i used to have a large-ish novel collection but my current collection is scaled-down because i was forced to move back to bolton 4 years ago and didn't have enough room for them all in my suitcases.. i currently own just 9 novels.. salem's lot (stephen king).
three by john ajvide lindqvist:.
let the old dreams die.
I just realized I had used a double negative, which probably muddled what I was trying to say. The books I recommended aren't on par with Dickens or Austen and won't be remembered that way, but (IMO) are more enjoyable nonetheless.
I'm a fan of King, but haven't read Salem's Lot yet. --Will definitely give it a go.
i used to have a large-ish novel collection but my current collection is scaled-down because i was forced to move back to bolton 4 years ago and didn't have enough room for them all in my suitcases.. i currently own just 9 novels.. salem's lot (stephen king).
three by john ajvide lindqvist:.
let the old dreams die.
As long as the author comes up with a solid plot, writes engaging characters, and has interesting ideas, I'm in.
Ich auch.
Some books go on to become classics because they define an entire genre or because of social and political themes subtly woven into the story, or because of the author's exceptional skill. That's all I meant by "high brow"
i used to have a large-ish novel collection but my current collection is scaled-down because i was forced to move back to bolton 4 years ago and didn't have enough room for them all in my suitcases.. i currently own just 9 novels.. salem's lot (stephen king).
three by john ajvide lindqvist:.
let the old dreams die.
None of these are not what I would call "high brow" books, but I thoroughly enjoyed them all
Blood Music by Greg Bear. --Hard science fiction bordering on horror.
Thrice Upon A Time by James Hogan --Another hard science fiction novel. One of the most unique takes on the possibility of the future influencing the past I've read.
The Puppet Masters by Robert Heinlein --Big fan of Heinlein, even if some of his stuff is a little dated today. (This one has aged pretty well.)
the jw org has removed certain verses from their nwt version, claiming usually that what is removed is not found in the oldest mss, that claim is fair enough, until you ask a simple question, this :.
" if you are going to remove interpolations from the bible, where do you stop?"..
the org.
Erasmus himself practiced textual criticism. How else would he have decided what to include and what to omit from multiple manuscripts?
This is the brand you're talking about, right?
Weren't they Swedish?
I thought they were a product of Finland, but maybe I'm wrong
i'm actually embarrassed to say i watched the everything everywhere all at once movie on a plane.
kung fu with butt plugs and dildoes with a storyline impossible to follow.
i can't believe michelle yeoh agreed to it.
Parts of that movie were definitely weird and I can't honestly say I completely understood the story. I did find it mildly entertaining though. (The infinite number of universes thing, not the improvised butt plugs - LOL)
what is it with disney star wars?
why is it that seemingly everything disney touches turns to shit?
what the f**k are these scooters doing in the book of boba fett?!
--Disney has destroyed every story they've ever touched. From 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea to Mary Poppins to Treasure Island. I don't know why they feel the need to do this.
cofty could you answer how the single cell came about by chance?.
i know the argument for complexity in nature says natural selection over billions of years but this could not explain the complexity of the single cell the building blocks of life?.
Since the subject of books people have and haven't read has been mentioned, I thought I'd throw this in:
I read the 1967 JW publication, Did Man Get Here By Evolution Or By Creation? as an adolescent. It was satisfying at first, but I eventually realized it contained serious errors that any farm boy could spot. The author(s) enumerated members of the dog "kind" to include species that were not fertile with each other despite their insistence that "kinds" are defined along reproductive lines.. They held up hybrid sterility as an example of an animal reaching, "the limits of its kind" when it is actually clear and unambiguous evidence of genetic drift. The author(s) did not even seem to understand the difference between a mule and a hinny (!)
In 1985, the JW's released the book, Life - How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or Creation? Although this book was a little more polished, it contained the same misuse of mathematics and (At this point) outdated arguments. It also failed to address some of the more compelling arguments for evolution including, divergence, speciation and zoography.
The same year, Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory In Crises was published, which was head and shoulders above the JW publication above. Denton was fair inasmuch as he drew a clear distinction between Darwin's conservatism and anti-clerics like Huxely, Spencer and Romaines He acknowledged the reality of speciation and instead, drew his line in the sand at what he termed "Saltational types."
However like the JW's, he too had the aggravating tendency to reason via analogy. An analogy is a useful rhetorical device to illustrate a concept once it has been positively established, but it is not proof in and of itself. People who compare molecular interactions to heat engines and other metallic machinery or polypeptide chains to linguistics are at best, selling you snake oil and at worst, don't actually understand what they're talking about.
Michael Behe's 1996 book, Darwin's Black Box conceded even more territory to Darwin. Behe acknowledged that evolution accounts for the emergence of new species, including disease resistant bacteria. Behe, in public debate, also agreed that the 100% match in shared DNA sequences between human and gorilla proved that they shared a recent, common ancestor.
However like Denton, Behe balked at what he termed "Irreducible complexity" which strikes me as a mischaracterization of the basic proposition of evolution. Evolution does not propose that the individual parts of a complex structure evolved independently. Evolution proposes that simple structures evolved into more complex structures over time. Big difference.
I'm not saying that you should accept evolution. I'm saying that if you want to argue against it, you should do so honestly. At a bare minimum, that would require familiarity with these books:
Charles Darwin -- On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker
Donald Prothero - Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
i saw in the news where a teacher got mad at a student for coming in late during the pledge of allegiance and threw them against a wall and so the student was suing.. this made me want to ask, jehovah's witnesses stand up during the pledge of allegiance along with everyone else.
why is that ok but, it wasn't ok for shadrach , meshach and abednego to bow down to the king's idol ?
if the command had been for everyone who was sitting to stand at attention for the idol, wouldn't that have been the same thing ?
I've never quite understood the distinction, to be honest.
In Western culture, standing up is a sign of respect, not an act of worship. You stand when a judge enters the courtroom. It doesn't mean you necessarily agree with the judge's decisions. You stand for the National Anthem. It doesn't mean you necessarily agree with a country's policies. In both cases, it's simply acknowledge of and respect for authority.
