anger only happens when a person is afraid of something."  You're the only person in this thread I've noticed who had gotten angry. 

.

>>>Yes, I am angered when people say certain things to me. I have a hot temper in certain situations in real life.

.

---->You shouldn't allow others to have so much control over you.  Could cause you some problems some day.

.

>>> it may not keep you freom being seriously injured by someone who takes offense to what you say to them and when that comes from some 08er who does time standing on his head, what does he have to lose by putting you in the hospital? 

.

--->Thank you for your concern but I've done pretty good so far.  I would worry less about my well being and work on that anger problem if I were you.  I know how difficult that can be (I had a problem with that when I was a young man) and it'll require as much of your attention as you can provide it.  You don't want to waste any of that attention on worrying about me, that's for sure.

.

>>> As for you not being a woman..I didn't realze that men got moist in their naughty spot.

.

---->I'm sorry you haven't had the opportunity to experience that.  You should try it sometime...  It's fun.  Don't let all these conservatives try to guilt you into thinking it's wrong or bad...  Nothing that brings you pleasure and doesn't impede anyone else's civil liberties is wrong.

.

Maybe that's all you need....  A little more love in your life and a little more pleasure....  It works man, trust me.

Goat..You're right about one thing...these new blogs are a pain and I miss the discussions I had with some of the original bloggers.  Some I recognize because of the writing style but some are familiar..just not identifiable.

As for topics..I've probably stated a gazillion times that none of have to agree..but we can agree to disagree.  Arguing IS argumentative but it doesn't have to be confrontational or belligerent and one thing I've noticed is that people see it in others but don't see it in themselves.  IE.."I'm just stating my opinion but you're hostile."  We all have a tendency to say what we think but aren't very careful about how we say it.  There are no inflections of voice on here..no smiles or looks of concern.  Things sometimes come out a lot harcher than we mean them.  I've been doing this internet thing for about 9 years and that's one of the first hings I learned.  Along with people having the ability to be whoever they choose on here even when it's poles apart from the way they are in person.

You'd probably find me much the way I am here..(at least in my opinion) but I'm VERY sure there are people on here who woulldn't dream of calling someone an idiot to their face.  Most don't even talk the way they write on here.

Anyway, I digress as usual.  I got a little burned out with the hateful and snotty posts over the last week and didn't post much myself.  I would read one and start to reply then think "nahhh.....why bother."  I know you and I don't see eye to eye on the drug and MJ issue but I stand by what I've posted because that's what I do by choice, and for a living.  My guess is, we could have a good debate but it won't happen on here.  I think I figured out who you are and I appreciate you mentioning that we've had discussions before.

My apologies to Mark for going off topic and for using his space for a long winded dissertation.    Hopefully, since he knows me well, he'll be ok with it.

>>>Goat..You're right about one thing...these new blogs are a pain and I miss the discussions I had with some of the original bloggers.  Some I recognize because of the writing style but some are familiar..just not identifiable.

.

--->Have you recognized me yet?

.

>>>You'd probably find me much the way I am here..(at least in my opinion) but I'm VERY sure there are people on here who woulldn't dream of calling someone an idiot to their face.  Most don't even talk the way they write on here.

.

---->In the case of motopoet, pax, or mucos, you're probably correct, but I can assure you that I do.

Goat..I do listen. I just haven't heard anything here I haven't heard a thousand times before. Obviously, I am NOT biased or I would have a problem with the science I love so much. YOU seem to have the problem with religion I am accused of having with science.

There is a HUGE difference between arguing and debating and the exchange of ideas and opinions. Not realizing that is a selfish trait.

I did not get angry over what you would say to someone else. I said if you said it to ME I would get angry and I would, not because of your opinon of my beliefs, but because of your irrational attitude toward acceptable social behavior. Being unecessarily rude to someone is no different than punching them as far as I am concerned.

I have always been the way I am and I have never been in jail, or even arrested. It doesn't matter anyway. Some things are worth fighting over. I don't expect anyone to agree with me about it!

I haven't been in a fight since 1992(he threw the first punch..he instantly regretted it)and while I do have hot temper, I am also pretty good at thinking before acting and I have never been arrested. Sometimes people just get what they have coming. I am not worried about ANYBODY.

I still don't get it. I haven't been moist in my naughty spot since I quit peeing the bed! But, I won't question things you find pleasure in.

You would be awed to see the love and pleasure I have in my life, and not just today. I have had a very loving, exciting and pleasurable life, but that is another topic.

I DO talk this way in real life. Actually, this is pretty calm and I don't care where I am talking. Ask my friends, co-workers, bosses..Hell..Mom can attest to my ability to say what I want, I just pick my battles and comments carefully. 

You should go see some of the other things I write about...Life doesn't have to be so serious all the time