greene8535

I have camped a quarter of a mile from one of Tom Hanks houses on Maui... I was actually shooting clay pigeons with a shot-gun towards his house! Fun fun

Lol, yes you can! I only have free apps on my iTouch... It is the designers choice to make people pay for the app...

You do not need to be Christian to recognize the origins of Christmas... People get offended to easily these days.... Merry Christmas Tip.It!

Happiest: Well, I have had alot of happy moments, one of the recent ones was just yesterday! I had just found out I was getting a 500$ acoustic-electric guitar for Christmas, when I got a phone call saying I got 3rd place in state for an essay contest! (Scholarship ftw!) Most boring: Probably airplanes... (I live in Hawaii, soz everywhere is by a 6+ hour plane ride) Saddest: Whenever my dad gets orders to move... {cabbage} army... I hate leaving my friends/band behind

As long as you people are discussing the BCA as a viable alternative to a GS, I might just throw in that a Great-axe has like a 126 str/attack bonus! Yes, it is slower than a Gs, but it could be ok for those who like slow, trucklike wepons! I am not implying I use this... (I can't stand people who use a GA w/o the dh set)

I'm not really sure where else this thread could go :| I will tell you where this thread could go.... it could go where I intended it to go! On a discussion on the documentary! Like do you think it is right that people are losing jobs for MENTIONING I.D.??? PLEASE do not argue evidence against creationism/evolutionism extensively!

You will wet your bed.... have lemmings mistake it for water, and smother you... :twisted:

By making the game more involved and harder, it should decrease the amount of 12- y/o's... I mean, why would a 12 y/o want to play a game with high school level thinking? or... they... could... use... trigonometry... and... algebra... to... keep... 12... y/o's... away... :

I personally like hard rock, but not too hard! If I am not feeling like that, I'll listen to some DC Talk... they have some great uplift'in songs that could help you out while exercising... If not... there is always..... EYE OF THE TIGER :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I hate to be a semantic [wagon], but I'm saving you from possible future humiliation by pointing out that the guitar you purchased is most definitely not a Gibson SG. In other words, SG's go for $1000+. Looks like you got screwed. Hm no, you could get an SG for under $100. The model has little to do with the price of the guitar, it's the manufacturer that basically decides 80% of the pricetag. In Gibson's case however, just because you pay a small fortune for one of their guitars doesn't mean it's gonna be a quality guitar, so you will get screwed nonetheless. Oh, I am sorry if I goofed when I said Gibson, the guitar is made by Epiphone, a company owned by Gibson... one of the reasons SG's are so darn expensive, is that Gibson, the original maker of them, can charge so much for a sweet looking, nice playing guitar! Sure, my guitar isn't as good as a Gibson-named one, but I like the sound, and the looks... I am not going to drop a couple K down on a guitar that I won't play pro with... (I don't have that kind of cash)

I got my first guitar, a Gibson SG for 200$ at www.musiciansfriend.com ! I would recomend either a SG, or a Les Paul... They both have a nice tone, and can be used for a lot of things :thumbsup:

This entire passage does two things: it blurs the line between science and non-science (and contradicts itself in the process; more on that in a tick) and it sets up a false dichotomy as if you have to believe in one of these ideas but not the other. First, it claims that ID is science. Not true. You can't possibly test the actions of a supernatural being, therefore such a mechanism being the genesis of life can't be scientifically verified or debunked. Second, it claims that ID has emerged as a new opposing theory to challenge evolution in the science class. Seeing as it's not science, the debate can be shelved for a philosophy class, but you can be assured that the majority of the scientific community rejects ID as pseudoscience, and the Dover trial in Pennsylvania basically ruled that it's creationism in disguise. Also check out the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document for a clear look at the religious agenda of the ID movement. On the aforementioned contradiction, you can see originally that it claims both evolution and ID are scientific theories, yet it then goes on to say: "Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge, and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry, especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?" How can science answer questions that are beyond its limits? It's not possible, and it would no longer be science if you attempted to do so; it would be philosophy and therefore not fit for a science classroom. That's precisely why you only find evolution in the science class and precisely why ID isnt science. To address another point that paragraph brings up, it's stretching the truth when it claims that science isn't open to debate or inquiry; of course it is, and biologists debate how evolution occurred all the time. It could very well be the case that no evidence supports evolution or the mechanisms by which it occurs, but that's just not true. Of course science isnt going to debate religion/the supernatural with people, because thats not what science does and religion/the supernatural cant be argued against scientifically. On the false dichotomy point, it sets up one of two opposing ideas: "At stake are two very consequential views of existence: Is life purposeful, and intelligently designed? Or is it random and purposeless?" However, it completely ignores theistic evolution - the belief that evolution occurred as science says, yet that a god guided it to give it purpose. Besides, it's boxing evolution and natural selection as the be all and end all of the purpose of life in general purpose doesnt begin and end in the science class; in fact, science says nothing of purpose, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist (i.e. see philosophy class). You have to also remember that a science class isn't the be all and end all to what you learn in school. The quote says: "Knowing this - should our government be engaged in official, de facto promotion of the exclusively secular, materialist worldview inherent in neo-Darwinian theory in our nations public schools, universities and research institutions? Why?" The answer to this question goes back to what science is: the search for natural, verifiable explanations for natural phenomena. That's why researchers and science classes focus on the natural and the material - you're not going to know about how gravity or fluid mechanics works by praying or making up a supernatural agent to account for it. The only way to understand them with science is empirically through nature and the senses. Thats not to say that you cant understand scientific concepts in other non-materialistic, non-natural ways (again, this is the subject of a philosophy class). To summarise, there is no scientific controversy here evolution is science and ID is not. You only need to do a few minutes of research to figure this out. Added, the idea that a science class is the place for talking about the purpose of life is absurd, and people can easily believe that evolution happened naturally, yet god still exists and gives you purpose. Its worth being critical of what you see and checking claims against other information before you jump to conclusions. I am not saying that ID is science! I am saying the movie brings up some very good points, not that what is says is true! And yes, the scientific community is SHUTTING down the theory of ID! I am not saying it's science, but it IS a theory! I do believe that the scientific community is claiming so much against it, because they are worried that the fragile "fact", that is Darwinism will fall apart if too much evidence is brought forward for other theories! The human race has learned so much because of questioning existing knowledge, and testing new ideas! Why should we stop now? One more thing that strikes me is the fact that Richard Dawkins, a very outspoken atheist, said all he did, yet in the end of the interview, stated that ID is POSSIBLE! And that extraterrestrials could of 'seeded' our planet. Ah... it is not often that I get to participate in a wholesome debate... I'll read your whole post in the morning, but it is 10:00PM here, and I have homework to do in the morning... -.-

I just saw this documentary last night. I thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it brought up some very valid points. It only touched on the different topics though. The film could of gone on for quite a long time. I am NOT bringing up the Creationism vs. Evolutionism debate! For that, I would use the O.T. main discussion forum. I am discussing the movie, and the inteligent design/Darwinism theories that are brought up in the various interviews. I never really fully understood the holocaust and reason behind it. This documentary really brought the reasons home for me. (Why the Nazi's did what they did) Please don't flame/be idiots :thumbsup: Discuss! :thumbsup:

Well... I'm home schooled so.... The weirdest thing that's happened to me is.... my brother being a absolute freak :

A martin acoustic-electric A Line6 pedal board MindStorms NXT A wii w/ SSBB and Force unleashed A round-trip ticket from Honolulu, HI, to Olympia, WA for 3 weeks On yea, and a 80 gig iTouch (One of the new ones)