beowulf

I think a lot of education issue is due to education not being valued culturally. If the parents aren't pushing their kids to do well in school then the kids won't push themselves. I really believe it starts with the parents.

I think it sucks that they inturrupt the game for commercials.

I thought lightnings require having some fabric sticking out of the container! Otherwise they just don't have the same effect on new jumpers.

I only met him a couple of times and only knew by his nickname, redcoat. He was a fun guy, liked to drink and goof off like everyone else.

He's probably not a Giants fan...Being from the Chicago area I understand perfectly, MY two favorite teams are 'Da Bears' and who ever is playin' the Packers! +1 I figured as much... IT must be tough being a Bears fan then Nope. What other US sports team ever got an Emmy nomination? (For the

I have landed off more then 4 miles, but it was due to unusual circumstance.

Wow! With all the proximity flying he does I figured it would only be a matter of time before he got too close. He is extremely lucky he isn't dead.

Just to emphasize, make sure you have it checked out by a rigger you trust. That said 1200 jumps on a container made in 2007 should not be any where near it's end of life. If it's well taken care of you could put another 1000 jumps on it.

I don't really understand the whole hoopla around Tim Tebow. Overall I don't think he is a very good quarterback. It's really been the running back McGahee that has carried the team. If Tim can improve his throwing and run less he will be around longer. If he keeps running the ball a lot he will end up getting hurt and playing less.

From the article, it says he just has a broken leg.

LOL How many years was that?

My prescription isn't that strong. I now have two of their sunglasses. One with the inserts and one with the prescription in the frame. I like the non insert much better.

Which version of creation should be taught? There are so many and they are all equally as likely be valid. What kind of question is that? I dunno...you tell me. How many religion classes do you want to create? How many versions of History do you want to teach? How many versions of Political Science do you want to teach? Do you not think that any topic could be taught in general terms or do you only think in terms of all-in-one detailed specifics? OK...now I get silly: Oh wait....we have that already....Science 101, Science 201, Science 301. Or, are you thinking in terms of Science 2,000,501 terms? One class covers all for everybody? "Move over BMOC and let the 7,281 first-graders sit down." Your logic is very flawed. You are the one who thinks that creationism should be taught in science classes. So which creationism do you think should be taught? There are so many.

No, your misunderstanding and proclivity for extrapolation is the problem. Nice to think that you are an expert on "logic" and are able to make a determination on others, though. Can you explain why you think dividing people into separate groups is going to promote understanding on either side of the issue? I open. Science is already a required class in public schools. Do you think it's a good idea to make it a requirement to establish a religion class as a required subject in public schools? That would support your need for separate learning opportunities, right? Why the need for a separate class in public schools anyway? We already have that separation going on....science in school, religion in church. Maintaining status quo is going to help? Well schools usually have seperate classes for each type of class. Creationism is a part of religion not science. It's not another side of an issue. Evolution is a part of science. I will say it again. Evolution and Creationism are not two sides of an issue. One is science the other is religion.

"Absence of evidence of presence does not give rise to a presumption of absence." -Popsjumper I'm here...you just can't see me because I'm hiding my face behind this keyboard. As if I weren't already questioning your intelligence.

I don't understand why you think deitys are exempt from needing any evidence to support their existence. Your logic does not make sense. No it didn't come off of that stance. I tried to clarify it. You don't seem to be able to understand what I wrote. It's not reasonable to believe any deity exists due to a lack of evidence.

An energy that most religions call "God". It's an energy that our science cannot measure, and our vocabulary is quite limited in describing. What makes you think it exists?

Going back to the Neutrino particles. Yes we know they exist and that they have always existed. But before we could prove they existed it could not be reasonably concluded that they did exist. Why? Because there was no evidence to conclude so. Only an argument that they existed. Coming to the conclusion that something exists does not cause it to begin existing it just means we are aware of it's existence. We are currently not aware of the existence of any deity because there is no evidence of one. Many people believe deitys exist, but belief does not mean there is any that exist and is not enough to conclude that any deity exists. Evidence is needed. Does that clarify?

Call it what you want. Basically you have chosen to not live a discipline that others do, for whatever reason. There is no common experience there for you to fully appreciate whatever observations are made by those living a given discipline. That doesn't make you a bad guy, nor does it invalidate observations and experiences made by those living a discipline. Not sure what your point is here? That you're blind to the double standard you are displaying in your comments. I don't see the double standard. I think you are not understanding what I am writing.

You've chosen to let your experience with a fucked up belief system impact your entire view on an energy space that does exist, and is accessible to those who choose to investigate it. You might as well have written that in Klingon and I would have understood it the same. What "energy space"?

Call it what you want. Basically you have chosen to not live a discipline that others do, for whatever reason. There is no common experience there for you to fully appreciate whatever observations are made by those living a given discipline. That doesn't make you a bad guy, nor does it invalidate observations and experiences made by those living a discipline. Not sure what your point is here?

What makes you think I was referring to Christians alone? I wasn't. Were you raised in a faith? If so, which one? My mother is a Jehovah's Witness and that is what I grew up with.

Do you allow for a view of God that differs from the Christian God defined on dictionary.com? Now you are talking about spiritualism. I don't believe in that either.

Who is "they", and have you ever been part of "they"? I'm not making that claim, though I'm certain there are many Christians that are quite comfortable with their life. God bless them I was referring to the people you were referring to. Any experiment tha tis subjective, emotional and has results that can't be reproduced is a piss poor experiment. I don't see how believing in any god or deity how ever you wish to define god improves anyones life in a way that can't be done with out it.

Bottom line, those folks who discuss God have chosen to pursue a discipline in their lives, effectively "running experiments", that you have chosen not to pursue. That's ok, doesn't make you a bad guy. It shouldn't be surprising that you don't relate to whatever "observations" they choose to discuss/share. Just because you choose not to "run those experiments" does not invalidate their experience. They running piss poor experiments that can't be used to validate anything. It's all subjective and emotional and the results can't be reproduced. I don't see Christians as having any better life then I do. You will need to back up any claim that being a Christian will make your life any better.