posted on April 24, 2004 03:20:48 PM new
What were you referring to Twelve. I will be happy to clarify but there are about 4 different things you could be asking about.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 24, 2004 09:39:18 PM new
So here is reamond, spouting his hate speech again. I find it amazing that he is not running for president in some poor, backwoods country out in the middle east, to espout his totally illogical way of thinking.
He truly believes the jibberish he pukes forth here on this board, and is about as mis-informed about Christianity as anyone I have ever met. He is so far out there that he must have to look to the right just to see to his left.
So there are people who are upset about the internship? At least we do not have to worry about President Bush making it with one of these interns. As to the contract they need to sign, I do not disagree with it at all. If you do not want your child to attend the school, don't send them there.
What is amazing is at least in this country, people like reamond can talk his dribble and not get sent to jail. In many other countries, they would find him and either send him to jail or exicute him.
In Christ,
Rick
Genesis 1:1
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I do not accept His claim to be God." That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic....or else he would be the devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
C.S. Lewis: "Mere Christianity"
edited for a big sp boo-boo
[ edited by ChristianCoffee on Apr 25, 2004 10:36 AM ]
posted on April 24, 2004 10:20:39 PM new
A school teaching love of country....love of God...teaching morals, values, etc.....and saying IF they want to attend that college they must agree to their terms and sign a paper acknowledging they understand what the values are for that college.....some would prefer to see this type of crap:
From the "Village Academic Curriculum" File...[of The Federalist]
The Collegiate Network recently announced its 7th annual Campus Outrage Awards.
Among the 2004 recipients were the following:
"A University of California, Santa Barbara, student received acclaim from professors and administrators for his Chicano Studies thesis on 'Gay Men of Color in Porn.' The project was presented as part of the UCSB Multicultural Center's tax-payer funded 'Race Matters Series' in an effort to legitimize pornography as an academic pursuit."
"At the University of California, Berkeley, the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC) and Graduate Assembly (GA) illegally spent $31,000 of mandatory student fees on a campus campaign to defeat Proposition 54, a racial-privacy initiative that would ban the state from collecting race data on school admissions forms;"
"Robert Brandon, the Chair of the Philosophy Department at Duke University justifies the 17-1 Democrat-Republican ratio among Duke professors by claiming that conservatives are generally not smart enough to teach at Duke. 'We try to hire the best, smartest people available. If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire;"
"At Georgetown [a private Catholic university] Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze gave a speech reiterating the Church's teaching on sexual ethics. His assertion that 'the family is...mocked by homosexuality,' led some students and faculty to walk off stage, and the Dean of Georgetown College, Jane McAuliffe, to write an e-mail apology to all students offering counseling sessions to those who suffered -- get this -- psychological trauma as a result of the speech."
-------
Looks like it's all about which values we each choose to support and what our own moral standards are.
posted on April 24, 2004 10:31:54 PM newAre you blind to the preachers that are calling for the deaths of homosexuals and promoting the killing of doctors that perform abortions?
I guess so....because I've never seen mainstream preachers calling for any such thing. AND I've asked that you educate me to just who these people are ....and what religious group they are affiliated with.....but so far...you have refused to do so.
Look at the things Ashcroft is attempting to do.
I'm not sure exactly which 'things' you're referring to. But if it's the Patriot Act....I fully support it. I think the 9-11 commission hearings have pointed out very clearly that since 1993 the clinton administration was more worried about how their actions might 'look' in regards to binladen...AQ...than being worried for the safety of our country.
We're at WAR with the terrorists, reamond. I fully support giving our government agencies the ability to do what they need to do to 'watch' those they feel are a threat to our nation. We're all aware, I'm sure we have terrorists groups here in our country. We cannot tie their hands and then demand they protect us.
During the clinton administration the FBI and CIA were not allowed to work together towards this important goal....finding and taking action against them.
People like you who are so worried about the 'average Joe' being at risk in this situation....appear to forget they're not after us....their after our enemies.
posted on April 24, 2004 11:26:39 PM newSo here is reamond, spouting his hate speach again. I find it amazing that he is not running for president in some poor, backwoods country out in the middle east, to espout his totally illogical way of thinking.
I guess you have missed his threads advocating the nuking of the penninsula. If you knew more about Reamonds postings you would know that he tends to judge religions by their most extreme examples. Nevermind that AQ has also declared war against the Saudi government and has as recently as last week attack the Kingdom, the Kingdom is evil.
BTW - I was wondering which middle eastern nation you consider to be "backwoods" and how you came upon the determination.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Apr 25, 2004 01:17 AM ]
posted on April 24, 2004 11:53:42 PM new
I agree with Reamond on this.
These young people who are usually very impressionable, have been trained and groomed to "fit the bill" on these conservative issues. When you have such a large influx of people from one college, all have the same extreme beliefs, then I think it makes for a bad situation.
I have voted republican most of my life, however, I will now give more consideration to the other party.
On the home schooling issue. It might have a few pluses, but it also have plenty of drawbacks. One of the greatest is the lack of social interaction with other people. They really end up living in a limited and unexplored world. I think the more contact that a person has with others, the better that person is. If you classroom has only 2 people in it, then you are lacking the environment of the classroom with 25 students to share common experiences. Just my thoughts.
posted on April 25, 2004 12:39:25 AM newWhat is amazing is at least in this country, people like reamond can talk his dribble and not get sent to jail. In many other countries, they would find him and either send him to jail or exicute him.
Whew! Thereby proving Reamond's point. He is not speaking of Christians in general, but the extreme evangelical sects.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 25, 2004 12:52:12 AM new
bunni - Are you saying people/parents shouldn't have a right to educate their own children any way they wish to? Send them to any school they wish to because some don't agree with the teachings?
Some think it's okay to have porn pushed as an academic program in our colleges and that will give the children a 'well balanced education', but we shouldn't be allowed to teach our own values to our own children? If so.....I couldn't disagree more strongly.
I know for a fact those who oppose schools like this would not like having their children *forced* to attend them - to become more 'well-rounded, educationally - more worldly. But it's somehow different when other schools teach values/morals you disagree with?
posted on April 25, 2004 01:02:49 AM newbunni - Are you saying people/parents shouldn't have a right to educate their own children any way they wish to? Send them to any school they wish to because some don't agree with the teachings?
Linda, I have to say that I sometimes find it amazing how you (& others) can cling to parts of what someone says and steadfastly ignore other parts.
Here is what I have said in this thread:
"I've got no problem with these people educating their kids the way they want. I do have a problem with an agenda to force their ideaology on the rest of us." --posted on April 22, 2004 05:23:15 PM
"Tex1, the difference between radical right Christians and run-of-the-mill Christians (& everyone else) is that the former is determined that their way of life, their beliefs, their way of doing things should and must be followed by everyone else.
You'll notice that, in my post, I said I didn't have a problem with how they educate their own kids. Which means I don't have a problems with the college--the kids are there voluntarily (one hopes). I said that the agenda to force their ways on everyone else was what I have the problem with. That's the great thing about America, up to now--folks are free to send their kids to the kind of college they like, that shares their beliefs. No one forces anyone to go to a liberal university." --posted on April 22, 2004 10:16:21 PM
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
I agree with you. If the extremist Christians wish to follow the belief system so strongly, then that is great for them. They can believe what their belief system allows them to. They should also keep it to themselves. I don't want anyone pushing their belief system on me.
Another thought about the extremist Christian right is that they apparently don't understand that their religious practices are only a belief system. There are so many religions in the world and so many variations of them. As an American, you can practice any religion that you want to. There is NO RIGHT RELIGION AND NO WRONG RELIGION. If anyone disagrees with that statement, then please tell me why your belief system is greater or has more bearing than another religion. Are Christians correct and Jews wrong? Are Jews wrong and Hindus right? Are Hindus wrong and Wiccans right?
There is no right and no wrong religion, its only a belief system. Before European settlers came here, the Native Americans worshiped things such as the sun. When they died where did their souls go? What about Wiccans, who practice one of the oldest religions in the world. They don't believe in a heaven or hell. Religion is a belief system and nothing more.
posted on April 25, 2004 01:34:25 AM new
bunni - Yes we all pick parts from others posts that we wish to discuss or make comment on.
"I've got no problem with these people educating their kids the way they want. I do have a problem with an agenda to force their ideaology on the rest of us."
How are they *forcing* their ideaology on the rest of you?
ONE school has some interns that share *some* of the same values that this administration does ....and oh watch out....this is so wrong...their opinions/beliefs are being *forced* on everyone.
Do you think a group of liberally educated college students are going to want to work for an administration that's a conservative one?...or that an ultra-liberal administration would want conservative interns to work for them? Come on.....they all would only choose to support/work for an administration that comes closest to supporting their own values/positions on the issues.
"[i]Tex1, the difference between radical right Christians and run-of-the-mill Christians (& everyone else) is that the former is determined that their way of life, their beliefs, their way of doing things should and must be followed by everyone else[/b].
I don't agree. I think they are doing what all Americans who care about the direction their government is taking/will take....and that is they get actively involved....just like those on the oppose side do. They all think their way is the only way things should be done. Nothing unusual about that. No one's holding a gun to anyone's head....forcing. They've just chosen their 'side'.
With studies having proved [and I've posted the links before] that the professors in most colleges are left leaning....by a HUGE percentage [somewhere around 90% dem leaning]...it's a lot harder to say 'well I just won't send my child to a liberal college' unless one has enough funds to send them to a private school. So it appears to me that creates a left-leaning base automatically.
posted on April 25, 2004 01:45:12 AM new
Linda - just out pf curiosity... what is the college major which would REQUIRE a student to take a course in pornography?
I think you misunderstood that section. The project was "Race Matters" and dealt with people of color. One student decided to use men of color in porn to demonstrate the theme and abaparently did it well enough to gain acclaim for his work. Pornography was not the theme,, it was one individuals subject used to illustrate the theme.
As for the pornography as an academic pursuit concept... I don't know about academic, but carreer wise.... the student is not all that far out in left field. When you consider that there has never been a porn movie made that lost money, that porn is a billion dollar industry and that it is not one that is at risk of being moved offshore it is a carrer with a lot of job security. You have acting directing, producing, filming, lighting, set production, editing, graphic design, marketing, duplicating and distributing avenues that are all going to stay right here in the US even as many major studios are moving production outside our borders.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on April 25, 2004 01:54:48 AM new
fenix - I never said anything about requiring.
The project was presented as part of the UCSB Multicultural Center's tax-payer funded 'Race Matters Series' in an effort to legitimize pornography as an academic pursuit."
posted on April 25, 2004 02:06:46 AM new
You know fenix - that's what's so sad to me personally. Look how you point out all the positives you see in this industry.
But you don't mention how this industry is currently in the news about the spread of HIV/AIDS within the porn star community. Then there will be some idiots who will demand those who don't share these lack of values pay for their medical care when they do end up getting AIDS. They'll then be labeled as 'uncaring' 'hard-hearted' righties who only care about themselves and not others and aren't willing to pay for what others can't pay for.....when those same people believe they brought it on themselves....by their own actions/life style choices.
posted on April 25, 2004 03:41:01 AM new
:::Some think it's okay to have porn pushed as an academic program in our college...::
Linda - it was the comment above that made me ask the question. I fail to see how a single student chosing porn as a subject to illustrate a "race matters" theme can be related to porn being pushed as an academic program.
As for the current HIV crisis in the industry... It resulted from a shoot that took place outside the country in an enviroment that is not nearly as stringent in it's self policing policies as the US industry is. Lets not overhype this though Linda - there are currently two workers, one who contracted it at a brazilian shoot and one partner. The last time there was a scare here was five years ago. Not bad when you consider the shear number of prouctions shot each year. The girls case was truly unfortunate. She was too green. The guy.. he was an idiot.
Then there will be some idiots who will demand those who don't share these lack of values pay for their medical care when they do end up getting AIDS.
Not by anyone who knows anything about the porn industry Actors are independant contractors and as such are responsible for their own health care as they would be in any other industry.
As for judging the industry ... I run my own business. I ran someone elses business before that. I consult with other small business owners on how to direct, market and expand their businesses. Critquing is what I do. I target the pros and cons and evaluate viability, Porn may be a black horse industry but it is a successful one that has shown itself to be recession proof and show consistant growth while employing thousands of people in a large range of areas all of which are immune to the risk of outsourcing. Those are cold hard facts . I don't make moral judgements. that's for the individual to make.
As far as the college aspect goes... you don't go to college to learn morality, you go to further education towards creating a successful career. Morality is a personal judgement to be made by each individual for themselves. College is a elective. No one is required to attend and those that do choose attend have a mind boggling array of choices and so I don't think that an outside entity has the right to juge indiviual curiculums or agendas. If someone objects to a class or an agenda, they don't have to go and if enough people find it objectionable and do not attend it looses its financial viability and quickly ceases to exist. It is a matter of educational darwinism.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Apr 25, 2004 03:56 AM ]
posted on April 25, 2004 08:05:54 AM new
I can't for the life of me understand how anyone would support an educational system that promotes a denial of reality as a prerequisite for an "education".
This is nothing but Soviet Communist style education.
And all this concern about "pornography" in college is silly. I had never heard of bestiality until I read about it in the bible.
A public university must be open to all ideas except one, and that is the idea that no other ideas can be tolerated and it is the only idea that is right. Religions are exemplar of the intollerance idea.
Our university system is the envy of the world. We have more discoveries and have a system for approaching the truth that no other culture has ever achieved.
And this was all accomplished under a "liberal" blanket of welcoming and presenting all ideas.
Religion was rightly driven out of the education system because of its intollerance and baseless claims of presenting the exclusive "truth".
Colleges like those mentioned in the article would feel right at home in North Korea or under the Taliban.
posted on April 25, 2004 08:13:39 AM new
One word sums up the liberal postings here...
FEAR.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 25, 2004 08:56:10 AM new
from the PHC site
No Government Funding. PHC is committed to operating without direct or indirect governmental funding of any kind, because government dollars are usually followed by government efforts to control and regulate.
Hmmmm not a "public" institution at all...
Go to their site and read instead of just looking at that article that started this thread...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 25, 2004 10:06:13 AM new
So what... Student loans are for the students...
Grasping at straws again? Have you been to college and used a student loan?
A public university must be open to all ideas except one
Apparently you thought it was a public school.... LOL
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on April 25, 2004 10:33:29 AM new
What is reality, reamond? A theory that holds about as much water as a sieve? You constantly say that evolution is it, but there is no evidence to support the theory at all. The fact that you support it so strongly shows you have faith in it, and by your standards of judgment it could be considered a religion.
The backwoods comment was for humorous input only: it was meant to inject some humor into the situation. I believe reamond would make a wonderful dictator, even on Fantasy Island. Could you see it now: we can all vote on whom would be Tattoo, because reamond would be Mr. Roarke, totally in charge of his fantasy land.
This is a private school, where parents send their children after they are accepted. You always look out for what you feel is best for your children (at least most rational parents do), but at that age, kids have say in where they go as well.
We home schooled our kids for several years: there is no determent to themselves nor their education. They received plenty of interaction, in sports, music and dance. Anyone who home schools knows how to search out these things. Also, people who home school are held to HIGHER standards then public schools: we are monitored closer, and get little or no help from the public spectrum, despite the fact we still pay out taxes to the local school system. The myth that home schooled children are less able to socially interact has been disproved many times, but the public schools still promote this myth (just like they push the myth of evolution down unsuspecting throats). Why you may ask. Simple: home schooled children tend to score higher on the SAT's, ACT's and ASVAB tests. They win many awards when going up against public schoolers. Homeschooling is a threat to public education because of testing. My two teens are about 2 grade levels ahead of their peers: it drives the teachers nuts when they are trying to teach a lesson, and my son is staring off into space. they call on him, and he answers quickly and precisely, and almost always correctly. Same with my daughter.
Homeschooling is an advantage that too few people use. They feel they either do not have the time, patience or energy to do it. But a good home school program can take as little as 4 hours a day, and often the parents learn quite a bit as well.
In Christ,
Rick
Genesis 1:1
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I do not accept His claim to be God." That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic....or else he would be the devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
C.S. Lewis: "Mere Christianity"
posted on April 25, 2004 12:02:36 PM new
Linda, there is nothing wrong being actively involved in government. There is something wrong, though, in using one's position in government to try to change things to one's own religious POV. We have separation of chruch and state for a reason in this country.
******
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on April 27, 2004 05:26:57 AM new
fenix - You focus only on the two HIV infected porn stars. But they documented there are 53 sexual encounters that could now also be infected. Then those in that group could also have infect how many?? We may not know for years.
As far as porn stars being independent contractors and responsible for their own health care/insurance.....that in NO way means they are paying nor have medical insurance that would cover them for this illness. And if they don't we'll all be paying for their care from an expensive illness/possible death from THEIR lifestyle choice.
If they make as much money as articles like those on the NYS reports.....they can pay for their risky care themselves, should they become infected. It's THEIR risky behavior and I don't feel we should have to pay for it or be accused of having 'no compassion' for those who become ill when they choose to engage in such behavior.
posted on April 27, 2004 05:52:25 AM newThere is something wrong, thought, in usings one's position in government to try to change things to one's own religious POV. We have separation of church and state for a reason in this country.
bunni - EVERYBODY brings their own moral/religious/etc upbringing/beliefs into their decision making process. Whether they are religious or not...their own moral values [form with or without religious training] are brought into each decision they make...no matter the issue.
-----
Here's an article on this subject and kerry that I agree with. To me it shows how one can honor their religious beliefs/moral values and still fight for them - without it being a violation of any so called separation of church and state issue, just like others who aren't religious, and still accept they majority vote will determine the outcome.
But there is no need to
cast one's religious beliefs aside....using as excuse of separation of church and state. No more than you, as a atheist, could put aside your own moral life-decisions and vote FOR anything that is against those same values.
---------------------
John Kerry's Catholic problem
Cal Thomas (archive)
April 26, 2004
John Kerry made a familiar statement about abortion last week. Bill Clinton said it before him. Many Democrats who wish to remain in the good graces as well as the political clutches of the abortion-rights lobby say it. Kerry said he wants to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare."
I understand "safe" (though it's never safe for the baby and often not the woman). I understand "legal" (though contemporary jurisprudence is shifting sand). I don't understand "rare." Unless the pre-born child is human and worthy of the law's protection, why care if abortion is rare or common? Is Kerry attempting to satisfy the tug of conscience deep within this professed Roman Catholic that the teachings of his church are true and that he needs a kind of moral cover - genuflecting in the direction of truth but making no effort to slow or stop abortions should he gain the power to do so?
The Vatican said last week that priests must deny Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. The Kerry campaign would not respond directly, but a spokesman, appropriately named David Wade (remember Roe vs. Wade?), reiterated Kerry's position on church-state separation that, he said "had helped make religious affiliation a non-issue in American politics."
Is the state the issue, or the church? If a Catholic politician, or one of any other faith, sees an injustice and acquires the power to right it, should he then be excused for behaving like Judas and selling his soul for political coinage?
Doesn't such a "faith" lead one to conclude that person might be agnostic, and religion, for him, is merely a tool for hoodwinking the unsophisticated?
Put it another way: Suppose a hospital board decides the hospital should perform abortions. The pro-life administrator and several nurses protest to no avail. Doesn't their belief in the sanctity of life take precedence over their jobs? Would not God, or conscience, require them to resign instead of denying God or conscience and participating in an act they regard as immoral for the sake of a paycheck?
When Kerry and other Catholic politicians say they accept church teaching but selectively deny it when it comes to abortion, they place the state above the church and man above God. They mortgage their consciences to convenience and principle to pragmatism. Should such a person lead this nation?
In his memoir, "Inside: A Public and Private Life," Joseph A. Califano Jr. - a Catholic Democrat who worked in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations - expounds on his struggle with the abortion issue. After being nominated as Johnson's secretary of health, education and welfare, Califano, who opposed federal funding for abortion unless the woman's life was jeopardized, consulted his pastor, a Jesuit priest named James English. Califano writes, "I first confronted the tension between my religious beliefs and public policy on the searing issue of whether Medicaid should fund abortions." He says his priest told him while most of our laws are founded on moral values, "my obligation to my personal conscience was satisfied if I expressed those views forcefully.
If another view prevailed, however, I was free, indeed obliged, to enforce the law. 'In a democratic society, you are free to struggle to change the law even as you enforce the one on the books,' he said." (Califano was interviewed on my TV show, where he talked about this and other issues.)
The problem for Kerry is that he won't even go that far. He is pro-abortion, for any reason and at any time. He has not said how he would work to make abortion "rare," except that like others who hold this position he would probably advocate more birth control, which would also place him in opposition to the teachings of his church.
Like the pro-life hospital administrator and nurses, Kerry has a choice: either "resign" as a Catholic, or withdraw from the presidential race. To be president and not even attempt to make abortion "rare" by changing the law that has permitted so many, even for convenience, ignores the power of the presidency and trivializes his faith. In the one case, it leaves an individual open to a charge of hypocrisy.
In the other, it puts him in jeopardy of being labeled a heretic.
-----------
To me this article hits the nail on the head. It doesn't say a person of faith can't fight for laws that support their moral beliefs. It just means [to me] that should the majority of other [elected reps by their votes] win the issue....then they need to set aside their religious values/morals/beliefs and honor the law as passed.
posted on April 29, 2004 09:13:22 AM new
While we all have a right to worship as we wish or not worship at all, it is wrong to call religion science and religious training "education".
Any "college" that demands that Darwin's theory be rejected and that the teachers and students must espouse that the world was created by god in 7 days in not only at odds with reality, but is a form of Naziism.
Mineral brew grows 'cells'
A mixture of simple chemicals produces fungus-like structure.
28 April 2004
PHILIP BALL
It is an experiment you could do in a school chemistry lab. But it produces weird growths that, although made purely from inorganic materials, share some of the characteristics of living organisms.
Most chemical mixtures quickly settle into an unchanging state. So the fact that dynamic cell-like structures can arise spontaneously from a simple mixture is a surprise, says Jerzy Maselko of the University of Alaska in Anchorage and Peter Strizhak of the Institute of Physical Chemistry in Kiev, Ukraine, who made the discovery1.
Understanding how this happens could give us clues about how life may have arisen on Earth, or even other planets, where the blends of chemicals present might be quite different from that of the early Earth.
Full flow
Maselko and Strizhak mixed calcium chloride, sodium carbonate, copper chloride, sodium iodide, hydrogen peroxide and starch (see box). They found a fungus-like, soft membrane grows out of the mixture, enclosing a hollow cavity up to 1 cm across. Chemicals diffuse through this membrane, react inside the cavity, and then diffuse out, creating swirling clouds of violet liquid in the green base solution.
Rather than reaching equilibrium, this process persists. The reactions, say the researchers, are reminiscent of the way living cells sustain themselves, driven from equilibrium by the flow of chemicals and energy across their membranes.
Maselko and Strizhak even saw a kind of replication in their chemical brew. Sometimes the cell structures grew into forms with several lobes, or sprouted buds that split off from the parent membrane.
But although they look impressive, can these structures tell us anything about the origin of true life-forms? It seems the answer might be yes, because the differences between the two processes are not as fundamental as one might assume.
Graham Cairns-Smith, a chemist at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, has speculated for many years that life on our planet may not have started with organic (carbon-based) molecules. He suggests life may have begun with inorganic ingredients, such as clay minerals that can carry heritable information in the stacking sequence of their sheets of atoms. Such 'clay organisms' might be able to replicate, Cairns-Smith argues.
Maselko is keen to follow up his discovery to see just how far the parallels with life run. "This is only the beginning," he says. "We will see many other systems like this. The next step will be to get these systems to evolve."
posted on April 29, 2004 11:11:11 AM newAny "college" that demands that Darwin's theory be rejected and that the teachers and students must espouse that the world was created by god in 7 days in not only at odds with reality, but is a form of Naziism.
I wouldn't go so far as to compare [much] to Naziism....but I see this as being no different from what the liberal teachings are like in most of our colleges when it comes to this subject and when it comes to allowing MOST of how the conservatives want taught. They only teach the way they see things....and don't teach or discount what doesn't agree with their own ideaologies.
posted on May 1, 2004 02:29:48 PM new
Evolution is pushed as a religion, reamond; if you cleaned your own eyes and ears out you would see that. But you enjoy your slanted POV so much that you cannot see the nose in front of your face.
I know you have to cut and paste, but it is well worth it.
Here is an excerpt from the article:
Chemicals + Energy: Could They Have Given Birth to the First Life?
One chemist has calculated the immense odds against amino acids ever combining to form the necessary proteins by undirected means. He estimated the probability to be more than 10 to the 67th to 1 (1067:1) against even a small protein forming by time and chance, in an ideal mixture of chemicals, in an ideal atmosphere, and given up to 100 billion years (an age 10 to 20 times greater than the supposed age of the Earth). [129] Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th (1:1050) have a zero probability of ever happening ("and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt!". [130]
Various highly qualified researchers feel they have scientifically proved, beyond question, that the proteins needed for life could never have come into existence by chance or any natural processes. [131]
The liberal education system force-feeds evoultion down our childrens throats daily: I think this is more natziism then anything. Public schools do not give our children the chance to learn the truth, just their slant on things. Even though you often are as opinionated as a gorilla, reamond, I know you are created, not evolved being.
Your article is full of "It seems", and yet there is still no hard, or even soft for that matter, evidence for your pet theology of evolution, reamond.
In Christ,
Rick
Genesis 1:1
"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I do not accept His claim to be God." That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic....or else he would be the devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
C.S. Lewis: "Mere Christianity"
posted on May 1, 2004 02:38:06 PM new
One thing you ar forgetting the most reamond, is that noone is forced to attend that college, who our elected officials use for their interns is strictly their choice... Is that the real problem here, their choice is not yours so you are against it.... figures.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on May 1, 2004 03:42:37 PM new
Every organized religion-whether it be Christianity, Judisim.or Muslim holds the belief that they are God's chosen people to do what they THINK is divine work- namly killing the guys that don't believe what they believe-and the people in power in this Administration are providing amunition for everyone to continue to do this. The thinly disguised agenda of the Christian Right to rule this country will be the Bush legacy whether or not he is reelected-I am not a "liberal" - I vote for the candiadte not the party but that agenda has to thwarted NOW- 4 more years of Bush Chenehy and we will be living in a thinly disguised police state
. [130]