badgerx16

Dozen

"The suspicion remains that somewhere, deep in their hearts, the cabinet’s collective reaction to this scandal – for such it is – is predicated on a still darker appreciation of an unwelcome political reality. Namely that the Prime Minister, whatever his other talents, is not actually up to the job of running the country in a moment such as this. I suspect they know this too and this leads them to a situation in which they decline to concede anything for fear that a single concession might topple the entire rickety edifice." From The Spectator -"Why Dominic Cummins must go". ( Not sure if this link will work for long ) http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:O4i2WVyKs6YJ:https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-dominic-cummings-must-go&client=firefox-b-d&hl=en&gl=uk&strip=1&vwsrc=0

Be gentle on him, that guidance was published 6 weeks AFTER Cummins' trip to Durham. Creating guidance for 'morons' is difficult as you have to try to find a way to present it that they are capable of understanding. Government advice at the time emphasised: - Not visiting second homes, whether for isolation purposes or holidays - Not leaving your home, the place you live, to stay at another home - Remaining at your primary residence, to avoid putting additional pressure on communities and services at risk

You wanted us to leave so you could peddle environmental poisons.

( From a month ago ) No mention of being anywhere other than self-isolating and 'working' at home; https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8249237/Dominic-Cummings-lifts-lid-isolation-wife-young-son-ill-coronavirus.html Somebody telling porkies ?

I hope you have read it then;

............

Who do we believe, No 10 or the Durham Police ?

Did they come round and visit at the end of March, when the Cummins incident occurred, and his Government's advice strongly emphasised "stay at home", especially for anybody, as he was, exhibiting symptoms ? I'm sure the people of Durham appreciated somebody travelling 260 miles up from London when they had a persistant cough and high temperature.

Why can Dom's parents see their grand child when I follow the Government's advice and avoid seeing mine, and will be unable to see/hold my grand daughter when she is born next month ?

And with that I am doing a Guided Missile, and putting this entire thread on 'ignore', before I catch MLGitis.

1) If you don't like the story, don't read the book. As somebody else said earlier, the Bible is a mechanism for social control, however if people are happy for that, that is their right. You're like an Anti-Inquisition. 2) Yes, I agree. ( Though I am not sure what point you are making here ). Again, that is their right. 3) God has a far greater understanding of His/Her grand scheme than you could ever comprehend. Perhaps your mindset is an inegral part of it, so you are actually acting under God's direct guidance. There is no confusion over the story, you have the choice to believe it or not as God gave you Free Will.

Allegory......Metaphor......

No, your post reiterated the flaws in your brain.

Those are your exact words, quoted in their entirity; "Freshwater fish can not live in a global sal****er flood and vice versa!", does not qualify, this is a definite statement. So not only does it state, categorically, that fresh water fish cannot live in salt water, it also says the Flood was SALT water. Are you related to Vicky "Yeh but, no but..." Pollard ?

I am getting fed up of repeating myself. Your brain is as impermeable as sheet steel.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word said: #1495 #1620

You give pedants a bad name. 1) You have back tracked on your original statement that no species can tolerate both environments. 2) Once again you choose to ignore the concept of a localised event being viewed in the context of an individual's life experience and understanding. 3) It bloody well rained,and rained, and rained again. 4) You asserted that larger bones are an adaptation to salt water. This is not the case, as I pointed out. Larger bones are found in larger fish, which tend to be found in the sea because it is a much more spacious environment. Given you are so keen on evolution, you can surely understand the effect of growing into a niche ? ( You don't find things the size of Basking or Whale Sharks in fresh water for a reason ).

If God made Man in his own image, which 'man' is a true representation ?

Do you accept that; 1) several species of fish can survive in both fresh and salt water ? 2) From a 'primitive' observer's perspective, a flood that covers the extent of his known environment is a global event ? 3) That if the Flood did take p!ace it would have been 'fresh' water that caused the oceans to cover the continents ? 4) That it is not a definite that oceanic fish have bigger bones than river fish ? All of these contradict and disprove posts you made.

You are also the embodiment of arrogance.

Rosevar is hardly an impartial commentator, and Darwin argued that although the eye would present an excellent example for 'argument by design', it was entirely plausible to show that eyes have 'evolved' if evidence of intermediate forms could be found. In the last century or so such examples have been found in the fossil record. https://www.newscientist.com/term/evolution-of-the-eye/

You are the embodiment of stubborn.