PLD

That I will most definitely do. "Yes, officer. I can positively identify the deceased man as the person I saw attempting to steal my stuff." I'm sorry if anyone disgrees, but IMHO getting caught red handed is a capital offense. I will run to save my own life or that of my family, but I will not run to save the life of some dirtbag thief. And no, that particular life is not more valuable than my stuff.

That may be the case in Md, but not here in Ga.

Mike, I'll let you and Paul field this one, but I think Jeff doesn't understand your answer about George W because he doesn't understand salvation through Christ. Give him a nickel tour and I think he'll better understand why you are not capable of answering his question about George W. Philip

Ummm.... Deliverance was filmed in NE Georgia. The Chatooga and Tallulah rivers to be exact. I have a pic of me somewhere on the front porch of that shack.

My wife and I were hot tubbing even after after contractions started. Doctors idea to calm down what she thought were false contractions. Just keep the temps down (tepid/luke warm) and the durations short.

That was my thought. The smoky mountains, N. Ga mountains, etc.

For that very reason, I bought an 8x10 shed and moved all the gas, paint thinner, Raid, etc to the back of the yard. We moved all the medicine to top cabinets. We still have some stuff under the sink, but it's either just soap, or in spray bottles.

I cannot even image how bad it must hurt. And at your own hands? Devastating... The closest I have been to such tragedy is my in-laws. The buried their teen daughter (my wifes sister) after a tragic car accident. It's been 13 years and he (a very tough, street wise guy) still cannot talk about it without getting choked up.

Yes. Loyalty is a two way street. If they are in fact being deceptive about payment, then the door has been opened for you.

Now that is funny!

Oh man, I forgot about a beauty. 21' Ladder in the back of my pickup hanging out. Pre ladder racks, I always secured them by anchoring to the ladder near the tailgate and pulling to toward the cab via the in bed anchors. Going down steep drive and entering the street, the ladder gets caught on the trailer/skid. As the trailer/truck flattens out, the ladder gets loaded up like a huge catapult arm. When it finally breaks loose, the ladder springs forward (pivoting at the cab wall) and hits the cab, flips over the cab, and gets airborne before falling and removing the driver side mirror. If you stand in the bed, you can still see the parallel dents in the cab roof...

Got that tattoo also. Here's the cliff notes version: camping dark picnic table lantern need salt reach over lantern 3" circle scar, still says "Coleman" drink beer drink more beer drink more beer Just kidding about "Coleman" :)

I'll have to go and read it. I have read some of the young earth writings they are worthy of attention, although I think most of the "fossils up high" arguments are very poor. I don't dismiss anyones arguments based on their affiliation, unless it is affiliation with an obvious crackpot. In fact, I have very loose ties with the group that does ICR. I do read Christian literature on these topics. In fact, based on your knowledge of earth sciences I would anticipate that our reading "chart" looks something like this: Person Secular Christian Paul 20% 80% Philip 80% 20% Which may paint me to be a bit ignorant, but if you consider that most Americans christian reading list consists only of tracts left in the phone booth... avoiDANCE. <-- Very clever. Props for that one. As for my position, you must have passed it amoungst the bickering. I have been quite clear on most Q's. Just search back to some of the dialog between Mike and I. No, in fact please do not. Despite the fact that I dislike your style, your input is valid and needs to be heard by others. As for struggling, I'm not. I am a born again Christian quite comfortable in my fate after death. I believes that some parts of the bible are parables based in fact included to convey a message from God to man. The great flood being one of them. The genesis account of creation being another. In a nutshell, you and I probably agree on alot of things. We just disagree heatedly on some issues. I'm sure that you will ask how a man who needs facts and numbers so badly can I believe in the resurrection of Christ with almost no hard facts to back it up. I cannot answer that logically. I just do. Having read the account, and known/met followers, I have faith that the story is as told. Where then does God fit into creation? Without getting very detailed and technical, let's just say beforet the big bang. Are we an "accident" (your words)? I think so. I believe that an omniscient God was aware that man would come to exist from his actions, but that he probably did not directly guide the process. If you assume a non-omniscient God, then we was aware that LIFE would come from the process and would need to be dealt with. Why Genesis, then? To explain creation to people who lived in 4500 BC, roughly 6400 years before the study of physics began. I find almost frighteningly ironic that you and I hold very different opinions, but that you posed me with the same story that I use ALOT in discussion of faith. I use it as an example of how man attempts to predict Gods behavior in his terms.

And add some soap. Bleach does not cut dirt well.

Did that this week. Actually sat it down and latched it on top of the ball. I figured it out/remembered it about 100 yards for the house though. Not soon enough to stop the spoon from making a 1/4 gouge in the ball...

Me to. I hooked up chains and plug and drove away. When I felt/heard the jerk, I put on the brakes and the trailer snapped back into the truck. The ball socket went through the tag which still has a nice large hole in the middle of it.

Excellent research. I concede to your knowledge of the subject. Yes, I would be interested in the links for my own person edification. I will make comment, albiet relatively minor. The discrepancy between the "scientists" and the "members" is so large as to raise questions about the sample size and grouping of the participants. I would hazard a guess (WAG) that the membership of the NAS is far more liberal than the scientist population at large. Based on your readings, that is quite probably true. But, it doesn't explain the 40% (or 7%). Their silence is understandable. Science is about repeatable, testable, provable/disproveable hypothesises. Since God is neither testable or repeatable in any objective way he garners little press in scientific literature. And I was explaining why you don't get a more responsive audience (myself included) when you speak on matters of faith. Most Christians (you included) elect to use languange that falls solidly into the "less-responsive" category. If your goal is to educate the ignorant about your faith and Christ, you are working against yourself and the cause. What I don't understand is why you are so surprised when someone takes umbrage to your confrontational tone. If you had kept within the bounds of polite discourse, you would have never heard a peep about your post. Actually, I wasn't speaking about a specific conversation between you and another party. I was offering opinion and advice concerning your daily witness to others (conscious and unconscious). Even though the posting may have died down to 2-3 posters, there are many ears tuned into this dicsussion. And when you shift into "less-persuasive" mode, many of them tune you (and your message) out.

It could have been said about anyone, but it wasn't. You didn't say "based on the theory of a falleable, sin-prone men." You said scientists. And the inclusion of "often godless" makes it abundantly clear that you were not speaking about all men, but specifically about scientists. Clearly you have a prejudice against men of science based on your assumption that they are all athestic. I neither deny nor affirm it. And neither you or I have any valid data to support or refute such a claim. Which brings me back to my original point. There is no point debating a topic when your comments are peppered with claims that are nothing more than speculation. Any?!? Of course I do. Now if you want to address the issue at hand: Are MANY? Are MOST of them? Do I find that they are OFTEN? As I stated before I have no credible data to support my notion, but I would say that the theistic/secular beliefs of my science oriented friends runs about average with my non-scientist friends. Is your scientist friend an atheist? Look back. I have never asked you to prove anything. Your faith is your faith. I have however asked you and others not to make unsubstantiated claims and to discuss the issue without resorting to needless rhetoric. Rhetoric such as: "men who don't have a clue who created what they're studying" It really so hard say "men who are willing to base their lack of faith on evidence that I personally find to be insufficient." I might also suggest that those who seek to enlighten others about their faith take a few minuted and read up on another theory. This one being a psychological theory called latitude of acceptance. For those who would rather have the cliff notes version: non-persuasive: You godless heathens are too stupid to see the truth hanging right in front of your face. And you will burn in hell for your ignorance. Now, shut up and let me tell you the real truth.. less-persuasive: You are a nice person, but all you believe in is garbage and the people you look up to are godless heathens are too stupid to see the truth hanging right in front of their face. more persuasive: Your ideas are interesting, but I have found that my faith in God has made my home and family more fulfilling, warm, and loving. If you are interested, I can tell you about my experiences. Well, some of it was sarcasm (I was actually chuckling as I typed), and some of it was frustration. I was was overdue for a good old-fashioned hissy fit.

Good grief?!? The intent of Mike's comment was as clear as glass. To paint all scientists in a very negative light. If we are all sin-prone, then what was the point of inserting "sin-prone" before scientists? If we are all fallible, then what was the point of inserting "fallible" before scientists? If he intended to address only a small portion of scientists that are godless, then why did he use "often" instead of "rarely" or "occasionally"? Note: Often(adv): frequently or in great quantities; Editing the sentence to remove all the obvious (and hence rdedundant) faults of humans and correcting so as not to imply most or all scientists, we have this: "I'm not going to question God's word based on the theory of a scientist." Ok, that makes sense to me. But that is not what was said, or meant...

It wouldn't be so confusing if everyone used the right words. What you are speaking of is called abiogenesis. It is theory about the origin of life. All scientists are "sin-prone" and "often godless"?!? You can no more prove that than you can prove that I don't have a Canadian nickel in my pocket. This is why I abandoned this thread. Grotesque generalizations and indictments of people you have never even heard of, never met, and certainly never read their research. You guys can have this thread. Me and my satan worshiping, human flesh eating, perverted scientist friends are going to have some rituals at our lair and then go see if we can't find some cute little puppies to kill...

I've never heard that. I have heard "I have a headache", and "The kid's will be home any time" but never "I'm not a homosexual - it's only oral ***." As Jerry Clower would have said; "Darn brother, I don't believe I would have told that..." :lgsideway

Yep. The point was that failure to accept, even because of ingorance, results in a one way trip "down under"

What I am saying (in many more words) is that the price of inaction is so extraordinarily high (102k souls/day) that I cannot believe that God would be satisfied with anything less that 100% dedication to selfless service. Because of that, it is my opinion that anything less is to take God on your terms, on your time. Going way back to my original point, we all choose parts of the bible we believe are literal and parts we believe are illustrative. The bible said: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" You said: "I just don't believe that's what God meant" The bible said: "the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered" I said: "I just don't believe that's what God meant" You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either the bible is inerrant and it did literally mean "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" or it is open to interpretation by man . And IMHO, "Go ye into all the world, unless it is not cost effective in which case just send a check, and preach the gospel to every creature that is located nearby and conveinent" is man deciding what they prefer to do and then interpreting the word to fit their comfort zone. You're welcome. It was an exercise in introspection as well.

Not according to the bible that I, Paul, and Mike (I suspect) own. Failure to accept Christ (for any reason) means eternal damnation.

No, Mustard gas is the common name given to 1,1-thiobis(2-chloroethane). Chlorine gas is just plain old Cl2