Water water everywhere and all the boards did shrink
Water water everywhere and not a drop to drink
In 2008, Sarah Palin predicted that Obama's fecklessness would lead to Russia invading the Ukraine. She may not be the brightest bulb but certainly superior to the child in the oval office. Look up Palin Ukraine on youtube
French lyrics English translation
Allons enfants de la Patrie, Arise, children of the Fatherland,
Le jour de gloire est arrivé ! The day of glory has arrived!
Contre nous de la tyrannie, Against us tyranny
L'étendard sanglant est levé, (bis) Raises its bloody banner (repeat)
Entendez-vous dans les campagnes Do you hear, in the countryside,
Mugir ces féroces soldats ? The roar of those ferocious soldiers?
Ils viennent jusque dans nos bras They're coming right into your arms
Égorger nos fils, nos compagnes ! To cut the throats of your sons and women!
Aux armes, citoyens, To arms, citizens,
Formez vos bataillons, Form your battalions,
Marchons, marchons ! Let's march, let's march!
Qu'un sang impur Let an impure blood
Abreuve nos sillons ! (bis) Water our furrows! (Repeat)
Que veut cette horde d'esclaves, What does this horde of slaves,
De traîtres, de rois conjurés ? Of traitors and conjured kings want?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves, For whom are these vile chains,
Ces fers dès longtemps préparés ? (bis) These long-prepared irons? (repeat)
Français, pour nous, ah ! quel outrage Frenchmen, for us, ah! What outrage
Quels transports il doit exciter ! What fury it must arouse!
C'est nous qu'on ose méditer It is us they dare plan
De rendre à l'antique esclavage ! To return to the old slavery!
Aux armes, citoyens... To arms, citizens...
Quoi ! des cohortes étrangères What! Foreign cohorts
Feraient la loi dans nos foyers ! Would make the law in our homes!
Quoi ! Ces phalanges mercenaires What! These mercenary phalanxes
Terrasseraient nos fiers guerriers ! (bis) Would strike down our proud warriors! (repeat)
Grand Dieu ! Par des mains enchaînées Great God ! By chained hands
Nos fronts sous le joug se ploieraient Our brows would yield under the yoke
De vils despotes deviendraient Vile despots would have themselves
Les maîtres de nos destinées ! The masters of our destinies!
Aux armes, citoyens... To arms, citizens...
They can't issue a PR even now??? An NDA can't prohibit an announcement after the customer has already made it public. Is a licensing agreement in place?
mdd, you blindly follow something that you call "the overwhelming scientific consensus". You are incapable of thinking for yourself. Can you prove the existence of "the overwhelming scientific consensus"?
‘I do not know the true reason for a bat not having feathers; I only know that Darwin gave a false reason for its having wings. And the more the Darwinians explain, the more certain I become that Darwinism was wrong. All their explanations ignore the fact that Darwinism supposes an animal feature to appear first, not merely in an incomplete stage, but in an almost imperceptible stage. The member of a sort of mouse family, destined to found the bat family, could only have differed from his brother mice by some minute trace of membrane; and why should that enable him to escape out of a natural massacre of mice? Or even if we suppose it did serve some other purpose, it could only be by a coincidence; and this is to imagine a million coincidences accounting for every creature. A special providence watching over a bat would be a far more realistic notion than such a run of luck as that.’11,12
Chesterton also questioned the usefulness of partially formed structures in animals; a wing that enables flight is undoubtedly an advantage to a creature, but a half-formed wing is of no use. ‘Yet Darwinism pre-supposes that numberless generations could survive before one generation could fly.’13
‘The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.’5
It is not that the phenomenon is unexplained, it is that the fossil record is contrary to the theory. Usually scientists take the known information and come up with a theory that conforms to the data. Darwin knew that his theory did not conform to the data and said so in his book. But the scientific community ran with it anyway. Why?
But what about those pesky Silurian trilobites? You never explained that. Doesn't that render your theory of evolution nothing more that nonsensical gibberish, completely counter to common sense? Don't be afraid to think.
Ok, so explain the cambrian explosion. That was my orignal comment. You have failed to answer the question. Science offers no anwer. The true science contradicts Darwin's theory. He said so himself. And yet you prattle on about a consensus. Here is Darwin's quote:
'I cannot doubt that all the Silurian trilobites have descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age....Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian strata was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian to the present day.....The case must at present remain inexplicable; and may be truely urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained'
The Origin of Species, 1859, pp. 313 - 314
There it is - all you have to do is look at the Silurian trilobites. Give us some facts - not poll numbers.
"and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that evolution is as much a fact as the earth orbiting the sun."
Come on now - you made that up. Where is the link to that? Is that how we do science these days - by consensus?
Science told us that the earth was flat. Science told us that the sun orbited the earth. Science told just 40 years ago that we were entering an ice age. Now science tells us that the universe created itself out of nothing. Nothing created something. Now who is being gullible here?
I've always wondered how Darwin's theory came to be so widely accepted. Darwin himself knew about the Cambrian Explosion and mentions it (although it was not called the Cambrian Explosion at the time) in The Origin of Species. So here you have a scientist proposing a theory. And in the same book in which he outlines the theory, he states that the available scientific evidence does not support this theory. Darwin was confident that the fossil record would eventually be filled in to the close the gaps, but it never has. And yet this theory is tought to every school child in the western world as if it were scientific truth. Amazing.