text:
This conversation is closed.
Big bang is out!,
Lets look at the big bang from a distance. Outer space!, if you were to explode a large planet or sun, what would the pieces look like? Sharp, jagged pieces of rocks and debris, right??? The planets in our solor system are round and not sharp or jagged. Why? God!! He is the intelligence that magnificantly designed our place of existance. Imagine living on a sharp, jagged rock, you would fall off every edge that you walked over to. Water would run off the edges etc.... I have blown up stuff as a kid and never saw a piece of material perfectly round after detonation. Agree? God, jesus and all we have been taught as a child exsist. I believed as a child in Santa, the Easter bunny, tooth fairy but learned that my parents were all of them. Why is it that so many people still believe in god and visit Rome every year and many religous sites if they did not believe in a supreme being? Life after death....sounds crazy I know, but this cant be the only stop before the end. Why go through life to learn, live, suffer and die just to be eaten by worms and be forgotton unless, " there is more to it!!" Please comment.
Closing Statement from Dave McManus
Well, now that all the college educated scientists put their opinions in, I will say this. Yes, there is science behind every origin or birth of a planet, person, animal or what have you, but behind science, there is god. God allowed the science to take place to start the b.b or any other birth of a gallaxy, person, star, planet etc....but when god meets each of you down the road, you better tell him that you were always believing in him, just trying to figure out how he did it.. He may laugh and he may push the down button, but god is the real scientist that has figured it all out. You college people that have spent years exhausting theories, may never know the real answer when it has been in front of your noses all along!! ;-)
michel bessy
Nov 11 2013: Somebody remarks that if i need a cause for the world ,why not a natural cause?......And also why don t I apply the causality principle to God.? And finally why do I suggest 1 God and not several Gods? 1) I mean that the alternate sequence of causes and effects describes our spacetime universe and that chain of causes can t continue eternally.Indeed ,something coming from infinity never reaches its destination.So,the universe has to have a beginning ,which is confirmed by the Big Bang.Our spacetime universe comes into being at the Big Bang.But now what causes it doesn t pertain to the same continuum of space and time.It is a creative transcendence that is not subject to the limitations of space and time.So,it doesn t need a cause.It is uncaused.It is.You can call it John or transcendence or GOD! It s NOT a natural cause as it operates outside our world and it s supernatural in the sense that it is omniscient,omnipotent........2) Why not several Gods? Because ,in reference to Occam s razor principle,it s simpler to postulate 1 God than several though ,if the multiverse theory is correct ,you can suggest 1 God for each universe but ,once again,with Occam in mind,I lean towards the creation of 1 universe.
- +2
Nov 11 2013: Why not a natural cause outside space and time.
Big assumption that a universe creating agency is required.
I'm not sure cause applies before time
Big assumption a mind can exist with out a brain, without any matter or energy whatsoever
occams razor is not evidence or proof of one creative agency.
sure we generally look to avoid assuming extra complexity . But this principle is not proof of one god. could argue assuming a univerde creating agency is more co.plexity than a natural cause
in the end we don't know the answer. .
to assume agency is very speculative. it's just convenience to assume your cause doesn't need a cause.. it's actually the fallacy of special pleading.
michel bessy
Nov 11 2013: Natural causes and effects happen in our spacetime universe.By definition,a cause capable of creating a universe finetuned to be fertile is supernatural and owes nothing to chance;Indeed,scientists admit that such a complexity can t arise spontaneouly and to account for it ,scientists have to resort to the multiverse theory or to the creation of an infinite number of universes .Only ours would have hit the jackpot
- +1
Nov 11 2013: Your assertion that a supernatural agency that exists somehow outside time and space and is capable of making universes must exist and is the only explanation to explain the universe is is simply an assertion.
Logically speaking this looks like an argument from ignorance.
We have no way of verifying something outside space time, let alone a universe creator.
If the the universe was created for life, it's a bit of a failure.
99.99999999999999999999999% of it is inhospitable for life, even on this speck of planet 2/3 is water humans can not live on, and much is too cold or hot. And all animals live by eating other life. What a great plan.
You might say that the universe is this way because your god concept wanted it this way. A nice circular argument.
I suggest that as a species we don't have all the key points figured out down to t=0. We don't know. You can make assumptions that intuitively make sense for you, but that is not proof.
Yes magic can be used to fill any gaps, disease, lightening, earthquakes, origins.
I guess humans don't like doubt. We create explanations to fill the gaps. Science is based on doubting things, looking for evidence, not relying on intuitive explanations.
A magic being unsupported by evidence may fill the gaps satisfactorily for you. After all magic can be used to plug any gap and no evidence is required.
The physical constants, I guess we don't know why they are the way they are. However the more we understand the more it looks consistent with a universe that has net 0 energy and came from nothing. Certainly the physical constants are not evidence of god. Its just a question we have not answered and you plug with magic.
I hope you can see the distinction between evidence and jumping to a conclusion based on magic.
There may be universe creating beings, but there is no proof. Just speculation. What is intuitively satisfying for some, fails basic skepticism. And saying magic doesn't explain how anything happened
ThanksNov 11 2013: Michel, I would add if there was compelling evidence for god beings I would believe.
I just find it odd that an intuitive leap to magical gods to answer difficult questions is not obviously intellectually questionable.
I guess we evolved to assume agency. I guess once we have formed god filled world views we look to fit reality to that world view, and vice versa.
I would hope you can understand how some reasonably don't accept a magic god must have done it as reasonable answer not because there is evidence of gods or the gods doing anything, but because it makes intuitive sense to some, it fills the gaps, perhaps it fits their emotional beliefs.
To me, trying to clinically look at this, trying to suspend my predispositions and simply apply basic skepticism, logic and reason, it honestly looks like the uncaused cause argument is riddled with cognitive bias and logical fallacies.
I understand the physical constants, and questions of why the universe exists and is the way it is are baffling and on the surface saying a magic agency did it because it could and it wanted to may seem satisfying. Again we tend to assume agency when there is none (may of helped evolutionary survival I guess)
But I hope you can see this just pushed the questions back. Why did the gods make it this way. How did it do it. Did it have to be this way? What is god? Where did they come from?
From my perspective some modern god concepts look designed exactly to fill gaps like this. They are defined as being outside the reality we can test, but capable of making this reality. All powerful, all knowing, invisible. Magic. But in the end this no explanation of how they exist, how they do creation, how does their mind work without a brain etc.
I hope you can see why asserting a magical being is the only answer is not a convincing argument and just pushes the questions back.
obNov 11 2013: My understanding is the multiverse hypothesis is based on string theory. Experts can correct me. Scientist haven't resorted to it to simply plug a gap. They have followed a line of scientific inquiry.
Seems quite speculative to me, as is much at the cutting edge of science at any time.
Why assume if there are near infinite universes this would be the only one where life with minds similar to ours or better would evolve?
I'm happy with the position we don't know some things with reasonable confidence. Lets keep working on them.
Others assert magic is the answer. We've heard this before, and magic wasn't the answer. In the end saying it was magic explains nothing. You need to explain how magic works.
As far as we can tell everything we have reasonably figured out in the universe is explained by natural causes, not magic. Much that was attributed to magic, gods, spirits now has mundane explanations.
I leave the door open to gods, goddesses, spirits, immortal souls, demons, elves, faerie, other dimensions, alien abductions, afterlives, ghosts, telepathy, speaking with the dead, but am not aware of any compelling evidence, so am not in a position to believe.
Thanks for getting me thinking - obNov 11 2013: Michel, there are several assumptions in your comments.
1) you speculate about what was before the big bang. Thing is we have not the slightest idea.
2) You say, space and time is limited to our universe, but again, we have no means to know that for certain. Our space/time might be unique, but couldn't it be embedded in another space/time continuum ?
3) whether or not the birth of our universe had a cause is another thing we can't know.
4) God, Occam's razor doesn't even apply here because there is not even a reason to assume the existence of God. Actually, if you want to apply Occam's razor, the conclusion should be that there is no god.
Nidaa Awaja
Nov 10 2013: why do we try to squeeze every scientific theory to fit well into our religious believes. Theories are based on supported hypothesis. Yet there is still allot we don't know and are uncertain of ! Unless we reveal every single fact about the universe then we should bother ourselves with this. I see no contradiction between believing in god as a creator and believing in the BBT. It might just be the way god let things happen !
- +2
Nov 10 2013: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet Act 1, scene 5, 159–167
Joan Osborne - 'One Of Us'
http://youtu.be/B4CRkpBGQzUNov 10 2013: Nidaa,
Some want to deal with uncertainty a certain way, and insist on their certainties being certain, rather than really based on what they choose to believe. This could be part of wanting absolute authoritative control over issues and the rights that conveys in particular cases. Curiously the authority is bound and has little control over issues, for they have to declare what happens to be or lose their authority. An math authority who claims that 2+2 = 5 quickly losses their authority status among those who know the truth of the matter. The thing is that with uncertainties it can be a bit complicated determining with certainty uncertain stuff, and it may not be needed.
It can be relevant and useful to validate that what one thinks to be corresponds to what happens to be; then again it can be irrelevant and useless. What one thinks to be could involve what doesn't happen to be because its a delusion or a vision. Depending on which happens to be the case what one ought to do is different. Sometimes (when delusional) one better recognize what happens to be and validates that what one thinks corresponds to it (this is to understand what happens), sometimes (when visionary) it's the other way around, one ensures that what happens to be corresponds to what one thinks to be (like when constructing a building according to the vision the designer had) . Of course sometimes its a bit of a dance between the two. Thing is that the dance becomes a struggle when both want to lead all of the time according to their individual pace. To flow acting-reacting-andticipating moves is more fun.
Nov 10 2013: It is very clear what is certain and what is uncertain. And each should remain this way.
Nov 10 2013: indeed
for those who know, its very clear which is which; still its worthwhile validating and/or ensuring that each remain the way they ought to be remain... we well now and always doing what ought to be done.Nov 11 2013: Why add gods or goddesses to the explanation of there is no evidence of them existing.
little gods might be responsiple for gravity or holding atoms together.
You can assume invisible magical agency to just about anything.
suggest we have progressed because we follow the evidence. If you want to believe in invisible agency perhaps within a culturally indoctrinatedtheistic frame work that contradicts other religious beliefs equally unsupported by evidence that is your choice.
I personally find it strange people don't question the validity of their theistic beliefs when there are thousands, if not millions of contradictory supernatural beliefs.
I guess the natural impulse to assume agency and cultural programming and social connection often outweigh reason and basing beliefs on evidence.
Nov 11 2013: Obey,
I too find strange how scientists don't question the validity of their theistic beliefs in science and its ways especially when presented with evidence to the contradictory of their beliefs. consider that the god of science is chance evolution... I have observed how those who oppose the inquire into the truth generally fear and dislike what the truth may reveal... this applies to the scientific, the religious, the organizations, the states, the individuals. Those who truly know the truth welcome the inquiry into the truth for then everyone would learn of the truth...
Nov 11 2013: The majority of scientists I work with are not theistic.
In a country where about70% have some religious beliefs.
I guess there are explanations for why people believe our follow mostly cultural belief systems.Nov 11 2013: Obey,
I perceive that the notion I put forth was hardly noticed. Again consider the following notion : scientists believe in their methods and the data while refusing to recognize what they believe in or the fact that they believe in something. What I am stating is that each and every scientists be a theistic... because they satisfy what constitutes being a theists when one considers that the scientists god be their methods and the data.
I posit that what one accepts as true boils down to what individuals choose to believe... I realize that scientist's stand will likely disagree with that; claiming that science accept as true what the experimental facts indicate. What they have not noticed is the underlying belief of believing in the experimental facts indicates something .
I am working to show you how scientists believe, while refusing to recognize that they believe; what they believe is a bit of a separate issue... In a way your response and the rejection of what I am stating reaffirms what I am saying, Evidently to me you don't not see it before, now you may have seen it, will observe your response for an indication if you got the point I sought to convey or some other point... will let you know of what I perceive for your consideration...
Nov 11 2013: I guess I have a different definition of what a god or goddess is, what theism is, what science is.
Science and religion involve humans that does not make science a religion.
All humans hold believes, make assumptions about the universe, that doesn't make all these beliefs religious.
Its a bit like saying all languages are English.
I suggest what we believe is not quite a choice. I don't choose to believe the kettle is hot.
I can't force myself to believe in this or that religion. I may be convinced. I may try to follow a religion. I may try to pray to this or that deity but in my heart I might still have doubts.
We are humans. Humans tend to have beliefs about the universe. We look to confirm these beliefs, especially the deeply help foundational emotional based beliefs. We are uncomfortable with doubt.
Science and skepticism seems to be the best method we have discovered to address our natural weaknesses and understand the nature of reality and make technology that works. I'm yet to hear of someone praying themselves to fly interstate. Whereas planes work. YEs it is down by humans, with bias but the need to rely on evidence generally comes through in the end.
I guess I'm saying a belief based on evidence is not equal to a belief not supported by evidence. Both are beliefs but not all beliefs are equal in how reliably they conform to reality, or the confidence we might have in them based on the nature of the claim and supporting evidence.
PErsonally I'm not sure I chose to reject my religion. EVentually I just came to realise the core tenents were not justified, just like all the other religions. I lost a lot of friends when I eventually came out, but I was not comfortable living a lie .
Maybe I chose to question the claims, but I'm just intellectually curious. Maybe I was born more skeptical than others, or maybe my education trained me that way or both.
Yes I prefer claims supported by evidence. Is there more reliable approach?Nov 12 2013: Obey,
I suggest ist a bit like saying all languages are model maps and someone insisting english isn't a model because it uses words rather than maps.
Actually, you do choose to believe the kettle is hot...or cold... Some beliefs are harder to change than others still one can change what they believe to be, especially when they endeavor to ensure that their beliefs correspond to what actually happens to be... I like to say that humans are bound to believe while free to choose what to believe... chose wisely them beliefs you embrace for some may constrain and choke while some may embrace and allow you to do quite a bit...
Some are so uncomfortable with uncertainty that they rather believe in 'whatever' than recognize and venture into the unknown. Then there are those who thinker with the unknown and break and smash things up just to see what they can find and even how destructive the stuff can be. Hopefully they will not end up blowing up the planet or contaminating with deadly stuff.
At the end you ask: Is there more reliable approach? (you had just said "Yes I prefer claims supported by evidence").
Yes there is a more reliable approach which involves reliance in perfect 100% valid claims ... I prefer these especially when 'evidence' is so prone to errors, omissions, distortions, misinterpretations.
Nov 13 2013: Is it a conscious choice to decide the kettle is hot after touching it.
I guess their is the assumption that are senses are reliable.
How Much is instinctual.
I guess ants sense heat but don't make a conscious decision that something is hot.
just thinking out loud but perhaps there are primal or unconscious beliefs and intellectual beliefs that may or may not overlap.
e.g. someone may profess to believe in this or that good concept but in their heart have doubts.
Or intuitively lean to agency and his while intellectually recognising these beliefs are suspect.
I guess humans are subject to instinct and reason , conscious and unconscious. Perhaps different beliefs at different points on the various continuum s.
still it's odd to think I chose not to believe in gods. Intellectually and socially I tried to believe but in my heart I had deep unwanted realisation Christianity and later all religions were most likely man made etc.Nov 15 2013: Just to sum up some of the issues with asserting a god must be responsible for the origin of the universe, your generic uncaused cause.
First to assume agency is required is essentially an argument from ignorance.
second if you accept agency is required for the origin of the universe, then the agency and realm it exists in also needs to be explained. It is the fallacy of special pleading to assert the universe requires agency creation but he universe creating agency doesn't need a cause.
it's another argument from ignorance to assert the agency be a single being. We actually know agency is required to design and create cars. However a car ids not designed and manufactured by a single agent. A car is not a universe, but there seems no sound reason or evidence I'm aware of to assume a singular agent.
I suggest we have no compelling evidence that a mind can even exist outside of a brain or potentially a physical construct like a computer.
we know very little about what can and can't exist outside time and space. Seems very speculative and convenient to simply assume a universe, creator exists outside of time and space.
just like assuming an agency capable of causing disease, lightening, floods, tides, the diversityof life, etc must be the explanation for these phenomena.
it's kind of circular to say the cause of A is an A creator, and then essentially attribute magical properties to explain why this agent can not be detected, and how it achieved the phenomena.
interesting people don't usually dwell on how the universe, creator created the universe.
Also some say how can something come from nothing.
I note if the was a god in some magical realm then you assume a god could exist out side time and space why not the preconditions for the universe without agency. And how can a god make something from nothing. Magic?
I note the we understand the more it looks like this universe is consistent with one that comes from nothing. Net energy of 0
Nov 15 2013: These and many other arguments should be enough to convince any rational thinking person that believing in a God is not different from believing in the existence of little green men from Mars or Shrek.
Nevertheless, this irrational behavior is not limited to intellectually challenged folks but is also exhibited by otherwise intelligent people.
Question, what causes people to believe something that makes no sense at all even after only superficial reflection on the topic ?
But that's probably a topic for a new thread ;-)Nov 15 2013: OBn1,
You stole the words from my own mouth.Nov 15 2013: Obey,
I will respond wondering to who are you directing your post
some issues related to the origin of the universe, - generic uncaused causes
Is agency required as an essentially argument? Considering the notion that agency is required for the origin of the universe: considers that one thing not the other… this also applies to the next issue: Is it the fallacy of special pleading to assert the universe requires agency creation but he universe creating agency doesn't need a cause?
When we assert the agency be a single being AND a single being is the agency... well that is quite logical. Just because some stuff require multiple actors does not mean all stuff require multiple actors. A singular agent may be all that the agency requires.
Noticed the shift move to the mind and where it exists... some suggest specific locations to conjecture their case with the caveat that others have the burden of proof before accepting for consideration a different location.
Back to the origin, if we know very little about what can and can't exist outside time and space it's very speculative and convenient to simply assume some conjecture for a particular case with the caveat that others have the burden of proof before accepting for consideration a different case.
Assuming an agency capable of causing disease, lightening, floods, tides, the diversity of life, etc must be, is what drives the quest for the explanation as to what causes these phenomena. It is a Non sequitur argument to hold that knowing that A causes something to happen will lead to not dwell on how A causes it to happen. Of course, saying it be so and it being so are distinctly different stuff. Some say all sorts of things to distract us from focusing on the key issues.
how can this be?
what can this be?
What is it?
Why is it?
Where did it come from?
If you assume consider and think 'that' then why not assume consider and think 'this'? Well I suppose its...
Nov 16 2013: Esteban,
The origin of the universe does not have to involve an "uncaused cause." Besides, why could there be no natural "uncaused causes," for example, in the form of some basic natural laws?
Agency, if meant to be an intelligent being outside our reality, is a nonsensical proposition. Every intelligence we truly know about requires a physical form. Where would this intelligence proposed reside? Why should we consider such a thing so far removed from anything that we know?
Yes, it is a fallacy of special pleading to propose that some agency, outside of this universe, and who created this universe, does not require a cause. If cause/effect goes beyond our universe, there would be no reason that an uncaused cause had to be right at the creation of our universe. If cause/effect is bounded to their universes then the uncaused causes would have to be right here, and reasonable thinking would lead us to think that such uncaused causes are some basic natural laws.
If we know little about what can and can't exist outside of tie and space, then speculating intelligent magical beings is among the worst things we could so. It's mere fantasy.
Assuming agency drives research, but assuming intelligent being agencies does not drive research.
Nobody is trying to distract us from those questions. I'm a scientist. I do care about those questions. I have to work hard to get students to understand why those are important questions. I truly don't understand why would you think that we would not want you to think about how could something be, what could it be, what it is, why is it, where did it come from. I truly see no relationship between rejecting gods as "explanations" and whether we should or should not think about those questions. Something is very wrong about your thinking here.
Nov 16 2013: Entropy just a few seconds
Why should there be a natural cause rather than some other cause?
Why should we consider such thing? good question why consider what you'r claim vs what someone else's claim?
As you said "IF cause/effect goes beyond our universe..." Big IF...
Evidently IF this is true Then This is true
Under the case you present Yea reasonable thinking would lead to what you said
Under the a different case which would correspond to what Actually happened... who knows in such a case where reasonable thinking would lead to...
Indeed If we know little about what can and can't exist outside of tie and space, then speculating about it this way or the other is a bit meaningless... anything could be right and wrong... of course whomever was actually right and got it right would be actually right and gotten it right... What drives research are individuals beings decisions that act and seek something ... got to post thisNov 15 2013: ...for a similar reason as to why some insist on 'this' instead of 'that' being the case ; it could be because 'that' makes more sense to do. I would say wonder why one and why the other? Sure it may just be that there is no agency no meaning, no logic, we just happen by chance and one way or the other way its all the same. That being so why would someone insist on 'this' rather than 'that'?
how can a god make something from nothing? Well just ask Him…
I note that the more one understands this universe the more one knows where it actually comes from. Holding its from nothing and just chance seem to have less of a chance to be right .
Nov 16 2013: Esteban,
Why would it be either intelligent being or chance? Why can't there be many many other options. Do you really think that because atheists with a scientific bent reject the gods "explanation" (it does not explain anything, ever), they therefore think that the only option is chance? Do you think that what we describe as natural laws are pure chance for example?
You build your case on the basis of a false dichotomy. Since it seems up to whatever we can imagine, I see no reason to have it at just one god, let alone at any specific god. Why not many gods? Why not transdimensional beings rather than gods? Why not stupid but powerful beings? Why not natural causes?
If you think carefully, you will notice that chance alone has never been the proposition. If you think even more carefully you will notice that there's plenty of alternatives besides gods and pure chance, many of which would not have intelligent beings behind anything.Oct 31 2013: I am pretty when the big bang 'happened' it didn't send out planets and stars with everything on them instead it sent out large quantities of atoms which then over billions of years formed the planets we know today. I don't know exactly how this happened but I suspect collisions and gravitational pull is what formed them.Oct 29 2013: I'm not sure how well you understand the bbt.
The bb, formation of stars etc is very different to blowing up stuff.
You couldn't look at the big bang from a distance because space as we know it come into existence.
There is no distance outside the space that expanded.
Overall I'm not sure if you are serious and this is a muddled stream of thought reflecting a lack of understanding or making fun
Also don't forget Gravity and why that force would cause matter to form spherical shapes.Oct 26 2013: Your significance in this life will be in proportion to the significance you place, not on your self importance, but your involvement with your fellow humans and with what else nature, has afforded your passage, as brief as it may be. Gods and religions have no justifiable place in an intellectual arena, except to toy with those less gifted and subject them.
Nathan Cook
Oct 25 2013: Origins . Its all about origins.if you had amnesia I'm pretty sure you would try and put the puzzle of Where you came from back together.Oct 24 2013: Dave, you make no sense so I'm not going into much detail.
- +1
Just one thing though. Did you ever see molten iron ? Does that look jagged ?
Does this hint help ? No rethink your comment about the sharp and jagged pieces you are visualizing after a sun explodes.
Ah, and about the afterlife. Just because you think there must be something after life, doesn't mean that there is something. There is a difference between belief and fact.
Oct 24 2013: Please dont go in to detail. You would only confuse the topic. Im sure you dont believe in "god" or you had something to do with our exsistance and just not telling us because you seem very informative about our exsistance utilizing such small, but to the point sentences, but hey....thanks for the insight!!
Oct 24 2013: I'm glad I was able to help you ;-)
michel bessy
Oct 20 2013: Let s take stock of the situation.As soon as we come into this world we are confronted with insuperable mysteries that neither science nor philosophy can solve! Why is there something rather than nothing? how do life and consciousness emerge from inanimate matter? What s the point of emerging from this gigantic universe,of living a nanosecond to return to nothingness? Even Occam s razor principle fails to provide an answer.Indeed,it postulates simplicity,snccinctness,parsimony and urges us to select among conflicting hypothèses that which makes the fewest assumptions.This principle has been used successfully to justify uncertainty in quantum physics.Apparently,it doesn t work for our universe as we can logically assume that NOTHING is SIMPLER than SOMETHING! Something demands a creative act and a supernatural being.Hence the appeal of religions and the necessity of a god . Not being susceptible to the trappings and dogmas of religions which to me are nothing more than superstitions,I do believe in a GOD to account for our world.Our spacetime universe is ruled by causality and necessarily has a beginning however distant in time it might be..All scientists now think that our world was born 13.4 billion years ago in a BIG BANG.Could it happen by chance out of nothing?I don t think so.It required a primary cause that is uncaused and so eternal,and all powerful.It gave rise to the laws that explain the extraordinary finetuning of a universe climbing the ladder of ever increasing complexity.That being said,it doesn t solve puzzling enigmas such as the presence of EVIL.One explanation can be that to be free man may choose among several courses of actions.OBEsthat sometimes attend NDEs support this thesis as experiencers report a being of light asking them what they did with their life and showing them the conséquences of their actions!.Nevertheless,we can assume that,being all powerful,god could have created a free man choosing good!
- +1
Oct 20 2013: Fully agree with you Mike, the big question is why did God not create people that could only do good. Why did God create people in the first place?? We are not here just to be entertained and have a good time.
We believe we were created with the means to return God's love, or to not return it, in freedom. Love can only exist and have value if applied and used in freedom.
Humanity was created to become heavenly angels, so God (who is love itself) can love others outside of Himself, to become part of them and make them happy.
The way that was done, creation, is just details. If anyone tries to impress others with 'this is how nature did it' I just see that as a way out to becoming spiritual. For whatever reason that road is taken, is not good and, to me, does not make sense.
Maybe you don't mind me sharing with you this approach to creation. My expression is that God created the universe from His love. That approach shows many relationships, attractions, and parallels on many levels.
The booklet is the 'story' of creation that I very much support, at least the part I understand :)
Oct 21 2013: Centuries ago men believed the earth to be a plane with the sun circling around it. If people were to see (at that time) a simple lighter would have cried "Magic" or "Miracle". The fact that one doesn't understand everything is not proof of god, it's just proof of inadequate culture.
Oct 21 2013: As you say:
--"The fact that one doesn't understand everything is not proof of god,"--
Neither is it dis-proof of God.
One of the strongest points I tried to make is that any proof or evidence lessens our freedom of choice what to love.
That's why there is not one single post anywhere on this site or on any single forum on this planet, that can proof or provide evidence of the existence or non-existence of God.
'God protects our human freedom of choice, as the apple of His eye.' E. Swedenborg.Oct 24 2013: Adriaan, it's not the non believer's job to dis-proof god but the believer's job to proof him.
What would you think about somebody asking you to dis-proof the existence of the tooth fairy ?
Oct 24 2013: If you've read my posts it should be clear that you have nothing to worry about regarding proof.Nov 4 2013: Why would it be the believer's job to prove to the non believer what the believer knows?
If the non-believer chooses to reject the truth and not to believe the truth that the believer tells that's the non-believers business and responsibility. By the same line if someone chooses to believe a lie considering it as truth because 'someone' said it was true, well it's their business and responsibility. BTW the statements validity does not change because of the proof given... statements validity depends on the congruence between what is claimed and what is regardless of the fact that one can prove what is.
Adriaan ... the poof or evidence or knowledge does little to our freedom to love for one can freely choose to embrace or reject the truth or something else.Nov 11 2013: Et sure there is no moral imperative for believers to convince others about what they claim to know.
just that people claim to know lot of things without compelling evidence. some claim to know Allah is real, or Jesus I s god, or Mormon god, or Moonie god, or the Hindu goods or nature spirits, ancestor spirits,. In the past people claim to know Zeus, Thor, maxim, or the great juju were real.
I respect people's right to believe what they want. Just accept beliefs like these with no evidence, that can not all be correct all belong in the same. Basket.
No argument you can believe what they want. I would argue that they really don't know if their interpretation of their experience is correct.
Surely logic and reason indicates at best only one of the mutually exclusive beliefs could be correct.
we can redirect the freedom to believe unreasonable beliefs but we don't have to respect these sorts of beliefNov 12 2013: Obey,
One does not have to respect nor embrace the truth nor the evidence... it is what it is... one chooses to embrace and respect what be or reject it... infinite upon infinite possibilities and just one better way ... one truth... those who get it right get it right .... the rest well they didn't get it right... though many believe they did...Oct 25 2013: Adriaan, I don't worry about proof but the lack of it. The only thing I see in your posts are lots of assumptions that lack any scientific foundation.
Oct 25 2013: If you are looking for scientific foundation, great. There is an extremely detailed book about the relationship between our spirit and our body. E.g. how our spirit, as will and understanding, have a relationship which is, to the tiniest details, exactly like the interaction between our heart and lungs. Our digestive system is precisely as our way to except and manipulate information. And possibly reject it without even trying...
The title is The Natural Basis of Spiritual Reality by Norman Berridge.
Here is a link to a book that explains what the Tabernacle of Israel means. It is a detailed layout, including material and even colours and how items were placed and used, of the spiritual human mind. Our mind has three layers, and how they interact (if we activate them). There is even a reason behind the camping and marching order of the Israelites etc.
Just saying "The Big Bang is out" does not mean much without some alternative. So if there was a creation, we should have some idea why and how. The literal words in the Bible don't do justice to that. However, their spiritual level do in every detail, literally word for word, The creation story has absolutely nothing to do with how humanity started. That story is an index or overview of the whole Bible. Which is entirely about our human, spiritual, start and development. Humanity and each individual is on its way from 'Egypt' to 'Canaan'.
This is the first volume of 12 giving a word for word interpretation and explanation. For some this may all be proof there was no Big Bang.
And questions are encouraged.Oct 25 2013: Adriaan, the problem already starts with making the mind something like an organ. What we call mind is just the product of countless chemical reactions in out brain. The moment our brain stops working, no mind, no consciousness, no soul, nothing is left. It's really that simple.
Oct 26 2013: For the many millions of people that have had a Near Death or Out Of Body Experience, the reality is reverse. The mind is not a bodily organ, just as 'the Law' is not just letters.
Our mind consists of our will and our understanding, and as said earlier, their relationship and interaction on the spiritual level is exactly the same as how our heart and our lungs interact.
When you drive into a friend's driveway and he sees your car, when he says "There is Harald" does that mean you are your car??
The way you see yourself and life, you're saying 'yes,' it's that simple.
BTW death of the body is not going to change your mind. During his 29 years of daily spiritual experiences Swedenborg met several people that had died and were convinced they had not died. One he asked "then how come you are standing 2 feet of the ground??" The guy looked down and went nuts :)Nov 11 2013: Ab I'm not aware of any evidence that proves nde or oobe aren't hallucinations..
I understandthere is some testing underway but nothing conclusive yet.
I have friends who claim to have had oobe while on drugs. I believe they had an experience but just a hallucinationOct 26 2013: Adriaan, people believe what they like to believe. I just find it astonishing that apparently you and millions of others have no problem believing in afterlife, god and other esoteric stuff, but I assume that if somebody tells you he seriously believes in the tooth fairy, you'd think he's nuts.
But et the end what is the difference ? In either cases we are talking about things that have no scientific foundation of any sort.
Btw, there are explanations for OBEs without having to resort to the supernatural or spiritual.
I don't understand your story about the car. The only thing I can say is that what you call the mind or consciousness are the results of chemical reactions in our brain.
The human body is amazing in the way it works, but then, considering that evolution had billions of years for trial and error, it shouldn't surprise us that much.
Oct 26 2013: --"but I assume that if somebody tells you he seriously believes in the tooth fairy, you'd think he's nuts."--
It would depend on the age of the talker. At a certain age ideas are used to make it easier for us to decide to behave properly.
--"I don't understand your story about the car."--
That does not surprise me at all. So if we change our mind, is that done by our neurons, the chemicals in our brain, or what?
So you do not believe in a free will either.Oct 26 2013: ok, I should have clarified that I was talking about adults. Thought that was obvious in the context.
Now that this is clarified, can you tell me why a belief in god is considered something acceptable while believing in the tooth fairy (talking about adults) would be considered a bit weird ?
Where do you draw the line ?
A human organism doesn't function in a vacuum. We do whatever we do as a result of outside stimulus through our senses. Changing your mind is not a single activity but a series of brain processes that end with you changing your mind about something; And yes, all these processes are electrochemical in nature.
About free will: it depends on how you define free will.
I believe, and we demonstrate constantly that we can make free decisions. We choose what to eat, what to wear, where to work, what TV program we watch, etc.
So in this sense we are free. But at the same time their are limits to our freedom. These limits are defined by laws of nature and the limits of our own organism.
Oct 26 2013: You see no difference between an entity that creates a universe, and the tooth fairy?? I guess not. I draw the line between what I consider is divine, and what is created by a finite person.
You seem to believe that it all happens in the brain.. and call them "series of brain processes." What does start those processes and what is part of any of those processes??
Again, and I'm glad you say we're free to choose, if we change our mind, what does the changing? The neurons, the wiring or what?Nov 11 2013: Ab I guess the point is there is just as much evidence for the tooth fairy, Zeus, maduk, Bacchus, Odin, Allah, the 9000 universe creating demons of bunkum as there is for your universe creating god conceptOct 26 2013: No, I don't see a difference. Both are products of imagination as far as I'm concerned.
To make a claim credible, you have to show proof or at least evidence.
Yes, everything does happen in the brain. Take out the brain and all bodily functions will cease.
As I said, changing mind is not like pressing a button. You are changing your mind because you might have received (through your senses) information that brings you to a different kind of conclusion which leads to change of mind. So, on one hand you have external stimulus and on the other the internal processing of those stimuli. You can't say it happens in this neuron or that wiring as you can't say the engine of your car runs because of its cylinders or valves or injection. All components are necessary to make the system work.
If you are interested in how the brain works I suggest you read some books about neuroscience.
Pretty interesting stuff and a field growing rapidly.
Oct 27 2013: But in our cars we can say what changes when we back up, or causes a change in speed.
But you have chosen to accept only the words of those that say "The brain does it all", while you can not say what it is.
I rather believe in a system that can be explained, in detail, and has existed for thousands of years and makes sense. That we are just our brains and that micro-particles 'decide' our future, that does not make sense to me at all.
BTW in your profile you say you're an Agnostic. You sound more like an Atheist.. You may have to change your neurons :)
Any way it's been nice talking to you
Have a nice weekend.Oct 27 2013: The workings of a car a simple compared to a brain. If we knew everything we wouldn't need anymore scientific work done.
Science is work in progress. Scientists don't just sit back on their laurels and accept what somebody said thousands of years ago.
If that were so, people would still believe that the earth is flat and the sun revolving around the earth.
I cannot detail all the physiological processes that happen in the brain, but there is abundant literature you can consult if you really have interest to learn.
As to agnostic: agnostic means I don't know and open to receive new information and knowledge, adjusting my view of reality accordingly.
Not knowing, is not the same as not existing, but as long as there is no evidence for the existence of something it's not worth to lose sleep over it.
Maybe, somewhere unicorns actually exist. I'm open to this possibility. Just show me proof.
The same is true for god and any other products of human imagination.
You too, have a great weekend !
Nov 4 2013: Haraid
With the beliefs you hold its going to be complicated for you to openly receive certain new information and knowledge with which to adjust your view of reality. Certain beliefs distort what is perceived to maintain said belief even when confronted with the evident truth (some still chose to reject it). I am almost certain you seen examples of this in others. The question will be if you will give up what you believe and do what ought to be done, or will maintain what you believe doing what ought to be done without appreciating it.
Hoping that the following experience will help you... A while back I was in a dialogue to discover something based on something rather than the individuals beliefs preferences related to something. Given the situation and belief differences I had a plan to create a shared model that would then be used to show how a certain belief was reasonably untenable while an alternate belief was more reasonably acceptable. The idea was to then proceed to explore the implications of holding the alternate belief. To do this I resorted to a shared belief which we agreed upon. The thing was that this shared belief was linked to certain reasonably untenable belief so that its existence or 'inexistence' corresponded to this shared belief existence or 'inexistence'. For clarity sake the shared belief was 'the existence of identical copies of knowledge within separate minds'. To this day I prefer to think that 'identical copies' are inexistent, though I have managed to accept the notion of the existence of 'identical copies'. Unfortunately my counterpart in that dialogue could not accept this notion, I think it had to do with initial starting conditions. Realizing how difficult it has been to give up and accept this insignificant belief provided me with some appreciation for the challenges involved to give up and accepting other more significant beliefs.
At that time I also learned to translate when someone who is wrong tell me I am wrong.Nov 5 2013: Esteban, what you propose is called argumentum ad ignorantiam, (argument from ignorance), a typical logical fallacy.Nov 5 2013: Funny, Esteban, it's exactly the other way around. I'm fighting against unfounded beliefs.
Exactly because I try to avoid a world view that is based on blind faith in beliefs for which existence there is no evidence, I think I'm open to new information and knowledge.
However, hearsay and anecdotal evidence are not enough.
As to your story of the 2 identical copies of knowledge, I don't really know what to do with it.
Why don't you believe that 2 identical copies in 2 different minds of the same piece of knowledge exist ?
Take a simple example: The earth is round. This is knowledge and I'm pretty sure that it is identically for the vast majority of minds.
If I misunderstood your point, please clarify.
Nov 5 2013: The notion of the copy being identical to the originals just seems plain wrong... the copy is the copy and the original is the original. Likewise the notion that what I think actually corresponds to what you think 'exactly' just seems plain wrong (unless we ensure thats the case).
Harald do note that your position believes in something while denying it, it all boils down to what each choose to believe in. For example you seem to have considered that what I proposed is called 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' rather than being factual feedback for you to consider, process and integrate. Your response proves to me how 'With the beliefs you hold its going to be complicated for you to openly receive certain new information and knowledge with which to adjust your view of reality. Certain beliefs distort what is perceived to maintain said belief even when confronted with the evident truth (some still chose to reject it). I am almost certain you seen examples of this in others".
Lets do an exercise of logically analyzing those statements.
1- Have you seen examples of Certain beliefs distort what is perceived to maintain said belief even when confronted with the evident truth (some still chose to reject it).
2- Do you concur that - Certain beliefs distort what is perceived to maintain said belief even when confronted with the evident truth (some still chose to reject it) - is a factual valid statement?
3- I am letting you know that : With the beliefs you hold its going to be complicated for you to openly receive certain new information and knowledge with which to adjust your view of reality. As I said from your response it seems evident to me you have validated what I said (without appreciating it).
Most likely your beliefs will lead you to argument and reject my comments rather than engage in an enriching dialogue... for the record I hope that you do engage in an enriching dialogue. Those who believe that they don't believe have the hardest time dealing with their beliefs.Nov 5 2013: Esteban, ok let's see if I understand what you mean.
Yes, a copy always is a copy hence it is not identical to the original. However, the information content is the same. For example. you copy a page from a book. Obviously the copy is physically different from the original page, but the informational content on the page didn't change.
There is a definition for "argumentum ad ignorantam" and you asking me to prove the non existence of something is exactly what this fallacy is about. It's not something I have "chosen"
If you claim something to be then it's you who has the burden of proof and not me having to disproof it.
As to your questions:
1) sure, happens all the time even in the scientific community
2) yes again, you can call that bias
3) Your comment clearly proves that you don't know what beliefs I hold. You don't even explain what exactly you are referring to. Specify.
Your last paragraph is just a groundless assumption. Make a point and explain what you mean and I will engage. Just don't expect me to read your mind ;-)
Nov 6 2013: Harald,
Just to clarify the informational content isn't the same thought both share similar arrangements that in principle enable the reproduction of identical ideas. Note that the physical stuff does not contain ideas its just an arrangement with a set code to recreate the ideas. Many consider words as conduits of meaning when they just are arrangements individuals use as maps to recreate meanings.
(I did just realize that the "argumentum ad ignorantam" referred to the position you choose to hold, rather than apply to the position I held). The critical point here has to do with the burden of proof. You assert that if I claim something to be then it's me who has the burden of proof and not you having to disprove it. I simply state that if I claim something its up to you to investigate it or not to accept it or reject it, to validate it or not, to believe it or not, to prove it or to disprove it. What you choose to do with it is up to you and your responsibility and burden. We could get into wether it is my responsibility to convince you to change or your responsibility to convince yourself to change... In principle you would have to prove why you claim its my burden but that distracts us from focusing on the topic at hand.
your claim "Your last paragraph is just a groundless assumption" seems quite evident to me to stem from what you hold to believe. From my side what I said is actually based on observations that lead me to consider something will happen. Your response provided some reaffirming evidence, though I am glad you choose to engage further into exploring the point I made. Does labeling it as 'a groundless assumption' facilitate rejecting my comment? does that label lead to engage in an exploratory enriching dialogue? I could have considered such notion as an insulting demeaning remark from you though I consider them produced by your beliefs to derail the interaction. With the belief you hold that I have the burden of proof to convince you...Nov 6 2013: ... its going to be complicated for you to openly receive certain new information and knowledge with which to adjust your view of reality.
I think I got your belief about the burden of proof in line with what you hold to believe. Validating one of the notions I considered you believed. Yes I did not explain which beliefs I was referring to and that wan't necessary to make the point. Hopefully this will suffice and lead to more enriching interchanges. BTW there are other beliefs and stories you seem to hold which can hinder seeing what be going on... I see that Adriaan sought to show you and from the interaction I saw its quite evident to me that the stories you hold didn't allow you to see what Adraan was telling you.Maybe now you will reconsider my first comment to you here... as feedback for you to reconsider what Adriaan stated using a different more open inquisitive attitude...Nov 11 2013: if the universe needs a cause, Why not a natural cause?
Why jump to some supernatural agency.
if some supernatural agency was involved how do you know there is only one. Could be 17 or 17 billion working together.
what caused these causal agents.
seems fallacious to say a universe needs a cause but universe creators don't.
If there were gods then there wasn't actually nothing.
if a universe can't come from nothing how can gods make one from nothing.
To sum up resorting to supernatural agency is akin to saying it was magic. And magic things can do anything. Resorting to magic explains nothing. You actually end up with more questions. Like how can a mind exist without a brain. How can a universe creator exist and there be nothing.
Nov 11 2013: Obey,
It seems you are asking : why jump to this cause rather than that cause?
How about because the cause be the cause... is it natural is it supernatural... it is what it is... regardless of the notions one would like to cultivate.
You state : if some supernatural agency was involved how do you know there is only one...
Well evidently because of the given premise in the conditional put forth ... agency implies just one... agencies implies more than one :-)
I understand it seems fallacious to say certain things, though that does not change the facts involved. you said if a universe can't come from nothing how can gods make one from nothing... well they are gods and the universe would come from them. In principle they could create matter and anti-matter and produce two identical universes in slightly different phases such that each existed in parallel domains.
With the right knowledge I am sure one can do just about anything ... some would call it magic some would called applied knowledge some would call it other things... yea we can end up with more questions... and science sort of tends to feed and work that way too... so shall we call science magic too?
Nov 11 2013: So basically your gods are defined as being able to do anything.
mean while there is not a single shred of reliable evidence any gods or goddeses exist.
in fact they are usually defined as being invisible most the time. Almost like they don't exist.
I just don't find resorting to invisible magical gap filling agencies very convincing.
Others do, and they are welcome to their contradictory mutually exclusive beliefs as long as they accept they are most likely wrong.Nov 11 2013: Obey,
Basically, some see the evidence that exists and ...
- consider it as evidence 'for'
- consider it as evidence 'anti'
- consider it as not evidence (though it is evidence of)
I will go out on a limb hoping that you will perceive the following in good light...
To sort of reflect back at you what you said...
Well, as long as you accept that you are most likely wrong, you are welcome to your contradictory mutually exclusive beliefs.
Personally I would rather we focused on being right and mutually supportive inclusive believes that resort to seeing what is as it is even when it's invisible ...
Nov 12 2013: I guess there are observations and there are feelings and then there is the interpretation.
I guess scientific explanations and general skepticism looks for evidence to support claims, and evidence against the claims.
To me that seems more reliable and reasonable than jumping to conclusions or fitting the facts to billions of different religious or spiritual beliefs.
I believe in invisible things. I can not see atoms or far away galaxies. I can not see gravity or electromagnetic forces. I can not even see light beyond the visible spectrum. But I believe in these based on evidence. Can you see all the different god concepts are not supported by this type of compelling evidence.
What you are calling evidence is "my all powerful universe creating being that can not be tested" could fill these gaps. I guess we have a different definition of evidence.
Invisible gods that create universes and invisible unicorns that provide gravity can not proven not to exist. They can be used to explain phenomena because its magic, and magic can do anything you want hypothetically. We are just a long way from proving they exist and the did what it is claimed they do.
I'm interested in what is reasonably demonstrated to conform with reality, what is supported by evidence. While open to various supernatural explanations and beings, even beyond what humans have so far imagined, I try suspend belief until there is supporting evidence.
I also accept different propositions have different levels of confidence and supporting evidence. Whatever is the cutting edge, the wave front of scientific understanding is more speculative than what is been supported by evidence and observation over decades.
Just to clarify, your asserted god concept universe creator is one of many with no compelling evidence. They can not all be correct. At best one is correct. The odds are your specific god belief is wrong. Open to evidence that supports your version, but currently nothing compelling.Nov 12 2013: Obey,
We seem to have a different definition related to the validity of claims,
---You seem to uphold the validity of the claims depends on what can be proven by the evidence
--- I uphold that the validity of the claims depends on what happens to be the validity of the claims.
Under these conditions
you will only hold true what you can validate to be true
I will hold true what happens to be true
Of course I am leaving aside the issue of how does one determine is something is true or false for thats a bit of a different issue (that has to do more with your position than mine) ...
A simple example may illustrate the differences...
lets say there is a tunnel with a sign that states "if you enter the tunnel you will not come out alive"
Then as you approach the tunnel someone comes close and tell you 'that sign stated the truth. a person will try to deceive you into entering to find the truth and telling you that I hidden a treasure inside, never enter that place"
a little bit latter another individuals comes close and tell you "if you enter the tunnel you will find out the truth. someone hid a treasure there and put up that sign to scare people away, sometime even approaches and tells people to never enter that place"
Under the conditions above its likely you will seek to validate the truth only to discover it was true. Me I would likely walk away and forever live with the uncertainty if there was a treasure there or if I would had died there...
Personally I prefer to live and discover other treasures
Jimmy Strobl
Oct 19 2013: As always I don't know where to start... so I'll just leave this link and hope that you can get some questions answered... http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/category/science-technology/
- +1
Lejan .
Oct 17 2013: 'Lets look at the big bang from a distance'
- +1
This is good advice in any case ... :o)


text:
Comment: Re:A first (Score 1) 694 694
by Antisyzygy (#37995380) Attached to: Bill Gates Advocates Tax On Financial Transactions
Which is sufficiently vague enough research to not mean shit. Populations will most likely either A) stabilize significantly below the UN threshold due to some major resource shortage or B) surpass it significantly. The truth is we can accurately estimate how much oil is left, and we can see that our renewable resources are lagging behind enough to be worrisome. Its only pointless to worry about distant horizons to someone who is more concerned about the "now" than the future.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Diversifying the Workplace by Employing People with Disabilities
18 July, 2013 02:00 PM EST [14:00] | (1 hr) | Time Zone Converter
An Employer Discussion
Sign In to Register
This webcast will be a dynamic discussion between two employers successfully recruiting and onboarding employees with disabilities. With facilitation by the President of the National Organization on Disability (NOD), Toys"R"Us working with NOD's Bridges to Business project, and the Fifth Third Bank working with the Project Search model bring vastly different approaches with a broad look at the available intelligence on the topic by The Conference Board.
Join us for this informative look at best practices in the final frontier of diversity and inclusion in corporate America.
Audience: This webcast will be informative for hiring managers, diversity and inclusion leaders, and those interested in organizational effectiveness.
This activity has been submitted to the HR Certification Institute for review.
The Conference Board is registered with the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) as a sponsor of continuing professional education on the National Registry of CPE Sponsors. State boards of accountancy have final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. Complaints regarding registered sponsors may be submitted to the National Registry of CPE Sponsors through its website: www.learningmarket.org.
For more information regarding administrative policies such as complaint and /or
refund, please contact our offices at 212 339 0345.
Peter Linkow
Peter Linkow is a Senior Fellow, Human Capital at The Conference Board. In this role, Peter supports the Human Capital Practice which includes The Conference Board Human Capital Exchange™, research, conferences, webcasts and pr... Full Bio
Jeff Kellan
As Vice President, Distribution Operations, Toys"R"Us, Inc., Jeff Kellan is responsible for overseeing the retail and e-commerce distribution center network, where merchandise from Toys"R"Us, Inc. manufacturers is processed... Full Bio
Mitch Morgan
Mr. Morgan was named Assistant Vice President, Leadership Development Program Manager in 2007. He is responsible for the day-to-day operations of three Project SEARCH programs at Fifth Third Bank located in Madisonville and Cincinnati, Ohio ... Full Bio
Carol Glazer
Carol Glazer joined the National Organization on Disability (NOD) in July 2006 as the Executive Director of its National EmployAbility Partnership. She became NOD's President in October, 2008. Under her leadership, NOD has developed importan... Full Bio


text:
Matt Agase
Phone: 847-832-1937
Matt Agase earned a promotion to account executive in September. He joined the Wolves in June 2012 as the ticket sales and service intern. The 2012 University of Illinois graduate majored in Sport Management and served as a marketing and promotions intern for Illinois' athletic department in 2012. The Chicago resident also worked as a ticket-office assistant at Illinois from 2009-12 and served a sales and marketing internship at Northwestern in 2010.


text:
I think a lot of ppl are not giving Robbie enough of a chance in this fight. People have always said Rory was the future of the ww division after gsp. Well Hendricks smashed the shit outta gsp but Robbie also smashed Rory. Robbie also has some sick power to answer Hendricks power.
I'm really looking forward to this fight. I think this fight is a lot closer than some ppl make it out to be.


text:
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Santa Arvind comes to town...
28 comments:
- Hari TSV said...
I would advise all in India to be a bit careful while going gaga over Santa Arvind.
I have many reasons.
Some of them:
- January 6, 2014 at 1:17 AM
- Bharat Divecha said...
- January 6, 2014 at 10:38 AM
- Bhojpuria Mard said...
- January 6, 2014 at 6:55 PM
- Dibyanshu Pandey said...
Has anyone thought, after all who is an Aam Aadmi? Check out if u agree with it..
- January 7, 2014 at 11:09 AM
- CapriHeer said...
Happy Birthday Shobha Madam :)
- January 7, 2014 at 1:18 PM
- Pooja Rathore said...
Dearest Ma De,
Happy Birthday to you,wishing you the very best in life....have a fab year ,shine always....
Lot of love to you from heart!!!
- January 7, 2014 at 2:27 PM
- Hari TSV said...
Shobhaa! Aap Jiyen hazaron saal aur uske har mahiney ke din ho pachaas hazaar!
- January 7, 2014 at 2:28 PM
- MONICA said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- January 7, 2014 at 5:58 PM
- Appa Balwant said...
Hello Shobhaji,
Happy Birthday ...
I wanted your photograph to be displayed on this page:
I am creating this free informational website in Marathi.
Thanks in advance
- January 7, 2014 at 5:59 PM
- MONICA said...
many many happy returns of the day mam! may not only this but your whole life fill with alot of happiness and joy:)
- January 7, 2014 at 6:29 PM
- DV said...
Hi Shobhaa
Wishing you a very Happy New Year. I love both your blog & books. When is "Never a Dull De' coming out. I live in NZ and cant find it.
- January 8, 2014 at 2:15 AM
- DV said...
Hi Shobhaa
Wishing you a very Happy New Year. I love both your blog & books. When is "Never a Dull De' coming out. I live in NZ and cant find it.
- January 8, 2014 at 2:15 AM
- Payam Sudhakaran said...
I am writing on behalf of Democratic World mag being published from Delhi. They want to feature you in their cover story in the next issue. I am based in Hyderabad. Could you kindly spare some time for me? I will send you a questionnaire. Please respond me to firstname.lastname@example.com
- January 8, 2014 at 12:52 PM
- Kavita Sharma said...
Thanks You for Sharing This information blog I am bookmark this blog, Need some more post
See my site Web Designing In Dwarka
- January 8, 2014 at 1:55 PM
- Latha said...
Good post. Arvind has refused the bungalow offered to him though he lives with his wife (unlike Modi), 2 children & parents. Include a guest room & even a common man needs 4 bedrooms with this kind of family. And then there is a party office attached to it & a lawn to meet the common people. But Arvind would go for a smaller one. Like Rajiv Gandhi he has also refused security for him & his office whose "nateeja" we saw recently. The man is too simple for his & his party's security & convenience. When pompous netas have palaces, this 'working CM' doesn't have even the necessities.
- January 9, 2014 at 6:46 PM
- rajkishore gorla said...
Belated birthday wishes Madam..... Only time will tell if the Aam Aadmi remain the same ! Hope good days for Indian Politics .
- January 9, 2014 at 8:28 PM
- Shruti Verma said...
Thank you for sharing this information and Very good looking blog.
I am bookmark this blog need some more post.
Flats in Dwarka
- January 25, 2014 at 1:48 PM
- Shree Sharma said...
Thanks You For sharing This Interesting Blog
Packers and Movers
- March 2, 2014 at 4:25 PM
- Manoj Kusshwaha said...
i support kejriwal he is a sound of change
- March 10, 2014 at 10:39 PM
- brahma a said...
Thanks for nice posting about
Packers And Movers Dwarka
- April 11, 2014 at 4:08 PM
- brahma a said...
Thanks for nice posting about
Packers And Movers Dwarka
- April 11, 2014 at 4:08 PM
- neha verma said...
nice one post
Packers and Movers in Mumbai
- June 6, 2014 at 6:00 PM
- bewafa barme said...
****hot mallu aunty photos****
****aunty photos without saree****
****aunty photos****
****hot aunty photo album****
****tamil aunty mulai photos****
****mallu aunties photo gallery****
****aunties photos****
****tamil aunty pundai photos****
****mallu aunties photos****
aunty photos without saree
****aunty photo album****
****mallu aunties picture****
****tamil aunty mulai pundai photos****
****hot aunties pundai photos****
****tamil aunties pundai photos****
- June 7, 2014 at 5:07 PM
- Radhika Bansari said...
Sleeping Mom Secretly Fucked by Her Own Little Boy, Indian Mom Sucks Her Son's Big Cock
Indian Father Forced Ass Point Fucked Her 14 Years Virgin School Girl and Forced To Sucking Her Big Black Dick
Naked Indian Girls Sucking Big Dick, Indian Girls Fucked Her Ass Point
Pakistani Sexy School Girls First Time Sex With Her Teacher
Pakistani Beautiful College Girl Expose Her Tight Boobs Picture
Indian House Wife Mallu Bhabhi Sucking Penis Blowjob Image
Chubby Indian Girl Licked Dildo Toying On Bed In Her Juicy Pussy
- June 13, 2014 at 9:27 PM
- Siva Cool said...
A truly motivational and life changing book
This book is really a good book which shows us right path. but i read
one more book named "ONE BOOK FOR LIFE SUCCESS" which is truly
motivational and life changing . .The writer has described in PlainEnglish with lot of examples which is easy to understand...For More
Please watch the videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biORjS8ngv0
YouTube video
- July 2, 2014 at 11:25 AM
- Aditi Jain said...
Nice Blog, Thank you for sharing this nice information about nice topic on your blog, it is very informatics info thank for this blog
Big Height
- August 28, 2014 at 6:22 PM
- Badal Rain said...
movers and packers noida
packers and movers in gurgaon
packers and movers in bangalore
packers and movers noida
packers and movers gurgaon
- February 11, 2015 at 4:24 PM
- arish h said...
Thanks for sharing this post. really this post have good stuff, people always look for posts like this, I really appreciate your effort for writing this post. packers and movers in jaipur . packers and movers jaipur
- March 12, 2015 at 6:27 PM


text:
All ingredient and allergen information was obtained from product vendors. Zaxby's
Franchising, Inc., its franchisees and employees do not assume responsibility for
a particular sensitivity or allergy to any food provided in our restaurants. Please
be aware that all foods are prepared on shared equipment that may contain traces
of allergens. We encourage anyone with food sensitivities, allergies or special
dietary needs to consult their physician before consuming any of Zaxby's products.


text:
Famous Kansans Trading Cards - Images
Related Content
This online encyclopedia of Kansas history provides stories about the people, places, and topics that are unique to our state. Discover more!
Kansas Historical Society
Established in 1875, the Historical Society is a state agency, which safeguards and shares the state's history. We touch Kansans lives every day through our programs like the Kansas Museum of History.
6425 SW 6th Avenue · Topeka, KS 66615-1099 · 785-272-8681 · kshs.org · Contact the webmaster
© 2015 Kansas Historical Society


text:
DetailsReduce sediment, rust, scale, dirt and more from up to 12,000 gallons of drinking water! The Culligan CW-F-D whole house water filter replacement cartridge is built to fit heavy duty Culligan whole house filtration systems that use 9-3/4 inch x 2-1/2 inch cartridges or any brand system that uses standard 9-3/4 x 2-1/2 filter cartridges. Replace every three months for cleanest tasting results! This model ships as a 2-pack. Genuine OE parts. Order these Culligan CW-F-D whole house water filter replacement cartridges online by 4pm CST today for same day shipping.
- Ships same day
- Reduces impurities that can cause flavor and quality issues
- Keeps your water flavor and quality at peak levels!
- Genuine OEM Product
The CULLIGAN-CW-F-D is comparable with the following part numbers
46776 155186 Ace 46776 American Plumber W5W Ametek 583228 Ametek CW-F Ametek Kleen-Plus CW-F Bruner CW-F CW-F CW-F-D CW-F-D CW-F Do It Best 426658 Flotec FPWF-RS3 HF-150 HF-160 HF-360 Kleen-Plus CW-F Master Plumber 583328 Master Plumber 583-393 Omni Regular OmniFilter CBF1 OmniFilter CBF20 OmniFilter CBF3 OmniFilter Deluxe OmniFilter OB1 OmniFilter OB3 OmniFilter OB5 OmniFilter OT2 OmniFilter OT32 OmniFilter R12 OmniFilter R14 OmniFilter RS2 OmniFilter RS2-DS OmniFilter RS2-SS OmniFilter SFM2 OmniFilter SFM3 OmniFilter Super OmniFilter Total 2 OmniFilter Total Plus OmniFilter U24 OmniFilter U25 OmniFilter U26 OmniFilter U400 OmniFilter U450 OmniFilter U500 OmniFilter U600 OmniFilter U700 OmniFilter UC2 Pentek 155186 Pentek CW-F Plymouth CW-F Teledyne Pik IR20W US Filter CW-F Whirlpool WHCF-WHSW 1019132
Replacement for the Following UPC
70033663005135 033663005136
ContaminantsThis product reduces the following contaminants:
- The CULLIGAN-CW-F-D does not reduce fluoride.
Package Qty 2 Used In Brands Culligan Manufacturer's Id CW-F-D UPC 033663005136 Advertised Size (in) 10 x 2-1/4 Actual Size (in) 9 7/8 inches (length) x 2 1/4 inches (outside diameter) Actual Size (cm) 25.0825 x 5.715 Media String Wound Polypropylene Primary Filter Media Polypropylene Materials of Construction Core: Polypropylene Filter Life (gallons) 12,000 Filter Life (liters) 45,424.92 Filter Life (months) 3 months Micron Rating (Nominal) 10 Operating Temperature (°F) 40 - 165 Operating Temperature (°C) 4.4 - 73.9 Flow Rate (gpm) 10 Flow Rate (lpm) 37.854
Customer ReviewsNo reviews have been found


text:
Shallow Round Glass Serving Bowl
- Summary
A clear glass serving bowl is an entertaining essential, perfect for showcasing the colors of a fruit salad or the freshness of greens. The profile of this glass bowl is wide and shallow, making for an elegant silhouette.
- Mouth blown clear glass.
- Dishwasher safe.
- 4 3/4-qt. cap.
- Made in Poland.
- Dimensions & More Info
- 11 3/4" diam., 4" high.
- 4 3/4-qt. cap.
- Shipping
Shipping Information
This item is shipped from our warehouse by UPS to arrive within five business days of our receiving your order.
Shipping Rates
The shipping rate varies depending on your order total and shipping destination. View Shipping Options and Charges.
Next Day Delivery
For an additional charge of $17.50 per address, we can expedite delivery to most destinations. This service is not available for some oversize items, items shipped directly from the supplier (including perishable and custom-manufactured items), out-of-stock items and items to be shipped outside the contiguous 48 states.
Orders recieved by 9:00 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Thursday will arrive the next business day; orders placed Friday thorugh Sunday will arrive on the following Tuesday.
Return Policy
At Williams-Sonoma, we take great pride in the quality and craftsmanship of our products. Attention to design, materials, safety and construction are our priority. Upon receipt, please inspect your purchase and notify us of any damage; we will arrange for a prompt replacement.
If within 30 days, you are dissatisfied for any reason, you may return your purchase for a refund of the merchandise value. An original receipt or gift receipt is required for all returns and exchanges. Returns with a gift receipt will be refunded in the form of a Merchandise Credit for the amount indicated on the gift receipt. Returns with original receipt will be refunded in the original form of payment, cash and check refunds over $100 will be issued as a company check (may take 14 business days from time of request).
We cannot accept returns on monogrammed, personalized, special-order items, custom upholstery, items shipped direct from the vendor, or on items damaged through normal wear and tear. Final sale items ending in .97 or .99 cannot be returned.
For returns of items purchased from your Williams-Sonoma Gift Registry, we will gladly provide a refund or exchange for the merchandise within 90 days of your event or within 90 days of purchase, whichever date is later. View Full Return Policy.


text:
I have more than my share of pet peeves about language usage, none greater than the ubiquity of the phrase "I could care less" when what people are actually trying to say is "I couldn't care less" (it's one thing to say something wrong, but something else entirely to say the opposite of what you're trying to say, for frack's sake). But whenever I'm feeling doctrinaire, I think of "February," and ask myself whether I really think anyone ought to be saying "Feb-ROO-air-ee." Then I get sad thinking about how in 50 years, we'll all be saying "nuke-yoo-lar" like a nation of George W. Bushes. The point is, pronunciation and usage are constantly evolving, and there's only so long you can hold out for what's correct against what's common.
Which brings me to "data." Although I agree with Kevin Drum about most things, I found out today that he and I have different ideas about this word:
But I won't rest until they — and everyone else — accept the plain fact that data should be treated as a singular noun in all circumstances. The worst offenders here are generally in academia, and I've always wondered if they actually talk the same way they write. (I mean in casual speech, not prepared remarks.) I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone say "data are," but lots of diehards with PhDs still use it in print.
I say "data are," and I've heard other people (academics, admittedly) say it in casual speech. This probably has to do with the fact that I did spend a portion of my life in academia, studying something that is also commonly rendered as a singular when in fact it's a plural: media. "Media" is the plural of "medium," just as "data" is the plural of "datum." So when I talk about "the media," I conjugate it properly, as in, "The media are stupid."
That being said, I'll grant you that I feel a twinge of discomfort every time I use "data" as a plural. It's the feeling that comes from knowing that although you're right, you also probably sound pedantic and pretentious. So I guess if Kevin's campaign to stamp out any plural usage of "data" succeeds, I won't be all that upset.
Just don't say "I could care less" in my presence.
Fri, 2012-07-06 14:06
Use of the singular verb for "data" has the imprimatur of no less an authority than the writers behind the Oxford English Dictionary. "In modern non-scientific use, however, despite the complaints of traditionalists, it is often not treated as a plural. Instead, it is treated as a mass noun, similar to a word like information," they have opined. Saying "the data is" is a perfect illustration of English as a living, breathing thing; when was the last time anyone said "the agenda for today's meeting ARE," even though the datum/data, agendum/agenda pairs follow the same Latin rules for singular and plural.
Joseph Auclair
Fri, 2012-07-06 15:09
TGAP Dad
Sat, 2012-07-07 18:53
Sat, 2012-07-07 20:14
"But whenever I'm feeling doctrinaire, I think of "February," and ask myself whether I really think anyone ought to be saying "Feb-ROO-air-ee.""
You ought to speak to about 60 million Brits. That's the way the word is pronounced.
leegomes' point that the singular use is supported by the OED is spurious. He cites the OED as saying "In modern non-scientific use, however, despite the complaints of traditionalists, it is often not treated as a plural." That's not exactly a ringing endorsement; merely a comment that a particular illiteracy is widely used.
Myself, I've no fundamental objections to illiteracies: they're one of the ways in which a living language evolves. However, I think there's a confusion in this particular case. The word "data" can be read as both a plural and a collective noun, depending on context. As a plural it should certainly take "are" and as a collective noun it may often reasonably take "is". (The same goes for "media".)
Like yourself, I normally hold Drum in high esteem; here he's being an idiot, though, and even more of an idiot in thinking himself Jolly Witty to maintain intransigence. His claim that no one ever uses the construction "data are" reveals either that he's keeping the wrong company or that he's simply hearing what he's expecting to hear rather than what people are actually saying (a perfectly normal psychological behavior). Although I'm not an academic and mix only rarely with academics, I have a job that requires me to be sensitive to language use; I would guess that 90% of the people I deal with normally follow the contextual principle mentioned above.
You may also like:
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)


text:
Naturally Ageless Smoothing Eye Cream
Product Actions
Our natural eye cream is clinically proven to smooth skin and help diminish the appearance of crow's feet. Formulated with Pomegranate, one of nature's most powerful antioxidants, to help fight free radical damage. We've added some of the best natural ingredients to our smoothing eye cream, such as Magnolia and Horse Chestnut Extracts, to target specific signs of aging. When the skin around your eyes is smooth and revitalized, you are Naturally Ageless.
• Clinically proven to smooth skin and help diminish the appearance of crow's feet
• Made with Pomegranate, one of nature's most powerful antioxidants
Product Reviews
Pomegranate Oil(Punica granatum) — Pomegranate Oil, from the Punica Granatum tree, contains several polyphenols and anthocyanidins (pigment that gives certain fruits their dark red colors), which make it one of nature's most amazing antioxidants.
Water, helianthus annuus (sunflower) seed oil, lanolin, olea europaea (olive) oil, cetearyl alcohol, glycerin, alcohol denat., coco-glucoside, oenothera biennis (evening primrose) oil, aesculus hippocastanum (horse chestnut) seed extractmagnolia grandiflora (magnolia) bark extract, acmella oleracea (para cress) extract, punica granatum (pomegranate) extract, tocopherol, glucose, silica, fragrance, xanthan gum, glycine soja (soybean) oil, sodium chloride, glucose oxidase, lactoperoxidase


text:
Top Searches:
Horoscopes |
Salaries |
Washam |
July 22, 2013
Links: Australian Glass and the Pacific Northwest at Museum of Glass
Wsu Master Gardeners of Pierce County at Master Gardener of Pierce County
The Shape of Things by Neil Labute at Dukesbay Theater
All events for today »
Submit an event | All events
The night of March 13, 1997, strange lights were witnessed flying over the Phoenix sky. For years the lights have remained a mystery, which have led to a number of hypotheses, ranging from UFOs to military exercises to weather balloons. But there was something more. That night, under the cover of strange lights in the sky, a "man" appeared in Phoenix unleashing a series of mysterious events. Who was he? Where was he from? Why did he come? This is the story of the Appearance of a Man and the Phoenix Lights Mystery.
Rated No Rating .
Visit the official site
Cast: Katherine Stewart, Slade Hall, Richard Glover, Thomas Basham, Michael Tassoni
Produced by: Daniel Pace, Michael Tassoni
Directed by: Daniel Pace
Written by: Daniel Pace
Running time: 1hr 46min
Opens: Sep 11, 2009 PHX


text:
In a competitive job market, new graduates need all the help they can get to translate their solid education and practical experience to that first full-time job. Launched last spring, the RavenReady program is unique to Anderson University and its students, and it's helping Falls School of Business grads get a step ahead.
Participation in the RavenReady program is volunteer-based, and anyone involved in the Falls School of Business may participate. The RavenReady program provides an opportunity for additional professional development experiences while in college. It also allows students to add experiences to their résumé, which will help to differentiate them in the job market.
The RavenReady program is a partnership between the Anderson University Career Development Center and the Falls School of Business. The program is one of the first in the state to be approved by the INdorsed Career Ready Graduate program.
With 120 students currently involved, the numbers are only expected to rise as the program continues to develop and new classes of students move through FSB.
"I believe we have a very unique program with the RavenReady certification process. As students take the RavenReady program seriously, they will be prepared for professional development and for their future careers," said Dr. Mike Weise, professor of marketing and director of undergraduate studies at the Falls School of Business.
To complete the program and be certified as RavenReady, students must accomplish a sequence of 18 professional development experiences designed by the FSB and AU's Career Development Center. To fulfill the requirements of the program, students must complete items on a checklist, such as meeting with a career advisor, creating a résumé and updating it annually, completing a minimum of one internship related to the student's major and interests, and participating in one FSB domestic or global field trip.
Once a student finishes all 18 requirements, they will earn a "Falls School of Business Certificate in Professional Development." This distinction is valuable to students, as employers may choose to recognize the professional development and preparation of the students who chose to go above and beyond minimum requirements.
"As a graduate of the Falls School of Business, I can understand both the value and the need for a program such as RavenReady. With such high competition for jobs, it is imperative that students do all they can to set themselves apart from their peers," said Addison Witt, a 2012 AU graduate.
— Kimberly Werline is a senior from Anderson, Ind., majoring in communication arts. Werline is an associate with Fifth Street Communications®, writing on behalf of the Anderson University Office of University Communications.
Anderson University is a private Christian university of 2,600 undergraduate and graduate students in central Indiana. Anderson University continues to be recognized as one of America's top colleges by U.S. News and World Report, The Princeton Review, and Forbes. Established in 1917 by the Church of God, Anderson University offers more than 65 undergraduate majors and graduate programs in business, music, nursing, and theology.


text:
David and Charles Koch, the billionaire oil baron brothers Greenpeace exposed last year for spending millions to gut environmental protections and fund junk climate change science, are at it again. This time in Wisconsin.
According to the New York Times, the Kochs are major financial backers of Governor Scott Walker and are using one of their front groups, Americans for Prosperity (AFP), to support the Governor's efforts to strip public employees of their right to have a say in the workplace. This is an extension of the 40-year strategy laid out by soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Powell in 1971, which outlined the playbook for the Chamber of Commerce that worked to take over the courts, schools, Congress, and create a network of right-wing think tanks like the Cato Institute (started by the Koch Brothers) and front groups like Americans for Prosperity (also funded by the Kochs).
After filling the courts with Supreme Court justices like Justice Roberts, the activist judge who recently allowed unbridled corporate spending in elections, the corporate right like the Kochs are working to cut union ranks by up to 50% through state-by-state attacks on public employees, attempting to neuter the one force in electoral politics that could counter these big spenders.
If Americans for Prosperity sounds familiar, it should – they're the group that has been touring the country for years telling people climate change isn't real. Today we have found out that AFP is upping their work in Wisconsin with a $350,000 ad campaign to support Governor Walker's attack on workers' rights.
For the Koch brothers and AFP, this is all about undermining the democratic process. And this is why we all must stand with the public employees of Wisconsin and people everywhere who are trying to make their lives and communities better by taking peaceful action. Whether it is fighting for safe working conditions and a liveable wage or fighting to replace coal plants with clean energy, at the core we are fighting for the democratic right of all people to stand up to make the world a better place.
Phil Radford is an American environmental, clean energy, and democracy leader serving as the Executive Director of Greenpeace USA. He was a co-founder of the Democracy Initiative, served as the Founder and Executive Director of Power Shift, and is a board member of Green Corps.He has a background in grassroots organizing, corporate social responsibility, and clean energy.
(Unregistered) Libs
So does this right to participate in the "democratic process" you speak of apply to tea party supporters engaging in a peaceful rally or doe...
So does this right to participate in the "democratic process" you speak of apply to tea party supporters engaging in a peaceful rally or does democratic process only apply to people you idiots agree with?
February 23, 2011 at 21:54
Flag abuse
To post a comment you need to be signed in.
(Unregistered) Philip Radford
It absolutely applies to every person, but should not apply to corporations, which are not people. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has ruled that companies are people and should be able to spend unlimited amounts to get people elected or unelected. Add to this the efforts to wipe out labor, which is one of the few counterweights to unfettered corporate power and unregulated business, and we are in for more financial, environmental, and other crises. We need balance, all ideas at the table, and not unfettered corporate power.
February 24, 2011 at 8:17
Flag abuse
(Unregistered) 317 Main Street
I am an Old Hippy, a tree hugging Hippy from the Baby Boomer's Era. I have been trying to help by Re-use, Re-cycle, and Re-place. Where I live in Ma...
I am an Old Hippy, a tree hugging Hippy from the Baby Boomer's Era. I have been trying to help by Re-use, Re-cycle, and Re-place. Where I live in Maine, Irving Oil Company has been cutting down our forests in the Alagash, and close to where I live but they don't care about re-planting trees here. Is there a Peaceful way to stop Irving Oil from Raping our land of the trees that give us the air we breath every day?
February 26, 2011 at 8:13
Flag abuse
1 - 3 of 3 results.
Are you sure you want to remove this comment?
Are you sure to report this comment as abuse?
Blog entry
All comments on the Greenpeace blogs are moderated before they appear on the site, and this takes time. We appreciate your patience and ask that you refrain from posting the same comment repeatedly. When posting a blog comment, please be respectful and follow our policy.


text: Community Osterhus, Searing, Kramer and Hanna win in Linwood; Parker and Budde defeated November 6, 2012 at 11:30 pm With three town board supervisor positions open, only one incumbent kept his seat in Linwood in the Nov. 6, 2012 election. Winners were Phil Osterhus, Carol Searing, and Edward Kramer. Town clerk Judith Hanna barely held her post....Read More


text:
Will the cable work with an iPhone 5 in a 2002 Suburban that has headphone connector in back seats of car and with my Bose "audio in" jack on my box?
iPhone 5 compatibility with Bose "boom box" as home stereo used with iPhone 3G? Cable connect to "audio in"?
Cable connect to headphone jack in back seats of 2002 Suburban? No headphone jack/aux input in front seats.
- Asked by Jean B from Half Moon Bay
Monster iCable 800 for iPhone and iPod
Product No Longer Available
No Answers have been submitted


text:
Customer Reviews
3 Item(s)
- love this stuff! Review by rachel jefferson
Quality Value Price
It doesn't irritate my skin like other acne products and it works- fast! I use it with the healing gel and my skin has been looking great! Even if i get a random zit here and there, they are here and gone really! highly recommend!
(Posted on 3/16/10)
- GREAT! Review by Amanda
Quality Value Price
I LOVED THIS!!! i just wish it was a little cheaper and i would put this on at night! i noticed when i put it on during the day my face would get a little flakey but i noticed quick results!
(Posted on 11/18/09)
- Amazing treatment Review by Elizabeth
Quality Value Price
This product is a fantastic face treatment for pimples! I received a sample and with in 2 days, I saw a huge difference in my skin, pimples reduced, redness gone, and better tone in my skin...crazy but true! I use it at night, and also in the morning under makeup if i have a new flare up, great product that calms, gets rid of zits, and does not over_dry skin! A must have!
(Posted on 11/13/09)
See More Reviews
3 Item(s)


text:
Brain Cancer Center - Las Vegas, NV
Las Vegas Oncologist Doctors for Brain Cancer
Type of Physician: Oncologist
What is a Oncologist?
A subspecialty certification by the Board of Internal Medicine; the oncologist specializes in the diagnosis and treatment of all types of cancer and other benign and malignant tumors. These subspecialists decide on and administer chemotherapy as well as consult with surgeons and radiotherapists on other treatment for cancer.
Specialty: Oncology (Medical)
Common Name: Cancer Doctor
Oncologist Doctors in Las Vegas *
Cancer Consultants
Nevada Surgery & Cancer Care
Comprehensive Cancer Ctrs Of NV
Las Vegas, Nevada
Las Vegas is the most populous city in the U.S. state of Nevada, the seat of Clark County, and an internationally renowned major resort city for gambling, shopping and fine dining. Las Vegas, which bills itself as The Entertainment Capital of the World, is famous for the number of casino resorts and associated entertainment.
Brain Cancer
Brain cancer facts
Other Related Brain Cancer Articles
Emergency Contact for Las Vegas
Nearby Las Vegas Hospitals *
Horizon Specialty Hospital
Valley Hospital Medical Center
North Vista Hospital
University Medical Center
Sunrise Hospital & Medical Ctr
Healthsouth Rehab Hospital
Desert Springs Hospital Med Ctr
Kindred Hospital
Progressive Hospital
Kindred Hospital
Harmon Medical & Rehab Hospital
Desert Willow Treatment Center
Southern Nevada Adult Mntl Hlth
Red Rock Behavioral Hlth Hosp
Mike O'callaghan Federal Hosp
Montevista Hospital
Complex Care Hospital At Tenaya
Spring Mountain Treatment Ctr
Mountainview Hospital
VA Southern Nevada Hlthcare Sys
Spring Valley Hospital Med Ctr
Summerlin Hosp Med Ctr
St Rose Dominican Hospital
Southern Hills Hosp & Med Ctr
Centennial Hills Hospital Med C
St Rose Dominican Hospitals
Healthsouth Hospital Henderson
St Rose Dominican Hospitals
Boulder City Hospital
*Provider Directory Terms of Use:
The WebMD 'Provider Directory' is provided by WebMD for use by the general public as a quick reference of information about Providers. The Provider Directory is not intended as a tool for verifying the credentials, qualifications, or abilities of any Provider contained therein. Inclusion in the Provider Directory does not imply recommendation or endorsement nor does omission in the Provider Directory imply WebMD disapproval.
- Home
Image Collection (categories)
- Allergic Skin Disorders
- Bacterial Skin Diseases
- Bites and Infestations
- Diseases of Pigment
- Fungal Skin Diseases
- Medical Anatomy and Illustrations
- Noncancerous, Precancerous & Cancerous Tumors
- Oral Health Conditions
- Papules, Scales, Plaques and Eruptions
- Scalp, Hair and Nails
- Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)
- Vascular, Lymphatic and Systemic Conditions
- Viral Skin Diseases
- Additional Skin Conditions
See All Quizzes (119)
& Conditions
Topic Centers
& Living
- Medications


text:
Barbie® Perfectly Suited®
Release Date: 1/1/1997
Product Code: 17567
Barbie® doll wears a lavender satin skirt, jacket, knit blouse, pantyhose, pumps and jewelry. Her ensemble is completed with a black briefcase, "organizer" and "cellular phone." Dress her up for the evening with an iridescent top, quilted purse, sheer stockings, pumps and beaded necklace. Two incredible looks with incredibly high quality details.
Production doll may vary from the photo shown above. Mattel reserves the right to modify the fashion/fabrics, sculpt, hair color/style, and accessories. Doll cannot stand alone as shown.
Collector Photos
No one has uploaded any photos.