 |
| Adoption Law | Child Custody | Child Support | Divorce Law | Family Law | Marriage Law |
Proposed Findings Proposed OrdersA document prepared by you or your lawyer and submitted to the court setting forth your best case scenario, i.e., how you want the judge to find the facts and make ?conclusions of law? to decide the case. Question: Why do people claim to believe in God? There are innumerable stars in the Omniverse.
There are trillions of galaxies with an endless array of heavenly bodies...
How is anyone supposed to imagine that the original flying apart of matter was set in motion with the object of influencing life on a minute speck of a planet, billions of years later, at the very margins of the whirling nebulae and amid the extinction of innumerable other worlds?
How is it to be demonstrated that the planner of this inconceivably vast enterprise had in mind the cretinous figure of a sole individual learning that there are indeed stars in the sky and imagining that he is unique?
Or again, and coming down in point of scale by several titanic orders of magnitude - and given that at least 98% of all species made only a few, hesitant steps "forward" before succumbing to extinction…
on what warrant is it proposed that all this massive dying-out and occasional vast life explosion (as in the Cambrian Period) also had as its sole object the presence of ourselves?
And isn't it odd that religion, which continually enjoins an almost masochistic modesty upon us in the face of God, should encourage such an extreme and impossible form of self-centeredness and self regard?
By trying to adjust to the findings that it once tried so viciously to ban and repress, religion has only succeeded in restraining the same questions that undermined it in earlier epochs.
What kind of designer or creator is so wasteful and capricious and approximate?
What kind of designer is so cruel and indifferent?
and perhaps more succinctly - what kind of designer or creator only chooses to "reveal" himself initially and exclusively to psychologically damaged peasants in desert regions?
I have met some highly intelligent believers, but history has no record of any human being who was remotely qualified to say that he knew or understood the mind of God.
Yet this is precisely the qualification, which the godly must claim - so modestly and so humbly - to possess.
How can this not be a conscious and/or subconscious response to a need to exert power over other humans in the real and material world?
Question: Prepare a 500 word or more "script" for a health care professional...? Prepare a 500 word or more "script" for a health care professional to use when explaining to the patient his condition and the proposed procedures.
Can someone please help me with the start of this?? Thank you in advance! :)
II.OPERATIVE REPORT
Date of Procedure: 7/8
Procedure: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy with foreign body removal.
Preoperative Medication: Demerol 50 mg IV, Versed 3 mg IV, Cetacaine spray
Preoperative Diagnosis:
1. Esophageal foreign body.
2. Odynophagia.
Postoperative Diagnosis: Status-post foreign body removal.
Clinical Note: This is a 47-year-old black male who experienced acute odynophagia after initially eating a meal consisting of fish. The patient felt a foreign-body-like sensation in his proximal esophagus and presented to the emergency room. He was evaluated with lateral, C-spine films, and soft-tissue films without any evidence of perforation. The patient is now referred for evaluation for his proximal esophagus.
Findings: After obtaining informed consent, the patient was endoscoped in the emergency room. He was premedicated with Demerol and Versed without any complications. Under direct visualization, an Olympus Q20 endoscope was introduced orally, and the esophagus was intubated without any difficulty. The hypopharynx was carefully reviewed, and no abnormalities were noted. There were no foreign bodies or lacerations to the hypopharynx. The proximal esophagus was normal. No active bleeding was noted. The endoscope was farther advanced into the esophagus, where careful review of the mucosa revealed no foreign bodies and no obstructions. The distal esophagus did, however, show a very small fish bone, which was removed without any complications. The endoscope was advanced into the stomach, where partially digested food was noted. The endoscope was then removed. The patient tolerated the procedure well, and his post-procedure vital signs are stable.
Recommendations:
1. Clear liquids for 24 hours.
2. Follow-up with me in the office in the morning.
RADIOLOGY REPORTS
Date: 7/8
Procedure Performed:
Soft-tissue neck. There is a curvilinear density in the region of the base of the tongue that could conceivably represent a small bone. The airway is intact throughout. No other abnormalities are visible.
ENDOSCOPY ORDERS
Date: 7/8
Admit to Endoscopy Department.
Obtain consent for procedure, signed and witnessed.
Start IV of 55 cc D5W or NS TO KVO or heparin lock.
Preoperative Medications: Versed 3 mg IVP, Demerol 50 mg IVP, apply pulse oximeter.
Question: can some1 translate this into simpler terms? Overthrow
On January 14, 1893, a group composed of Americans and Europeans formed a Committee of Public Safety in opposition to the Queen. As these events were unfolding, the Committee of Safety, speaking for American citizens living in Honolulu, expressed concern for their safety and property. United States Government Minister John L. Stevens summoned a company of U.S. Marines from the USS Boston and two companies of U.S. Navy sailors to take up positions at the U.S. Legation, Consulate, and Arion Hall. On the afternoon of January 16, 1893, 162 sailors and Marines aboard the USS Boston in Honolulu Harbor came ashore under orders of neutrality. Historian William Russ has noted that the presence of these troops, ostensibly to enforce neutrality and prevent violence, effectively made it impossible for the monarchy to protect itself.[9]
The Queen was deposed on January 17, 1893 and temporarily relinquished her throne to "the superior military forces of the United States".[10] She had hoped the United States, like Great Britain earlier in Hawaiian history, would restore Hawaii's sovereignty to the rightful holder.
Queen Liliuokalani issued the following statement yielding her authority to the United States Government rather than to the Provisional Government:
I Liliuokalani, by the Grace of God and under the Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Queen, do hereby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself and the Constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain persons claiming to have established a Provisional Government of and for this Kingdom. "That I yield to the superior force of the United States of America whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed a Honolulu and declared that he would support the Provisional Government." Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do this under protest and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the Constitutional Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands.
— Queen Liliuokalani, Jan 17, 1893[11]
A provisional government, composed of European and American businessmen, was then instituted until annexation with the United States could be achieved. On February 1, 1893, the US Minister (ambassador) to Hawaii proclaimed Hawaii a protectorate of the United States.
The administration of Grover Cleveland commissioned the Blount Report, and based on its findings, concluded that the overthrow of Liliʻuokalani was illegal, and that U.S. Minister Stevens and American military troops had acted inappropriately in support of those who carried out the overthrow. On November 16, 1893 Cleveland proposed to return the throne back to her if she granted amnesty to everyone responsible. She initially refused, and it was reported that she said she would have them beheaded — she denied that specific accusation, but admitted that she intended them to suffer the punishment of banishment.[12] With this development, then-President Grover Cleveland sent the issue to the United States Congress. She later changed her position on the issue of punishment for the conspirators, and on December 18, 1893 U.S. Minister Willis demanded her reinstatement by the Provisional Government. The Provisional Government refused. Congress responded to Cleveland's referral with a U.S. Senate investigation that resulted in the Morgan Report on February 26, 1894. The Morgan Report found all parties (including Minister Stevens), with the exception of the queen, "not guilty" from any responsibility for the overthrow.[13] The accuracy and impartiality of both the Blount and Morgan reports has been questioned by partisans on both sides of the historical debate over the events of 1893.[14][15][16][17]
On July 4, 1894, the Republic of Hawaiʻi was proclaimed and Sanford B. Dole, one of the first people who originally called on the institution of the monarchy to be abolished, became President. The Republic of Hawaiʻi was recognized by the United States government as a protectorate, although Walter Q. Gresham, Cleveland's Secretary of State, remained antagonistic towards the new government.
Question: Help editing this! [Are we all African underneath our skin?]? In our amazing world of history and discoveries, there are anthropologists (archeologists) who have found proof within deep caves as well as other remote areas. These scientists have studied these ancient remains and have searched for their purposes. From their findings, archeologists have dated their artifacts and examined their time frames carefully. In addition, they have observed the connections between different artifacts from various parts of the world. Anthropologists have also used the information found within their discovery by organizing the possible order of their rises and falls. With all of these discoveries, observations, theories, and questions proposed by archeologists, we have learned that there was an evolution in technology throughout both the world and the time that these certain ancestors lived. You may ask; what caused this sudden evolution? It was the evolution of us- humans.
Over time, we have evolved to who we are today. From Australopithecus to Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens to Cro-Magnon, we are now what we know as humans today. However, being a human is not the treasure of knowledge…the understanding of how we evolved is. According to “Journey of Man”, we have evolved throughout time by migrating and adapting to the environment around us. With all of these discoveries, observations, theories, and questions proposed by archeologists, we have learned that there was an evolution in technology throughout both the world and the time that these people lived. You may ask; what caused this sudden evolution? It was the evolution of us-humans. From their findings, they have dated their artifacts and examined their time frames (when they were used). In addition, they have observed the connections between different artifacts from various parts of the world.
You don't have to edit it....but if you can give me some short suggestions & any additions...it would be GRRRREAT! =]
Question: Accounting I question? Jerry Grant, the new controller of Blackburn Company, has reviewed the expected useful lives and salvage values of selected depreciable assets at the beginning of 2010. His findings are as follows.
info is in this order: date acquired, cost, accumulated depreication, useful life (old), useful life (new), salvage value (old), salvage value (new)
Building 1/1/04 $800,000 $114,000 40 50 $40,000 $37,000
Warehouse 1/1/05 100,000 25,000 25 20 5,000 3,600
All assets are depreciated by the straight-line method. Blackburn Company uses a calendar year in preparing annual financial statements. After discussion, management has agreed to accept Jerry's proposed changes.
Compute the revised annual depreciation on each asset in 2010.
Question: US history study guide questions? I have a study guide for my upcoming exam, these are my leftover questions that Im either unsure or dont have a clue about even after reading from the text. Please answer what you can and what you know. I would greatly appreciate it thanks.
1. At the Yalta Conference:
a. FDR and Churchill were deeply concerned about postwar Poland.
b. Stalin belligerently demanded the opening of a second front against the
Germans.
c. FDR remained a confident leader; the picture of good health.
d. Chiang Kai-shek joined the Allied discussions.
2.The domestic program that Harry Truman sent to Congress in September 1945:
a.was a setback for labor.
b.proposed to continue and enlarge the New Deal.
c.dealt only with the problems of demobilization.
d.proposed to reverse most of his predecessor's policies.
3.The Marshall Plan moved the nations of western Europe:
a. further apart.
b. to talk with one voice.
c. closer to Communism.
d. closer together.
4. In the area of civil rights, President Truman:
a. issued an Executive Order banning racial segregation in the armed forces.
b. allowed racial segregation in the hiring of federal employees to continue.
c. refused to address the problem of racial violence.
d. pushed through Congress a voting rights act that effectively ended barriers
to black voting.
5.Between 1945 and 1960, the gross national/domestic product (GDP):
a. stayed about the same, in constant dollars after adjustment for inflation.
b. actually declined, in constant dollars.
c. nearly doubled.
d. increased four times (quadrupled).
6. The baby boom:
a.peaked in 1957.
b.was a large part of a 30-percent growth in American population between 1945
and 1960.
c.paralleled a similar boom in consumer demand.
d.is correctly represented by all the above statements.
7. The phenomenon of “white flight” in the 1950s:
a.stopped when the federal government banned housing discrimination.
b.involved poor whites fleeing the South for jobs in big northern cities.
c.showed the improvement in race relations since the end of World War II.
d.was a major cause of the growth of the suburbs.
8. In the election of 1956:
a. Eisenhower’s liberal policies almost cost him the Republican nomination.
b. Eisenhower became the first Republican since Reconstruction to win a Deep
South state.
c. Democrats campaigned mainly on the civil rights issue.
d. Democrats won the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress.
9.In the Brown decision, the Supreme Court:
a.ruled in favor of the Topeka Board of Education.
b.outlawed segregation in public schools by a split five-to-four decision.
c.agreed with Eisenhower’s sentiments toward civil rights.
d.cited sociological and psychological findings in support of its decision.
10.The civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965:
a.was passed by Congress over Johnson’s opposition.
b.ended black protest movements.
c.dramatically expanded black votes in the South.
d.made the South more strongly Democratic.
11. Faced with the presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba, President Kennedy:
a.ordered a “surgical” air strike.
b.waited to see what the Russians would do.
c.ordered a naval blockade of Cuba.
d.broke off diplomatic relations with Cuba.
12. Victories for the women's movement in the 1970s included all the following
_except_
a. affirmative action.
b. Roe v. Wade.
c. ratification of the equal rights amendment.
d. increased economic and political influence.
13. Nixon’s Vietnam policy included all the following EXCEPT:
a. demands at the Paris peace talks for the withdrawal of Communist forces from
South Vietnam.
b. continued buildup of American ground forces in Vietnam.
c. reduction of domestic unrest over the war.
d. expansion of the air war in Vietnam.
14.The Moral Majority stood for all the following except:
a. outlawing abortions.
b. teaching creationism in the schools.
c. bettering relations with the Soviet Union.
d. allowing prayer in public schools.
15. In the late 1970s, Ronald Reagan had a simple message promoting:
a. racial toleration.
b. a restoration of American pride and prosperity.
c. women's rights.
d. increasing taxes.
16. During the Reagan years, the national debt:
a.decreased slightly because of massive cuts in social programs.
b.stayed the same, despite massive cuts in social programs.
c.nearly tripled.
d.rose by a factor of ten to over $500 million.
Question: Help with a statistics questions!! PLEASE & Thank YOU!? 3. Recent academic literature in the criminal justice field has proposed that Animal Assisted Therapy (A.A.T.) is useful as a therapeutic aid. Most of the evidence to date is anecdotal, and empirical findings in the literature are scant. From the studies that exist, A.A.T. has been shown to be effective in settings such as nursing homes, hospitals, and schools. At this point there is not much evidence of the impact of A.A.T. in prison settings (Jennings, 2002). The present study attempted to address the lack of empirical support for A.A.T. in the Dauphin County Prison by evaluating if social interaction of inmates would increase as function of A.A.T. use.
In order to empirically evaluate this question, social interaction measures were collected for two inmate groups (A.A.T., no A.A.T.) using the Andersion Social Interaction Scale (2002). The Anderson measurement is scaled from 1 to 100 (1=low social interaction, 100=high social interaction).
After you ran your study, you found the following information:
Means, standard deviations, and the results of an Independent t-test are presented in table 1.
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Independent t-test results
Therapy Groups /Mean /S.D.
A.A.T / 86.90 / 23.22 t-test
No A.A.T / 85.66 / 21.12 t(2323) =3.53, p=.003
What are the results of the study?
Question: Help me refute a creationist, please? I am in search of some rational minds to help me with a small dilemma I'm having. You see, I decided to debate a YEC online, but I am not sure how to respond to his latest comments. I'll post his comments here, hopefully someone can provide me with some advice, answers, and resources.
Note: We were discussing Russell Humphreys' "White Hole Theory" and the age of the Earth. For those of you who do not know, Humphreys is an AiG "scientist" who created a hypothesis to explain the distant starlight conundrum.
Here is the YEC's post:
"I didn’t intend to claim that geologists always assumed the Bible to be untrue. Steno was one of the founding fathers of the science of geology, and he was a biblical creationist. However, it is a terrible shame that most Christians compromised so quickly when these unbiblical ideas began to be introduced. The big changes in geology began happening when people proposed, instead of one global flood, many catastrophes, in contradiction of Scripture. Uniformitarianism was even more contradictory, and the fact is it is a philosophical assumption, and a framework in which to interpret the evidence. They assumed the Bible was untrue from the outset, and then went about doing their research and interpreting the evidence in their new system. As a result, you can’t take any of the “findings” of secular geology and use it to attack the Bible, because that would be circular.
Do you think Big Bang cosmology is testable? Is there any set of observations that could falsify the theory (e.g. not enough matter in the universe )?
People have tried to challenge Humphreys’ cosmology on scientific grounds for 15 years, and failed. The fact is, as far as we know it remains within the realm of the possible, and it is consistent with the Bible. How many cosmologies do you know that have both of these things going for them?
I can see by your trust in "dating methods" that you have a lot of faith in what scientists tell you. I think if a scientist makes a set of unprovable assumptions in order to calculate a date for something, and the result conflicts with Scripture, I would question his assumptions and not Scripture.
I don’t think Humphreys “upholds” the dating methods used for the universe, because they all assume the Big Bang. He’s just trying to solve the starlight travel time problem (and remember, the Big Bang has its own starlight travel time problem)."
Any and all constructive answers would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
"YEC" stands for Young-earth creationist, and "AiG" stands for Answers in Genesis, a prominent creationist ministry.
Question: Was this new "climate change" legislation based on faulty science and/or suppressed scientific studies? It would appear the EPA's April 17th study was rather important......but, what if the study was an edited political document that suppressed findings that didn't fit the political agenda??
http://www.examiner.com/x-5705-LA-Lean-and-Green-Business-Examiner~y2009m6d26-The-sweep-of-history--climate-change-legislation
It’s difficult to keep up with the recent developments in confronting climate change, both regulatory and legislative. The EPA announced an historic decision on April 17, ruling that global warming pollution “endangers” American’s health and well-being. The agency is already working on national emission standards for manufacturers of the largest sources of global warming: cars and coal-fired plants.
Meanwhile, Congressional action has taken center stage. The American Clean Energy and Security Act is a strong bill aimed at reducing global warming emissions by 83% by 2050. This is an amount that scientists believe would significantly reduce the threats of global warming, combined with efforts by other countries. Congress is shuttling bills through their own peculiar labyrinth of committees, House, Senate, and compromise legislation.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023915.php
The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained an EPA study of the "endangerment" to human well-being ostensibly caused by carbon dioxide emissions, together with a set of EPA emails indicating that the study, which concludes that carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of climate change, was suppressed by the EPA for political reasons.
You can read the comments that the CEI submitted to the EPA on EPA's proposed endangerment finding here, along with the emails. The censored report, by Alan Carlin and John Davidson, is here.
In their report, Carlin and Davidson point out that the EPA has not done its own evaluation of the global warming theory. Rather, it has relied on analyses by others, mostly the U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. That report, however, was a political document, not a scientific one. Knowing that current scientific research disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory, the U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered in the IPCC report. This is a scandal of which too few people are aware. As science, the U.N. report is a bad joke.
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
Question: Why is the government suggesting that people that believe in the 2nd are terrorists? dhs report.
(U) Key Findings
(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,
but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about
several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
recruitment.
— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups
during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry
out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic
downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability
to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing
extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and
government authorities similar to those in the past.
— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first
African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the
1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an
economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to
U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the
number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in
violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks,
and infrastructure sectors.
— (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased
government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and
disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing
as the preeminent world power.
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of
military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities
could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists
capable of carrying out violent attacks.
* (U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 3 of 9
— (U//FOUO) Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,
as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for
violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and
stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
concern to law enforcement.
— (U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to
boost their violent capabilities.
(U) Current Economic and Political Climate
(U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are
driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity.
Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small
terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of
an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a
driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization.
— (U) A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing
extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction
reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment
conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a
Jewish-controlled “one world government.”
(U) Exploiting Economic Downturn
(U//FOUO) Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the
economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors,
and home foreclosures. Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a delibe
yes it is............................
Question: Why do people claim to believe in God? There are innumerable stars in the omniverse.
There are trillions of galaxies with an endless array of heavenly bodies...
How is anyone supposed to imagine that the original flying apart of matter was set in motion with the object of influencing life on a minute speck of a planet, billions of years later, at the very margins of the whirling nebulae and amid the extinction of innumerable other worlds?
How is it to be demonstrated that the planner of this inconceivably vast enterprise had in mind the cretinous figure of a sole individual learning that there are indeed stars in the sky and imagining that he is unique?
Or again, and coming down in point of scale by several titanic orders of magnitude - and given that at least 98% of all species made only a few, hesitant steps "forward" before succumbing to extinction…
on what warrant is it proposed that all this massive dying-out and occasional vast life explosion (as in the Cambrian Period) also had as its sole object the presence of ourselves?
And isn't it odd that religion, which continually enjoins an almost masochistic modesty upon us in the face of God, should encourage such an extreme and impossible form of self-centeredness and self regard?
By trying to adjust to the findings that it once tried so viciously to ban and repress, religion has only succeeded in restraining the same questions that undermined it in earlier epochs.
What kind of designer or creator is so wasteful and capricious and approximate?
What kind of designer is so cruel and indifferent?
and perhaps more succinctly - what kind of designer or creator only chooses to "reveal" himself initially and exclusively to psychologically damaged peasants in desert regions?
I have met some highly intelligent believers, but history has no record of any human being who was remotely qualified to say that he knew or understood the mind of God.
Yet this is precisely the qualification, which the godly must claim - so modestly and so humbly - to possess.
Certainly it is easier to imagine a big God, in a small universe – one which allows the very stars to “fall from the canopy to the Earth” (as the Bible says) – But why is it that God diminishes in proportion to our understanding of truth?
How can this not be a conscious and/or subconscious response to a need to exert power over other humans in the real and material world?
Francais...
I have answers to every one of your questions. But there's no way to contact you.
You have made yourself unapproachable.
Question: Why do people claim to believe in God? There are innumerable stars in the omniverse.
There are trillions of galaxies with an endless array of heavenly bodies...
How is anyone supposed to imagine that the original flying apart of matter was set in motion with the object of influencing life on a minute speck of a planet, billions of years later, at the very margins of the whirling nebulae and amid the extinction of innumerable other worlds?
How is it to be demonstrated that the planner of this inconceivably vast enterprise had in mind the cretinous figure of a sole individual learning that there are indeed stars in the sky and imagining that he is unique?
Or again, and coming down in point of scale by several titanic orders of magnitude - and given that at least 98% of all species made only a few, hesitant steps "forward" before succumbing to extinction…
on what warrant is it proposed that all this massive dying-out and occasional vast life explosion (as in the Cambrian Period) also had as its sole object the presence of ourselves?
And isn't it odd that religion, which continually enjoins an almost masochistic modesty upon us in the face of God, should encourage such an extreme and impossible form of self-centeredness and self regard?
By trying to adjust to the findings that it once tried so viciously to ban and repress, religion has only succeeded in restraining the same questions that undermined it in earlier epochs.
What kind of designer or creator is so wasteful and capricious and approximate?
What kind of designer is so cruel and indifferent?
and perhaps more succinctly - what kind of designer or creator only chooses to "reveal" himself initially and exclusively to psychologically damaged peasants in desert regions?
I have met some highly intelligent believers, but history has no record of any human being who was remotely qualified to say that he knew or understood the mind of God.
Yet this is precisely the qualification, which the godly must claim - so modestly and so humbly - to possess.
Certainly it is easier to imagine a big God, in a small universe – one which allows the very stars to “fall from the canopy to the Earth” (as the Bible says) – But why is it that God diminishes in proportion to our understanding of truth?
How can this not be a conscious and/or subconscious response to a need to exert power over other humans in the real and material world?
Clark ro,
I will grasp on...
You too, grandiose one.
Mexangl,
Those are just words.
There's absolutely noting of substance behind them.
Question: Why do people claim to believe in God? There are innumerable stars in the omniverse.
There are trillions of galaxies with an endless array of heavenly bodies...
How is anyone supposed to imagine that the original flying apart of matter was set in motion with the object of influencing life on a minute speck of a planet, billions of years later, at the very margins of the whirling nebulae and amid the extinction of innumerable other worlds?
How is it to be demonstrated that the planner of this inconceivably vast enterprise had in mind the cretinous figure of a sole individual learning that there are indeed stars in the sky and imagining that he is unique?
Or again, and coming down in point of scale by several titanic orders of magnitude - and given that at least 98% of all species made only a few, hesitant steps "forward" before succumbing to extinction…
on what warrant is it proposed that all this massive dying-out and occasional vast life explosion (as in the Cambrian Period) also had as its sole object the presence of ourselves?
And isn't it odd that religion, which continually enjoins an almost masochistic modesty upon us in the face of God, should encourage such an extreme and impossible form of self-centeredness and self regard?
By trying to adjust to the findings that it once tried so viciously to ban and repress, religion has only succeeded in restraining the same questions that undermined it in earlier epochs.
What kind of designer or creator is so wasteful and capricious and approximate?
What kind of designer is so cruel and indifferent?
and perhaps more succinctly - what kind of designer or creator only chooses to "reveal" himself initially and exclusively to psychologically damaged peasants in desert regions?
I have met some highly intelligent believers, but history has no record of any human being who was remotely qualified to say that he knew or understood the mind of God.
Yet this is precisely the qualification, which the godly must claim - so modestly and so humbly - to possess.
How can this not be a conscious and/or subconscious response to a need to exert power over other humans in the real and material world?
Question: Why do people claim to believe in God? There are innumerable stars in the Universe.
There are trillions of galaxies with an endless array of heavenly bodies...
How is anyone supposed to imagine that the original flying apart of matter was set in motion with the object of influencing life on a minute speck of a planet, billions of years later, at the very margins of the whirling nebulae and amid the extinction of innumerable other worlds?
How is it to be demonstrated that the planner of this inconceivably vast enterprise had in mind the cretinous figure of a sole individual learning that there are indeed stars in the sky and imagining that he is unique?
Or again, and coming down in point of scale by several titanic orders of magnitude - and given that at least 98% of all species made only a few, hesitant steps "forward" before succumbing to extinction…
on what warrant is it proposed that all this massive dying-out and occasional vast life explosion (as in the Cambrian Period) also had as its sole object the presence of ourselves?
And isn't it odd that religion, which continually enjoins an almost masochistic modesty upon us in the face of God, should encourage such an extreme and impossible form of self-centeredness and self regard?
By trying to adjust to the findings that it once tried so viciously to ban and repress, religion has only succeeded in restraining the same questions that undermined it in earlier epochs.
What kind of designer or creator is so wasteful and capricious and approximate?
What kind of designer is so cruel and indifferent?
and perhaps more succinctly - what kind of designer or creator only chooses to "reveal" himself initially and exclusively to psychologically damaged peasants in desert regions?
I have met some highly intelligent believers, but history has no record of any human being who was remotely qualified to say that he knew or understood the mind of God.
Yet this is precisely the qualification, which the godly must claim - so modestly and so humbly - to possess.
Certainly it is easier to imagine a big God, in a small universe – one which allows the very stars to “fall from the canopy to the Earth” (as the Bible says) – But why is it that God diminishes in proportion to our understanding of truth?
How can this not be a conscious and/or subconscious response to a need to exert power over other humans in the real and material world?
Question: Why do people claim to believe in God? There are innumerable stars in the Universe.
There are trillions of galaxies with an endless array of heavenly bodies...
How is anyone supposed to imagine that the original flying apart of matter was set in motion with the object of influencing life on a minute speck of a planet, billions of years later, at the very margins of the whirling nebulae and amid the extinction of innumerable other worlds?
How is it to be demonstrated that the planner of this inconceivably vast enterprise had in mind the cretinous figure of a sole individual learning that there are indeed stars in the sky and imagining that he is unique?
Or again, and coming down in point of scale by several titanic orders of magnitude - and given that at least 98% of all species made only a few, hesitant steps "forward" before succumbing to extinction…
on what warrant is it proposed that all this massive dying-out and occasional vast life explosion (as in the Cambrian Period) also had as its sole object the presence of ourselves?
And isn't it odd that religion, which continually enjoins an almost masochistic modesty upon us in the face of God, should encourage such an extreme and impossible form of self-centeredness and self regard?
By trying to adjust to the findings that it once tried so viciously to ban and repress, religion has only succeeded in restraining the same questions that undermined it in earlier epochs.
What kind of designer or creator is so wasteful and capricious and approximate?
What kind of designer is so cruel and indifferent?
and perhaps more succinctly - what kind of designer or creator only chooses to "reveal" himself initially and exclusively to psychologically damaged peasants in desert regions?
I have met some highly intelligent believers, but history has no record of any human being who was remotely qualified to say that he knew or understood the mind of God.
Yet this is precisely the qualification, which the godly must claim - so modestly and so humbly - to possess.
Certainly it is easier to imagine a big God, in a small universe – one which allows the very stars to “fall from the canopy to the Earth” (as the Bible says) – But why is it that God diminishes in proportion to our understanding of truth?
How can this not be a conscious and/or subconscious response to a need to exert power over other humans in the real and material world?
Question: Why do people claim to believe in God? There are innumerable stars in the omniverse. There are trillions of galaxies with an endless array of heavenly bodies...
How is anyone, but a deluded, self-centered and ignorant cognizant-reflective ego, supposed to imagine that the original flying apart of matter was set in motion with the object of influencing life on a minute speck of a planet, billions of years later, at the very margins of the whirling nebulae and amid the extinction of innumerable other worlds?
How is it to be demonstrated that the planner of this inconceivably vast enterprise had in mind the cretinous figure of a sole individual learning that there are indeed stars in the sky and imagining that he is unique?
Or again, and coming down in point of scale by several titanic orders of magnitude - and given that at least 98% of all species made only a few, hesitant steps "forward" before succumbing to extinction, on what warrant is it proposed that all this massive dying-out and occasional vast life explosion (as in the Cambrian Period) also had as its sole object the presenceof ourselves?
And isn't it odd that religion, which continually enjoins an almost masochistic modesty upon us in the face of God, should encourage such an extreme and impossible form of self-centeredness and self regard?
By trying to adjust to the findings that it once tried so viciously to ban and repress, religion has only succeeded in restraining the same questions that undermined it in earlier epochs.
What kind of designer or creator is so wasteful and capricious and approximate?
What kind of designer is so cruel and indifferent?
and most of all - what kind of designer or creator only chooses to "reveal" himself to semi-stupefied peasants in desert regions?
I have met some highly intelligent believers, but history has no record of any human being who was remotely qualified to say that he knew or understood the mind of God.
Yet this is precisely the qualification which the godly must claim - so modestly and so humbly - to possess.
How can this not be a conscious and/or subconscious attempt to exert power over other humans in the real and material world?
Question: Why do people claim to believe in God? There are innumerable stars in the omniverse.
There are trillions of galaxies with an endless array of heavenly bodies...
How is anyone supposed to imagine that the original flying apart of matter was set in motion with the object of influencing life on a minute speck of a planet, billions of years later, at the very margins of the whirling nebulae and amid the extinction of innumerable other worlds?
How is it to be demonstrated that the planner of this inconceivably vast enterprise had in mind the cretinous figure of a sole individual learning that there are indeed stars in the sky and imagining that he is unique?
Or again, and coming down in point of scale by several titanic orders of magnitude - and given that at least 98% of all species made only a few, hesitant steps "forward" before succumbing to extinction…
on what warrant is it proposed that all this massive dying-out and occasional vast life explosion (as in the Cambrian Period) also had as its sole object the presence of ourselves?
And isn't it odd that religion, which continually enjoins an almost masochistic modesty upon us in the face of God, should encourage such an extreme and impossible form of self-centeredness and self regard?
By trying to adjust to the findings that it once tried so viciously to ban and repress, religion has only succeeded in restraining the same questions that undermined it in earlier epochs.
What kind of designer or creator is so wasteful and capricious and approximate?
What kind of designer is so cruel and indifferent?
and perhaps more succinctly - what kind of designer or creator only chooses to "reveal" himself initially and exclusively to psychologically damaged peasants in desert regions?
I have met some highly intelligent believers, but history has no record of any human being who was remotely qualified to say that he knew or understood the mind of God.
Yet this is precisely the qualification, which the godly must claim - so modestly and so humbly - to possess.
Certainly it is easier to imagine a big God, in a small universe – one which allows the very stars to “fall from the canopy to the Earth” (as the Bible says) – But why is it that God diminishes in proportion to our understanding of truth?
How can this not be a conscious and/or subconscious response to a need to exert power over other humans in the real and material world?
Wolfboy,
Your 90+ percent of physicists was in issue number 14, and if you had looked at the survey, you would know that their option for agnostic was far different than yours.
I'm sorry, but your solipsist, pantheist ideology is no match for my naturalist/materialist reality.
In the "show me" contest, I'll win - hands down.
Question: Can someone help me with a test please? 1. Which word is another name for the science of morality? (Points : 1)
beliefs
biology
ethics
history
2. Which of these is an example of an unethical scientific practice? (Points : 1)
sharing the experimental procedures used in research on tobacco use
sharing the results of scientific investigations with other researchers
not being able to prove that a scientific hypothesis is correct
not reporting health risks of smoking discovered in research on tobacco
3. Tobacco companies have been punished for unethical practices by being ordered to __________. (Points : 1)
repeat all their experiments
pay monetary judgments
go out of business
hire new scientists
4. Which of the following kinds of experiments would most likely be considered ethical? (Points : 1)
selective breeding of plants
selective breeding of human beings
operating on humans without permission
operating on animals without anesthesia
5. Stem cells are unspecialized cells that become specific types of cells, such as blood cells, muscle cells, and neurons. The harvesting of stem cells from embryos is considered unethical by some people because _________________. (Points : 1)
the process is too expensive
the embryo may be destroyed
stem cells may one day be used to treat diseases
stem cells turn into other cells
6. What most likely would have happened if cigarette companies had accurately reported their conclusions that smoking cigarettes caused lung cancer, emphysema, chronic lung diseases, heart attacks, and strokes? (Points : 1)
More people would have smoked cigarettes.
More people would have contracted lung cancer.
Fewer people would have smoked cigarettes.
Philip Morris would have had to pay $28 billion in punitive damages.
7. All accepted scientific research must be _______________. (Points : 1)
performed in the United States or Europe.
performed after 1900.
disproved many times.
reproducible by other scientists.
8. Match each term with its corresponding definition.
(Points : 3)
Answer Potential Matches:
: independent review board 1 : method scientists use to communicate their findings
: data collection 2 : group of people who ensure that proposed clinical research is ethical
: data reporting 3 : the recording of information gathered by experimentation and observation Question: Is nothing real until a scientist says it is? In order for something to exist, a scientist must propose a theory, test it scientifically and have other scientists repeat the tests and/or agree with the findings. This means 1) humans must propose the idea before it exists, 2) humans must agree it exists before it exists, 3) the only kind of humans who can validate it into existence are scientists. Thus, to a scientist, something literally cannot exist unless a scientist says it is so. If this is true, what does it say about a science-based view of reality?
Zelda - nice to hear from you again. You are right, but I am, as always, trying to make a subtle point.
My point is that things do exist whether we discover them or not, whether humans are here to observe them or not.
Transhuman: OK, I'm listening.... Question: Evolution in education....why are our tax dollars paying for this lie? EVOLUTION IN EDUCATION
------------------------------...
"It is the height of bigotry to teach only one view of origins."
-quote from Clarence Darrow, ACLU lawyer, during his defense of John Scopes
------------------------------...
Before the 1930's, creation was the accepted explanation of origins and was taught as fact in American public schools. In 1925, a young science teacher named John Scopes wished to teach evolution to his class. He was forbidden to do so by the Dayton, Tennessee school board, so he took his case to court. In July of that year, an event which shook the foundations of our country took place in the Dayton courthouse, the Scopes "Monkey" Trial. This was the great turning point in our country concerning the creation/evolution in education debate. Even though John Scopes lost his case and was forbidden by law to teach anything other than creation in the classroom, by 1933, evolution was taught alongside creation in American science classes. Today, creation is out, and only evolution is allowed to be taught in the classroom.
Evolution today is taught in schools as a fact. Some institutions may refer to it as theory, but not very many. What is the truth? The truth is, evolution is only a theory, if you approach it via the scientific method. The scientific method allows for the progression of observations into a scientific hypothesis, from there into a theory, and potentially into scientific fact or law. This method is used throughout the scientific community to prove findings. Without this method, anyone could propose any silly idea, and call it fact. For instance, I could observe the fact that slugs here in the Pacific Northwest are larger than slugs in drier climates. From there, I could claim the reason for this anomaly is due to the slugs drinking great northwest coffee and thriving on it. Of course it's nonsense, but that's why scientists use this "scientific method" -- to find objective support for their claims. However, in their rush to embrace evolution - the humanist view on the origins of man, they seem to have bypassed this method. The truth is, evolution has not been subject to direct observation, and cannot be supported or reproduced in experiments. Oh, some will tell you they've observed evolution, but all they've truly observed is small mutations within a species -- quite different from evolution. For all their grand claims, an HONEST scientist will have to agree that evolution is a theory only, and barely one at that.
So why is evolution taught in school as a fact, or at best, a theory? Because the majority of the scientific community will do anything they can to deny the existence of a benevolent, supernatural Creator. They want to believe that all power and divinity in the universe can be found within each person, not in a powerful Almighty God. They wish to deny Him, to deny His power, to deny that we are all subject to someone greater and more powerful than anything we can see, feel, or touch. They miss the fact that evidence of His existence is all around us. They miss the fact that to accept evolution as a fact requires a leap of blind faith. To accept creationism, for which there is an abundance of scientific evidence, requires no blind faith. In order to maintain their comfort and sense of power over self and nature, they must indoctrinate our children at an early age. They teach our children in a religious doctrine though - a doctrine of religious humanism. The first amendment protects us against the government establishment of religion, but religious humanism is taught in our public schools every day, while the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Education Association, and humanists everywhere successfully block creationism from being taught. In other words, your children's first amendment rights are violated every day they attend school, with full knowledge and support of your government.
Does it bother you that your children's constitutional rights are violated by their teachers at schools supported by your tax dollars? It should. It doesn't have to be this way. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people who should be bothered by this, choose to remain a "silent" majority? If you ARE bothered, then do SOMETHING about it! As one person, you may not change the system. But by adding your voice to millions of others, things CAN change. Please take the time to write to those who represent you in Washington D.C. Follow the link below to contact your congressional representatives. If you wish to email our president directly, please do that as well. However, don't forget to contact your representatives with the votes to legislate. We don't expect to expel the teaching of evolution from public schools. But we must get educators to teach evolution as a hypothesis as opposed to fact, and allow the schools to teach creationism as well. Get involved now, for the sake of your children!
http://www.contenderministries.org/evolu…
added note, as expected most are not agreeing. This only proves the words of Jesus. Many in the latter days will come as false prophets.
He also said the wide path to hell will be taken by most.
In the beginning was an unexplained puddle of goo. Suddenly, an electric arc shot out of nothingness, creating amino acids. These acids, through pure chance, developed into proteins and eventually the first single-cell organism came into being. Over the course of time, chance favored this cell, and eventually its offspring became every mammal, fish, bird, amphibian, reptile, microbe, and plant on earth today. According to evolutionists, this is the most likely scenario for our existence today. If this were the case, we should be able to go backwards in time and conceptually deconstruct every organism to get to this original cell. However, in nature, certain things defy this deconstruction. Some biological structures are irreducibly complex, which means this theoretical devolution cannot work on them. Irreducible complexities are one of many evidences in nature against Darwinian evolution.
If you pick it, it will bleed: Scabs can be a great source of pride for children, or even adults who are children at heart. A large scab indicates a wound suffered in action – a fall from a bicycle, a tumble down a rocky slope, or a skiing accident on ice-crusted snow. The larger the scab, the more one can savor telling the story of its origin, with rights to embellish the story implicitly given. As children, we were told to not pick our scabs, but such advice was akin to “don’t look down,” invariably producing the result Mom wanted to avoid. These hardened blood clots are also indicative of an irreducibly complex system. While the blood clot itself is relatively simple, the system that regulates the clotting consists of ten finely tuned processes. Says, Behe: “If you make a clot in the wrong place – say, the brain or lung – you’ll die. If you make a clot twenty minutes after all the blood has drained from your body, you’ll die.
If the blood clot isn’t confined to the cut, your entire blood system might solidify, and you’ll die. If you make a clot that doesn’t cover the entire length of the cut, you’ll die. To create a perfectly balanced blood-clotting system, clusters of protein components have to be inserted all at once. That rules out a gradualistic Darwinian approach…”[3] In order to explain how blood-clotting could have developed gradually, evolutionists are forced to paint vague word pictures with generalizations indicating that components “arose” or “sprang forth.” No scientists have effectively described how the components arose, and nobody has performed experiments to show empirically how this gradual development might have occurred. Moreover, the issue of how animals kept from bleeding to death while blood-clotting processes evolved is problematic for the evolutionists. The evidence points toward a creator, rather than evolution.
There are many more examples of irreducible complexity in biology, including aspects of protein transport, closed circular DNA, electron transport, cilia, photosynthesis, transcription regulation, and much more. However, the examples given above are enough to show that Darwin’s theory of slow, successive changes fails to pass the acid test. Do irreducibly complex systems prove the existence of God? No, of course not. However, they are a major hurdle for Darwinian evolution, the pet theory of those who seek to eliminate God as the Creator of life. Good scientists will not allow pre-conceived notions to taint their work, and evolutionists will wag a finger at creationists and intelligent design proponents and accuse them of biased research.
However, evolutionists eliminate the possibility of a supernatural Creator at the outset, and discard evidence that points strongly toward design in nature. While almost every scientist will have a personal bias, the evolutionists are most profoundly known for letting their bias influence their work, rather than objectively following the facts to their most logical conclusion. These men and women on their humanist campaign of junk science will eventually learn the error of their ways, and they will be found without excuse: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse…. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles” (Romans 1:20,22-23)
|
|||||||
