see no evil.
bill o'reily--------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
berkeley, calif. america's most liberal city has come through again.
O'Reilly needs to back to "A Current Affair" where at least his straw man arguments won't be watched by anyone.
Big whoop. Seeing as how the country is about evenly divided between conservatives and liberals, and 90% of the country supports the military response to the attacks, lumping all liberals in with these nutcases as Berkely is stupid. All it does is show how partisan a person is and how little they pay attention to actual facts.
on varieties of atheism:.
can we even speak of clear and distinct ideological borders among atheists, agnostics, and theists?
absent any commonly accepted scientific proof of the existence of god (or gods), we must consider that the labeling is based on an individual's personal interpretation.
You can't "choose" to be an athiest any more than you can "choose" not to believe in the Tooth Fairy. Lack of belief is the base condition, until proof comes along to show that something exists you don't believe in it.
Also, nearly all athiests figure out that they are athiests by doing research on the subject. Ours is a Christian culture, most people are brought up believing in God in one form or another. Only after actually examining the evidence does a person realize that there is no proof of God, and at that point by definition becomes an athiest (or an agnostic if you hold out that there might be a god and that lack of proof does not mean lack of existance). Isn't there an expression about that, something like "Non Existance of Evidence isn't the same as Evidence of Non Existance?"
RunningMan- I like the baby tooth analogy, that is exactly how I came to discover my atheism.
this cuote is from the letter to bodies of elders of may 15.
1988. what is acceptable evidence of scriptural freedom to remarry?
hearsay or strong suspicion that one's mate.
What's up with the letter writing thing? You have to write a letter and sign it to say your spouse cheated on you? How stupid is that? Sheesh.
poor jw kids all aver america :.
to: vermont school board members.
from: edie miller.
Actually in China you can be killed for disagreeing with the government (Great Leap Forward?). Big difference.
However, my main point is that pledging allegiance to the flag is kind of silly if you think about it, I'd rather it was allegiance to the Constitution or something meaningful (which is actually what the politicans take and oath to- not the flag).
The "Under God" part was added in the 50's during the Red Scare, it originally didn't appear in the pledge until then. That's also when "In God We Trust" appeared on all currency. I was only on (I'm guessing here, not positive which) the penney(?) before.
i heard on the radio today.
that the band anthrax was.
changing it name becuase of whats .
Good, I think it would be a mistake to change their name.
nearby sister town hit again - my local again!!!!!!.
http://www.news-press.com/news/today/011009anthraxscare.html.
collier buildings evacuated; closed for day .
I never said it WAS Anthrax - it is an ANTHRAX threat. I said it may be a hoax - but none-the-less, the white powdery substance has been publiced here as Anthrax.
Actually yes you did say it was Anthrax- the subject is More Anthrax - nearby town AGAIN!!!.. If the subject had been "More Anthrax threats" then it would have been clearer. But it didn't say that, the subject makes the inference that it was in fact Anthrax.
nearby sister town hit again - my local again!!!!!!.
http://www.news-press.com/news/today/011009anthraxscare.html.
collier buildings evacuated; closed for day .
MrMoe-
While I feel bad that this stuff is happening around you and to people you know, you need to chill on your descriptions. It wasn't Anthrax that they found, and it sounds like it was probably a hoax from what I can tell in this article.
Your subject line is pretty misleading and all you are doing is contributing to exactly what terrorists want- panic.
Again, I can totally understand how you feel, I'd be freaking out too if this was happening locally. But by making the title "More Anthrax" it's kind of misleading and sensationalistic.
that was the heading of a section in the minneapolis star-tribune's gossip column dated 8/12/01.
prince rogers nelson, based in minneapolis, is an internationally famous musician-composer-singer of the 80's and 90's.
recently he converted to the jw's.
I wonder if he takes royalties off his old songs that are no longer "acceptable" now that he's a witness. I'm sure plenty of witness teens in the 80s had to throw out their Prince records, I wonder how the Society feels about him making money off songs glorifying immorality?
is evolution a fact or a theory?.
i suppose it depends on what you mean.. evolution in the sense of change from one generation to the next seams to be fact.. is well observed that offspring from a given creature will differ from the parent in different ways and thus after many generation can come to be quite different.. also that the genes of a creature can be affected by radiation from the sun and be alter in a novel way producing new and unique features in its offspring ( as long as the mutation is in the sperm or the egg).. that we came about via changes in the genes that eventually created a very different creature than that existed many generations ago , is that a fact?.
this requires that not only that there are changes between generation but also that these changes could be directed by different environments to such a degree that only certain specialised features could survive and reproduce offspring whilst other creatures have died out and only remain in fossilised form.. what evidence is there that such environments can and have existed?
One of the best arguments against intellegent design is the fact that most animals are obviously "works in progress." For example, if we (and everything else) were all created, why do I have an appendix? Why do I have hair all over my body that serves no purpose? Why do so many humans have back problems (as if we are still new to this upright thing)?
Why do Pandas have fake thumbs? Why do whales have leg and hip bones?
All these things (and hundreds more like them) seem to indicate either a poor design (seems unlikely from an omniscient and omnipotent god) or that we are still adapting.
Or how about this- the fossil record clearly shows organisms increasing in complexity through time. Occasionally there is a mass extinction and the pattern picks up again, simple to complex. Even assuming that there are no transitional fossils (as many creationists claim) how can that be explained?
is evolution a fact or a theory?.
i suppose it depends on what you mean.. evolution in the sense of change from one generation to the next seams to be fact.. is well observed that offspring from a given creature will differ from the parent in different ways and thus after many generation can come to be quite different.. also that the genes of a creature can be affected by radiation from the sun and be alter in a novel way producing new and unique features in its offspring ( as long as the mutation is in the sperm or the egg).. that we came about via changes in the genes that eventually created a very different creature than that existed many generations ago , is that a fact?.
this requires that not only that there are changes between generation but also that these changes could be directed by different environments to such a degree that only certain specialised features could survive and reproduce offspring whilst other creatures have died out and only remain in fossilised form.. what evidence is there that such environments can and have existed?
So if new information, new functional complexity, can be shown to be arising by itself where previously there was none, this would give some credibility to the idea of molecules-to-man evolution, although it would not strictly prove that it has occurred.However, it can be shown that in every situation where populations of living things change, they do so without increase (and often with a decrease) of information. Thus, it is completely illegitimate for anyone to claim that such changes show `evolution happening'. Let me be perfectly clear. Not all change in organisms is "evolution". At least not the kind of evolution that is controversial. Organisms can change by losing information. This is not the kind of "evolution that is being questioned. The kind of evolution that is in dispute is that of an uphill, information-adding process. A process that creates brand new genetic programs that carry new instructions for building complex biological structures and organs that never existed in the world before.
Not true at all. Look at our DNA. Most of it is junk DNA that is no longer used, we are using exactly that "new" DNA that you insist is impossible to evolve.
BTW evolution is not in question any more than the earth orbiting the sun is in question, or that gravity holds us down. The actual mechanism that causes the change is what is debated, but that the change occured is demonstrated very clearly.
