Intelligent Design out of public schools
Forgot to click the button.
Intelligent Design out of public schools
Before I reply to this, I would like everyone who agrees with evolution to post what they were taught the first organism was which developed into other species was, what kingdom was it supposedly. How did it develop? Second, what have you been taught regarding the ancestry of man? Third, how long is 500,000,000 years... do you realize how long it is, or does it just "blur" and fall into the "long time" category? Or 1.4 billion years... 1,400,000,000 years? This is more of a poll, I'll leave it up a week, and when the time is up, I will post the different results for what you have been taught. If you are wondering, I truly believe in Intelligent Design, but I have been educated in school about evolution. My teacher is a biologist, but she doesn't even believe it, yet she has to teach it. Also, many of you whoa agree with evolution are very quick to try to disprove intelligent design, when in fact, there is much more evidence of it, and it's proof is much more complete that evolution. Evolution has many "unexplained phenomena"... too many.
Anyways, please answer the 3 questions, and if you believe in Intelligent design, please cast in a vote for it as well. Thank y'all very much ;)
-Hondamx21
China is a threat because they told us they were. If you don't believe me, read this article. China is a huge threat, and their army's size is mind boggling. The only thing stopping them at the moment is their inability to transport their army efficiently, as we can. Never worth losing sleep over an enemy, as long as you're ready for them when they arrive.
At the same time, the terrorist threat is also prominent. We should not deal with them so lightly, however.
Read this article:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/18/120950.shtml
-Thank you.
I am a science major, and what any one of us may experience what seems to be a million times a day, if looked at scientifically, could not be a coincidence. What am I talking about you may ask? The depolarization of a nerve and its re-polarization. (feel and having the ability to feel with that nerve again) How does the nerve by chance know when to open and close certain chemical channels utilizing diffusion to pass along what is basically an eletrical signal to or from the central nervous system to the peripheral nervous system? Why are some nerves insulated with oligodendracytes (AKA Schwann cells), an insulating cell, which greatly increases a nervous "signal's" transmission speed? However, this insulating cell is only on nerves going to, for example, the central nervous system, which must depolarize very quickly. How did this happen by chance? It didn't. There are so many chemical processes which take place in a period of time so short, it is baffling to imagine. 4 milliseconds approx... the fastest I've ever started and stopped a stopwatch is 7 milliseconds, and that was a a one time deal. The point is... everything that occurs in that time can NOT be explained through evolution. That is just a simple nervous sensation. Imagine other systems, such at the firing of synapses in the brain, and the brain, through repeated firing of those synapses, learn to operate more efficiently. This is also known as "practice". Guitar playing is an excellent example of this. Evolution has too many pitfalls, "deep-time" and other unexplainable phenomena. It doesn't add up. "Deep-time" is used to "overwhelm", in some fashion, and lead people to believe things occurred because of the extraordinarily long time. Does anyone realize how LONG 150,000,000 years is? 500,000,000 years? And the claim that dates beyond 1,000,000,000 years are speculative.... Indeed. The War for Independence seems like AGES ago. That was just a little over 225 years ago... How is it, if all this occurred, and yet they cannot find the "missing link"? Anything to prove it? I challenge anyone to take a simple biology course, scrutinize every process studied. How could that happen by chance? It can't. I've had people try to explain it to me, but when questioned on it, they are unable to adequately answer my question. Too many unanswered questions, too many dead ends. Intelligent design is NOT folklore. It is not some "religious non-sense". It is reality.
His obituary as seen on Yahoo:
LOS ANGELES - Charlton Heston, who won the 1959 best actor Oscar as the chariot-racing "Ben-Hur" and portrayed Moses, Michelangelo, El Cid and other heroic figures in movie epics of the '50s and '60s, has died. He was 84. ADVERTISEMENT
The actor died Saturday night at his home in Beverly Hills with his wife Lydia at his side, family spokesman Bill Powers said.
Powers declined to comment on the cause of death or provide further details.
Heston revealed in 2002 that he had symptoms consistent with Alzheimer's disease, saying, "I must reconcile courage and surrender in equal measure."
With his large, muscular build, well-boned face and sonorous voice, Heston proved the ideal star during the period when Hollywood was filling movie screens with panoramas depicting the religious and historical past. "I have a face that belongs in another century," he often remarked.
The actor assumed the role of leader offscreen as well. He served as president of the Screen Actors Guild and chairman of the American Film Institute and marched in the civil rights movement of the 1950s. With age, he grew more conservative and campaigned for conservative candidates.
In June 1998, Heston was elected president of the National Rifle Association, for which he had posed for ads holding a rifle. He delivered a jab at then-President Clinton, saying, "America doesn't trust you with our 21-year-old daughters, and we sure, Lord, don't trust you with our guns."
Heston stepped down as NRA president in April 2003, telling members his five years in office were "quite a ride. ... I loved every minute of it."
Later that year, Heston was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor. "The largeness of character that comes across the screen has also been seen throughout his life," President Bush said at the time.
He engaged in a lengthy feud with liberal Ed Asner during the latter's tenure as president of the Screen Actors Guild. His latter-day activism almost overshadowed his achievements as an actor, which were considerable.
Heston lent his strong presence to some of the most acclaimed and successful films of the midcentury. "Ben-Hur" won 11 Academy Awards, tying it for the record with the more recent "Titanic" (1997) and "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" (2003). Heston's other hits include: "The Ten Commandments," "El Cid," "55 Days at Peking," "Planet of the Apes" and "Earthquake."
He liked the cite the number of historical figures he had portrayed:
Andrew Jackson ("The President's Lady," "The Buccaneer"), Moses ("The Ten Commandments"), title role of "El Cid," John the Baptist ("The Greatest Story Ever Told"), Michelangelo ("The Agony and the Ecstasy"), General Gordon ("Khartoum"), Marc Antony ("Julius Caesar," "Antony and Cleopatra"), Cardinal Richelieu ("The Three Musketeers"), Henry VIII ("The Prince and the Pauper").
Heston made his movie debut in the 1940s in two independent films by a college classmate, David Bradley, who later became a noted film archivist. He had the title role in "Peer Gynt" in 1942 and was Marc Antony in Bradley's 1949 version of "Julius Caesar," for which Heston was paid $50 a week.
Film producer Hal B. Wallis ("Casablanca") spotted Heston in a 1950 television production of "Wuthering Heights" and offered him a contract. When his wife reminded him that they had decided to pursue theater and television, he replied, "Well, maybe just for one film to see what it's like."
Heston earned star billing from his first Hollywood movie, "Dark City," a 1950 film noir. Cecil B. DeMille next cast him as the circus manager in the all-star "The Greatest Show On Earth," named by the Motion Picture Academy as the best picture of 1952.
May he rest in peace. He will be sorely missed.
All the other media networks have too, but you only hear about Fox. Much of the other network's reporting is slanted as well. NBC has not been a gold standard, nor has it been any better than the others. They have good coverage, but when referring to slanted reporting, they are not much better than anyone else. The mainstream media should not be relied upon for honest news reporting.
HopeNation says:
I only say this because I find it facinating that you could give such blatant favoritism to people of a simularly questionable nature to Rev. Wright by either dismissing their inflamatory, ill-educated comments and beliefs or simply by given them the benefit of the doubt, neither of which you seem to give to Rev. Wright. That is not to say that I think you should give Wright equal treatment, but rather give the men I listed the same scrutiny that you have given him and likewise McCain the same scrutiny you would Obama for the very same reasons if you at all have judged Obama by his pastors' comments. So i ask you, in what ways are these comments different? "Whites created aids to kill african-americans" "9/11 happend because god hates lesbians gays feminist/ katrina happend because of the gays" "
Just got back form work, sorry for delay in my reply. Okay. rubs hands together and cracks knuckles
Regarding Falwell's comments (which he DID apologize for), "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13, KJV
Yeesh! Pretty tough stuff... Might possibly be where he was coming from, but I don't know for sure.
Regarding fair treatment of Rev. Wright compared to the rest, I'm doing the best I can. His stuff seems pretty off the wall.
Falwell's actual quote:
“(re: 9/11 attacks) "...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."
He did not ever say God hates them; God does not hate. It even says that in the Bible. God loves all of his creations, but he hates what the homosexual community practices. As the verse above said, it is an abomination to Him. Falwell does not say he hates them either. He only says that he believes that they are trying to secularize America, and God is getting mad. Very different from Wright it seems to me. The quote you posted about Falwell's comments on 9/11, though paraphrased, was a little off target I think.
Crusades were in response to the Seljuk Turks siege of Jerusalem. The Pope promised his soldiers indulgences for past sins if they fought. The Pope wanted Jerusalem free of Islamic control, with it's religious history etc. The rest of the crusades basically fougt off Saladin's overtaking of key cities, such as Constantinople, which as we all know, was the main "gateway" (and shortest, safest route) between modern day Europe and India. Sea travel between the two not being discovered (or dared) until several hundred years later. The cup you mentioned of sounds more like Indian Jones... great movie though all the same! lol j/k j/k
Past WWII era, the establishment of a Jewish state is in prophecy. It was going to happen no matter what. Second, they were only taking back their land by God given right, according to the Bible. It was their land to begin with, and they had every right to take it back.
Thanks for George Allan video link. I always thought that whole thing was way overplayed. The guy he was referring to was a worker for the Webb campaign. He was an "Indian-American"... I hate that term... he was an American. Period. Regardless... the term Macaca is a slang term in Africa. Why would he knowing use a native African word to insult an Indian? That just doesn't make any sense. So I did some more research and found that he said he didn't know what it meant. Whether he did or not, we'll never know. I don't see the big deal. As I said before, Confederate Flag = part of our southern history, I've got one too. The noose = I think it's a "you use it, you lose it" approach, other than that, who cares?
By the way, the Bible is not anti-Jew. It tells the story, yes, but Jesus even forgave them before He died. It was something that had to happen. The Jews are always going to be God's chosen. He does punish them, very much. Refer back to the golden calf and the 40 years in the desert for example. Many also think that the holocaust was also punishment for their pulling away from Him. I'm not sure about this one though, personally. The Bible is not anti-Jew, and it is plain to see while reading it.
Okay one more thing then I gotta get some sleep.
"So, i must ask, how does it feel to bathe in your own hipocracy? Is it at all compareable to the mud wrap at a local spa complete with cucumbers slices and a warm towel over your head to keep your hair nicely kept and quaffed?"
Never been to a spa... sounds kinda nice, but not my kinda thing personally =D. I guess I'll close by saying that comparing Rev. Wright's statements to the men you mentioned, you may not agree, but quote for quote, mind you, they are quite different in context. Rev. Wright's being more so a call to action, while Falwell's as more of a statement of opinion (as shown by the actual quote above). George Allan did nothing wrong constitutionally, neither did Wright. The First Amendment protects them both. Compare those two statement however, George Allan's one "incident" vs. Wright's continual, identical "sermons". Allan's career, for all intents and purposes, was ruined, for the time being at least. However, while Wright has made some enemies on the conservative side, overall, he's got away pretty much free and clear. Doesn't make sense to me, and it doesn't seem right. If they punished Allan, what makes Wright any different. You may argue they didn't actually "punish" him, but the media ripped him apart, and did all they could to tarnish his reputation. Digging back 30 years even, and brining forward, what was later dismissed, some racist comments he made in a locker room. We both remember the headlines... for DAYS... I've got a splitting headache, and I hope I replied to all of your statements, if I missed one let me know. Have a great weekend, and I'll be checking tomorrow for a reply. lol
-Hondamx21
Ann Coulter comment... ooo that burns me! "I'm melting!" (Oz) lol =P
I believe in God too, very steadfastly, even more so over the last few years. I walked away from a severe accident that could and should have either killed or severely injured me. The roof of the the truck crushed into the dashboard, and my head took the entire impact of the roof crushng in when the truck flipped, nearly breaking my neck. Nearly. Praise God, I walked away with only a VERY sore neck and laceration on my hand. He's the only reason I walked away.
Back to the issue, I just feel everyone should say it from a sense of patriotism, that if it's part of the pledge, don't take offense to it, but just say it for the nations sake. If one group of people is able to change it, it will happen again and again. You don't edit something like that. Know what I mean? You aren't being forced to believe in God by saying it. By the way, "under God" was actually added in the 50's, under Eisenhower, after a request by the Knights of Columbus, which is a Catholic group.
Paraphrasing a certain Rev. Docherty sermon, President Eisenhower said regarding the addition of "under God":
"These words “under God” will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded."
I think it does a good job of that, don't you?
I see where you're coming from there, but I feel there is a fine line between voicing an opinion and downright hate. I see what you're trying to say, but none of the men McCain supports have ever said things like "the white man developed AIDS to kill the blacks... (etc)". No where near as unfounded and rabble-rousing. Rev. Parsley's statements, we are the first nation to effectively confront islamic terror. And you must remember, the terrorists started the fight, not us.
Regarding radical muslims goals to kill all Christians and Jews, have you ever read the Koran? In it, there is one of many statements which says basically, I'm paraphrasing, "You are to kill the people of the book." Who else would that be? Think back to the Crusades. Look at the situation between Israel and the Palestinians. Look at the twin-towers. It says it right in their main religious manuscript.
As we can all understand, McCain would obviously hold some grudges against his captors in 'Nam. Maybe what he said was offensive to some? Who knows. I don't remember much of an outcry for it 8 years ago. But he said it in passing, not forcefully as Rev. Wright did (in church no less). We can all remember saying something at a time of frustration which could fall into some category of political-incorrectness. When the tower's fell what is soon to be 7 years ago, we all felt frustration and anger towards who? The terrorists. Everyone did, and not against all Muslims, but terrorists (the vast majority anyway). I had a Muslim friend, who has since moved away, but when that happened, I didn't hold anything against him for it. He didn't do it. He was actually against the attack, and as appalled as I was. Falwell apologized for the statements he made, also. Has Rev. Wright apologized for his? "Kinda-sorta, but not really". But you never really heard much about his original actions anyway on the mainstream.
Hagee's comments on Catholicism, yeah Catholicism's got some flaws. But he wasn't speaking against Catholics, but Catholicism (as a belief system). Big difference. He has the freedom of speech. I support Israel, and always will. We support Israel because they are a good ally in the middle-east, they are good people, and in the Christian Bible, we are commanded by God to do so. In the Bible, they are referred to as "God's chosen people" and in Genesis 27:29, in speaking to the Jews, He says, "...I will bless those who bless thee, and curse thee..." A book is out now which outlines a very detailed time line of major catastrophes in the United States in parallel with America's actions against Israel (after giving their land to the Palestinians, for example). Most of the events occurred between 24 and 48 hours after such an occurrence. But that's for another post. lol
I don't support McCain's views on immigration. Anyone in this country should only be here legally, I believe. There ARE Americans who would do those jobs, he's absolutely wrong. (Shoot I'd do it for 50 bucks an hour, wouldn't you? :laughing: ) But even for normal wages, there ARE people who would do it.
George Allan holds his beliefs, as do we all, and he has a right to vote for what he wants. And you've obviously never been to the south (lol)... I own a confederate flag as well, so do many people I know. It's common down here, nothing offensive about it... it's a flag, and part of our history. Does that make me a racist? No, it doesn't. (If you're wondering, I have many black, white, asian, middle-eastern, and hispanic friends, so that argument won't work. lol) =D
The war had nothing to do with slavery, but state's rights, if you read the old letters, and really look into it. Lee released his slaves at the start of the war, and they actually fought for him... by choice. Grant held his slaves throughout the war. Ironic?
Regarding Allan, who's your source on this info, did he say it in an interview or what? The noose sounds like a rumor, and if he has it, unless you have proof that he used it, I don't see the problem. Pictures of confederate soldiers in his office... how is that an issue? It's could be his great grandfather, for all we know.
My grandmother is from Germany, her brother fought for Germany in WWII, does that make me a Nazi? No.
The first amendment gives anyone the right to say what they want, but Rev. Wright stepped way over the bounds of being appropriate. Comparing the examples you gave me, Rev. Wright's statements against the white ethnicity are far worse. Key words in my quoted statement were "like that". "If John McCain supported someone who spoke like that against America/ethnicities..." None of the men you mentioned stood on a podium yelling at the top of their lungs against anybody. Anything they did say was very minor in comparison.
BTW, statement about the banana boat thing... lol xD.
Thanks for the reply, and hope to hear back from you soon.
-Hondamx21
It is our pledge of Allegiance to the United States. It is written with every word to have meaning. "Under God" is part of it. If you claim to be a true American, then reciting the pledge should be an honor, not something to be done in passing. You may not agree with it, but it is what it is. I feel honored to recite it. And also, the only thing that brings a tear to my eye is watching Old Glory blow in the wind as the national anthem plays. It's national spirit. You maybe hold some convictions, I understand, but honor your country. It's our duty as Americans.
Thank you very much for reading!
I'm sorry, but for you to be able to call anyone a racist when comparing them to Reverend Wright is appalling. Reverend James Wright is what can be defined as a true racist. He hates white people, he hates America, and he is a radical in his beliefs. And his statements against America should be enough to make any true American's blood boil. "God d*** America", he says. Terrible, anti-American garbage, I say.
I don't care who would says it! If John McCain supported someone who spoke like that against America/ ethnicity, I would be just as appalled. As should we all. Why does the mainstream media try to make this such a non-issue? I heard about it on the headline news stations MAYBE twice, in very BRIEF "blurbs". The media should be just as enraged as the rest of us, as his statements are an attack against Americans everywhere.
Also, to delve deeper into the matter, one of the most dangerous threats facing this country is racial division. It is literally pulling the American people into corners, and it seems at times like the referee is about to ring the bell. We all experience this somehow during any day. It is tearing this country apart. Quickly. What Reverend Wright is encouraging in his speeches is striking out against whites. Why? We are all Americans. People of every race should not support this mans views. Why, you might ask? Especially if you are not white... "How does it affect me?" It encourages racial division. Racial division pulls OUR country apart. I would be just as angry if he were speaking out in a similar manner against Asians, Native Americans, Indians, whoever! We are ALL Americans (the legal ones that is). We, as fellow country men and women, should always have each others backs. Race is irrelevant, it's a tweak in the DNA. That's it. Why judge each other over something so trivial? There's no point.
Freedom of speech grants Rev. Wright the right to say what he wants, although he has made himself many enemies, and he's pushing a fine line in the eyes of many Americans. Barack Obama still continues to support him, however? Like the original post says, and as we all know, 20 years in the church, nearly $30,000 in contributions to it, and the only reason he spoke out against him (quite weakly I might add) was to save his campaign. I believe anyone who supports Barack Obama should take a long, hard look at his past, his recent past, his voting history in Congress (etc.), and actually find out something about the man who many people are so willingly voting for. I have done the research, and what I found is quite different from what he says in his "Hope" speeches. His views are very different from mine in nearly every aspect. Take some time to really study the man you want to lead this country. What makes him qualified in your opinion? Please post some answers.
Thank you.
PS: If any white person dared to say anything remotely similar to what Rev. Wright said in his sermons, there would be an outcry, and the news would not let drop so quickly as they did Rev. Wright. What makes Reverend Wright any different? Nothing. There is no difference.
Is Barack Obama American Enough for the Oval Office?
Barack Obama's family has nothing to do with it. This man has no outstanding qualifications to be the Commander in Chief of this country. I challenge ANYONE to show me something... anything, that warrants this man's deserving of this prestigious, supreme position. He has no credentials of any value. 99% of the things he voted for are very dangerous proposals to this country. His family has nothing to do with it. Any person, who is a legal American, over the age of 35 (basically), can legally run for the office. HOWEVER, just because you were born and are old enough doesn't mean you should be allowed to run the country.
Just because you're 48" tall doesn't mean you should ride the roller coaster if you're scared of heights.
Just because you aced business school doesn't mean you should immediately be placed in the CEO position of a Fortune 500 company.
Experience is what he lacks. Experience is what is needed to successfully lead this country.
Thank you.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The assault rifle ban oversteps the government's authority. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". No matter how you cut it, a gun on a table, all by it self, is going to be just that, a gun on a table. You can't blame guns for Columbine or Virginia Tech, in fact, had ANY of the staff been armed, the whole ordeal might have been stopped, or at least, lessened in severity. People have a common misconception that guns are the cause of murders etc. Of course, many times guns are USED, but it is the people who use them who commit the heinous crimes... many times against those who are unarmed. No criminal in his right mind would pull a gun in a convenience store if he knew that there was a good chance that not only the cashier was armed, but also the trucker in the back of the store, and the woman who stopped in for a "Big Gulp" are also armed. If he did still try to do something, he would not get very far. With three guns on him once he tried to rob the store, he would most likely surrender... as would the rest of us if placed in a similar situation (ha-ha). Imagine if all of the people who were attacked, that you heard about on the news today, for example, were armed, and could defend themselves. They could not only protect themselves, but also anyone around them who may also be threatened. Also, guns do NOT (at all) have to always be used kill an assailant... many times, just the act of drawing a weapon and taking aim will be enough to settle the issue. Firearms are what many call the "great equalizer". They are what give a 90 pound woman the ability to defend herself from a 200 pound man with bad intentions. Before you take a steadfast stance against firearms, imagine yourself in a position WITHOUT police nearby. Place yourself in two situations: Situation 1: You are being threatened by someone with an intent to kill and you have no real way to defend yourself... he is armed, you are not. You are not (at all) in a very good situation, to be sure. Situation 2: You are being threatened by someone with an intent to kill, and right as he prepares to attack you, you show him your shiny, new 9mm handgun. You don't have to shoot him, but I guarantee you he's going to think twice about what he's planning to do if his victim suddenly holds a gun to him. Also, if he does still try to harm you, you have leveled the playing field, so to speak.
Perspective is everything. I know I rambled on a bit, but that is what I believe. I think that all people should always have some means of defending themselves.
The assault rife ban is an overstepping of government power, and should NOT be allowed to by passed. The majority of crimes committed are done so with a handgun, but also, when crimes are stopped, it is usually done so with a handgun (when a gun is used, that is). Funny, huh?
Never in my 16 years on this earth have I heard of someone running into a convenience store with a fully automatic AK-47 (you get the picture). Usually, as we all know, it is the "handgun in the pocket" approach. But, would the perpetrator attempt to hold up the store if there was the remote possibility of being placed in a situation similar to the one with the armed woman, trucker, and clerk? He's going to think twice. Also, if the clerk wasn't armed, but the trucker was, and he stopped it, the clerk gets to keep his money, and the bad guy most likely "takes a trip downtown". The great equalizer...
Finally, in closing, I am NOT saying to pull a gun on somebody every time you feel threatened, not at all!! BUT, if someone is trying to take your life, or someone else's, KNOWING you have some means of defense is much better than having none at all. All the gun does is give you the ability to stop the bad guy. It makes sense doesn't it?
Basically, to summarize ALL that: The bad guys will always be armed. They will always have access to firearms, whether they are banned or not. Don't you agree that you too should be armed so you can defend yourself and others around you?
By allowing assault rifles to be banned, it is the first step toward gun control. It is an infringement upon the second amendment. Unconstitutional.
Thanks for reading!
PS: The founding fathers put the Second Amendment there for a reason... think about what had just happened at the time they were writing the Constitution (the year 1787).
Read below, and think about this:
Without firearms, the colonists would not have had a chance in their fight against the British invasion. America would not exist. Chances are, you might not exist either.
