text:
Debates of Oct. 1st, 2003
House of Commons Hansard #131 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was copyright.
- Seniors
- Election Campaigns
- International Day of Older Persons
- Hike Canada Week
- B.C. Fires
- Young Offenders
- Stéphanie Dubois
- Violence on Television
- Kirk Magarian
- Government Contracts
- Parc Industriel Roger-Lefebvre
- Mothers Against Drunk Driving
- International Music Day
- Literacy
- Women's History Month
- Cancer Research
- Coast Guard
- Member for LaSalle—Émard
- Treasury Board
- Former Privacy Commissioner
- Veterans Affairs
- International Aid
- Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
- Former Privacy Commissioner
- Canada Customs and Revenue Agency
- Biochem Pharma
- Terrorism
- Devco
- Foreign Affairs
- The Environment
- Veterans Affairs
- Royal Canadian Mounted Police
- Federal-Provincial Relations
- Foreign Affairs
- Algoma Steel Inc.
- Correctional Service of Canada
- Employment Insurance
- Forests
- Environment
- Presence in Gallery
- Business of the House
- Zahra Kazemi
- Privilege
- Interparliamentary Delegations
- Government Response to Petitions
- Committees of the House
- Petitions
- Questions on the Order Paper
- Motions for Papers
- Parliament of Canada Act
- Library and Archives of Canada Act
- Parliament of Canada Act
- Library and Archives of Canada Act
- Employment Insurance Act
- Social Condition
- Appointment of Judges
- Firearms Program
- Health
2 p.m.
The Speaker
As is the practice on Wednesday we will now sing O Canada, and we will be led by the hon. member for Saint John.
[Editor's Note: Members sang the national anthem]
Statements By Members
2 p.m.
Derek Lee Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House that in October we recognize the International Day of Older Persons and in November we recognize National Seniors Safety Week. I also want to restate our collective obligation to prevent the neglect of our nearly four million Canadian seniors.
As announced in the February 2003 budget, the federal government has established compassionate care employment insurance benefits for workers who have to be away from work temporarily to provide care to a member of their family who is gravely ill. Further, to help identify the challenges we may face in achieving quality of life for our elder persons, the life they deserve, the Prime Minister announced on September 17 the creation of a Liberal caucus task force on seniors. The task force will examine and report on issues including abuse, poverty alleviation, disability supports, housing and home care.
The contributions made to Canada by our seniors are well recognized, but we must be mindful of the various forms of neglect to which seniors are exposed. I would like to take this opportunity to urge all Canadians to continue their support of the efforts--
Statements By Members
2 p.m.
The Speaker
The hon. member of North Vancouver.
Election Campaigns
Statements By Members
2 p.m.
Canadian Alliance
Ted White North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Speaker, on June 27 the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the government's mean-spirited 50 candidate rule, a rule designed to prevent small parties from participating in elections. The government House leader wasted tens of millions of dollars on legal fees after he refused to accept the realistic 12 candidate rule I had negotiated for him with Canada's small parties more than three years ago.
It is time the Liberals stopped wasting taxpayer money on frivolous court cases like their hugely expensive and ongoing defence of their election gag law, or will they wait yet again for the highest court in the land to tell them that it is unacceptable and unconstitutional to try to limit freedom of expression during an election campaigns?
Unfortunately, the minister is a walking disaster for the taxpayers of Canada. Every bill he has ever brought to the House has ended up costing taxpayers their freedom to participate in election campaigns, tens of millions of dollars in legal fees, or both.
International Day of Older Persons
Statements By Members
2 p.m.
Yolande Thibeault Saint-Lambert, QC
Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Prime Minister's caucus task force on seniors, I am pleased to rise to pay tribute to the millions of Canadian men and women who are celebrating the International Day of Older Persons today, October 1.
Our government believes that no older person in Canada should suffer from a lack of services or support. The Liberal task force on seniors was created in order to focus more attention on health care and poverty, and to ensure that older persons obtain the services they need, when they need them, and that they take an active part in community life.
By creating favourable conditions for them, we will continue to benefit from their experience and their significant contribution to Canadian society.
Hike Canada Week
Statements By Members
2:05 p.m.
Alan Tonks York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to invite all hon. members to participate in the inaugural Hike Canada Week and to encourage participation of others in this fun and fast growing recreational activity.
From October 3 to 12, all across Canada hikers and walkers will be on the trails that link people, places and heritage of Canada, Canada's tremendous system of footpaths winds from the rugged coastline of Newfoundland, across the Bay of Fundy, through the Appalachian and Laurentian Mountains, over the Canadian Shield and the Niagara Escarpment, through the prairie grasslands and across the Rockies to the Pacific Ocean.
Our nation's varied geography, history, environment and cultures are all reflected and showcased through our network of trails. From heritage sites to historic paths and from fishermen to farmers, our trails link Canada and Canadians.
Having more Canadians aware of and connected to their natural heritage and environment through hiking and walking will help produce a population that is healthier, more protective of their environment, more likely to travel within Canada, and more respectful of our mutual heritage as Canadians.
Our government has made a strong commitment to foster the Canadian mosaic and I am pleased to trumpet the efforts--.
Hike Canada Week
Statements By Members
2:05 p.m.
The Speaker
The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.
B.C. Fires
Statements By Members
2:05 p.m.
Sophia Leung Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, we all watched in horror this past summer as fire burned parts of Kelowna, McLure, Louis Creek and Barrère, but out of the ashes has emerged a community spirit full of generosity and caring.
Recently I had the pleasure of attending a fundraising dinner organized by the Chinese community in Vancouver that raised over $250,000 to assist people who were affected by the fires in B.C.
I want to congratulate co-chairs, Mr. Johnny Fong and Mr. Patrick Wong, MLA for Vancouver Kensington, for the hard work and leadership that made this donation possible from our Chinese community to show our caring spirit for the fire victims.
Young Offenders
Statements By Members
2:05 p.m.
Canadian Alliance
Chuck Cadman Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, in February 2001 a drunk 17 year old crashed his $70,000 BMW at 140 kilometres per hour street racing in West Vancouver. His passenger, 17 year old Payam Yaghoobi, died.
On Monday, convicted of criminal negligence causing death, he was sentenced to eight months open custody, followed by four months of house arrest; statutory release at two-thirds for young offenders.
Prosecutors complain they cannot get serious consequences for violent young offenders.
In 1993, long before coming here, I met with the member for LaSalle--Émard over coffee as he campaigned in British Columbia and I was left believing that he shared my concerns about the lenient treatment of violent young offenders. Now his government has given Canadians the flawed Youth Criminal Justice Act under which police hesitate to charge, prosecutors are frustrated, the hands of judges are tied, victims do not get justice and violent young criminals laugh for the TV cameras.
What happened to the 10 year old Liberal promise to get serious with violent young offenders?
Stéphanie Dubois
Statements By Members
2:05 p.m.
Raymonde Folco Laval West, QC
Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute the perseverance and talent of Stéphanie Dubois, a young woman from Laval for whom 2003 has been an impressive year in tennis.
She has played brilliantly in recent months, moving up in the International Tennis Federation ranking from 110th in the world in the junior category before the season began, to her present position of 68th.
Along with the people of Laval, I want to congratulate Stéphanie Dubois who, through her talent, has earned a berth among Canada's best under-18 tennis players. I am convinced that we will be hearing about her accomplishments in this sport for some time to come.
Violence on Television
Statements By Members
2:05 p.m.
Christiane Gagnon Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois welcomes the initiative of partners in education, health, social services and municipalities, which launched a campaign to counter violence on television.
In today's papers, CRTC spokesman Denis Carmel noted that, over the past few months, broadcasters have definitely let their standards slip.
The Bloc Quebecois can only wonder about the indifference of the federal government which, since the first campaign against violence on television, has always refused to take action and continues to state that this falls under the CRTC. Since the CRTC is a federal agency, the federal government is responsible for providing it with the necessary means to take action in this matter and implement measures to counter violence on television.
The federal government must stop denying its responsibility and take immediate action in support of parents and educators, in order to protect our children from violence on television.
Kirk Magarian
Statements By Members
2:10 p.m.
Sarkis Assadourian Brampton Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay homage to the late Mr. Kirk Magarian.
Born in Armenia in 1914, Mr. Magarian came to Canada in 1923 as one of the Georgetown Boys. Orphaned as a result of the Armenian genocide of 1915, the boys represent the first wave of Armenian immigration to Canada.
Mr. Magarian was an outstanding member of the community of Campbellford, dedicating himself to many charitable and social issues in his neighbourhood. His efforts on behalf of the community will be remembered and sorely missed.
I ask my fellow members of Parliament to join me in passing on our condolences to his wife, Marjorie, and in celebrating the life of Mr. Kirk Magarian.
Government Contracts
Statements By Members
2:10 p.m.
Canadian Alliance
Rob Merrifield Yellowhead, AB
Mr. Speaker, almost daily it seems that new evidence is uncovered of a culture of corruption, cronyism and mismanagement that is flourishing under the Liberal government.
Yesterday another former senior official was arrested by the RCMP in the growing Virginia Fontaine scandal. The accused stands charged of giving preferential treatment to the Fontaine Treatment Centre for a payback of almost $1 million in government contracts to a company owned by his wife. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
He is the seventh person charged in an all too familiar tale of kickbacks, junkets, bogus travel claims and lucrative government contracts.
Problems at Health Canada were allowed to fester for years before the infamous Caribbean cruise story broke in October 2000.
This is another example of Liberals acting only when a scandal become public. Clearly the Liberals are incapable of managing taxpayer funds and undeserving of the public trust.
Parc Industriel Roger-Lefebvre
Statements By Members
2:10 p.m.
Gérard Binet Frontenac—Mégantic, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Black Lake industrial park is being renamed after Roger Lefebvre, in recognition of his contribution to our community.
Mr. Lefebvre was the provincial justice minister in 1994, and deputy speaker of the National Assembly for three years. He was elected for three consecutive terms as the MNA for Frontenac.
Mention Roger Lefebvre and two words come to mind: admiration and affection. Admiration, because he was an organizer par excellence and also because he put his talents to work for his community.
He deserves this honour for his community involvement and outstanding contributions. His success in mobilizing others is a daily source of inspiration to me as member for Frontenac—Mégantic. I want to publically pay tribute to him in this House.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
Statements By Members
October 1st, 2003 / 2:10 p.m.
Progressive Conservative
John Herron Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to congratulate Ms. Karen Dunham as the new president elect for Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
For those who are not aware, the mission of MADD Canada is to stop impaired driving and support the victims of this violent crime.
Ms. Dunham has been an active member of the MADD Saint John and Area Chapter since 1997.
On September 8, 1998, Ms. Dunham's involvement in MADD Canada became more than just a membership, it became her reality. Her oldest son, Jonathan, and his best friend, Mike Green, were victims of an alcohol related crash. Having suffered serious injuries, today Jonathan is considered to be a miracle.
The strength, the courage and the selfless dedication Ms. Dunham has demonstrated in the face of adversity will no doubt ensure that she will serve as an excellent president elect of MADD.
I ask all members in the House to join me in congratulating MADD Canada's new president elect, Ms. Karen Dunham.


text:
ALA TechSource, an imprint of the American Library Association, publishes Library Technology Reports and Marshall Breeding's Smart Libraries Newsletter.
Library Technology Reports, published in eight issues annually, helps librarians make informed decisions about technology products and projects.
Smart Libraries Newsletter, a monthly, offers Marshall Breeding's news and analysis on products, vendors, and new developments library automation marketplace.
Print subscriptions include include access to digital versions. As an introduction to our new platform Library Technology Reports and Smart Libraries Newsletter will be open access through June 2015.
ALA TechSource webinars and single-copy Library Technology Reports are available for purchase in the ALA Store.
Library Technology Reports (Vol. 51, No. 6) Library Services Platforms: A Mature Genre of Products, by Marshall Breeding, is at the printer. You can read it now, however, on ALA's journal site: journals.ala.org/ltr.
The Report starts with an explanation of this class of products and how it has diverged from the traditional integrated library system to take advantage of platform architecture. You'll see in-depth descriptions of Ex Libris Alma, Kuali OLE, OCLC WorldShare Management Services, ProQuest Intota, and Innovative Interfaces Sierra. While neutral on product recommendations, Breeding offers advice on selection and procurement strategies. Read More »
See all contributors »
Posts (RSS)
Comments (RSS)
Follow us on Twitter

subset: commoncrawl


text:
First, listen to this 9-minute clip:
Launch Player | Download | Full Sermon
Here's the topic for today's discussion:
Secular evolutionary theory abandons God as the first cause, replacing Him with chance. But, what is chance? Where does chance get the power to bring everything we now see into existence?
As John has said, chance is nothing, and out of nothing, nothing comes. Chance is the first cause of the evolutionary dream world; it's the creator-god of modern, secular mythology. And just like the myths of old, when it's weighed, it's found wanting.
In the comment thread below, start by testing this statement: Theistic evolution (or any Old-Earth theory) keeps chance as the first cause, but changes its name to "God;" it keeps evolution as the means, but changes its name to "creation." Agree or disagree? Make your case.
Second, can a Christian adapt an unbelieving paradigm (i.e., evolutionary theory, caused by chance) and still maintain that (1) God is the sovereign Creator, and (2) Genesis 1-3 is His historical narrative of how the world came to be?
You have 3000 characters
remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.
Email me when someone posts a comment.
> Theistic evolution (or any Old-Earth theory) keeps chance as the first cause, but changes its name to "God;" it keeps evolution as the means, but changes its name to "creation."
-It looks like "chance" is just another "Baal"... It looks like our society is worshiping their new Baal and teaching it to our kids... Therefore, the lukewarm Christians, who keep compromising with "nowadays Babylonians" are simply trying to patch a bit of "Christianity flavor" on top of today´s trend, so they can appear as reasonable folks in the medias, while straight-forward Bible-believing Christians are always ridiculed by "Babylon medias"...
Lukewarm Christians are ashamed of the Truth, so they try hard to mix it with trendy theories to make themselves appear smarter in the eyes of men...
It is basically Daniel saying he will eat all Babylonian food, it is ok, he´ll just pretend he does it in the name of the Lord...
>Second, can a Christian adapt an unbelieving paradigm (i.e., evolutionary theory, caused by chance) and still maintain that (1) God is the sovereign Creator, and (2) Genesis 1-3 is His historical narrative of how the world came to be?
-Once a Believer is lukewarm, he can slide all the way down this slippery slope and invent whatever needs to fit his sin. It starts with stating Genesis 1 doesn´t really mean what it says, & then the sky is the limit...
Brethren, let´s remain firm in the Word of God, let´s encourage one another ! I am weak, but my fellow Christians make me strong. I am weak but the Holy Spirit makes me strong. I am a sinner but the blood of Jesus cleaned me.
Thank you John MacArthur to speak out loud & clear about the literal 6 days Creation, please keep doing it !
Thank you also, bloggers with different views, as it serves us well to dig deeper & understand the full veracity of the Word !
God bless you all from Dominican Republic :)
You have 3000 characters
remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted.
Email me when someone posts a comment.
Hi Folks:
Webster defines the verb "chance" as "without design or expectation". The noun as "An event that happens, falls out, or takes place, without being contrived (i.e. invented, planned, or devised), intended, expected, or foreseen; an accident." The dictionary also uses the word "Fortune" as in "What Fortune may bring" as a substitute word. This is the sense which you hear evolutionist speak of "chance" while they define it as an "accident". Dawkins is the most notable character to speak in this way of "Chance". I think that the attributes which evolutionist place on chance seem to be like those the Greek's gave to Tyche the goddess of chance. Just a thought.
You have 3000 characters
remaining for your comment. Note: All comments must be approved before being posted
Paul brought home the fact that God is the first cause, the on-going sustainer, and the culmination of everyting. He did this in Acts 17:
24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood[c] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being...
and in Romans 11:
36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things.
To Him be the glory forever! Amen.
With brevity God is simply known as the Alpha and Omega...pretty much sums up the issue at hand.
Hey, "El amigo de la playa"! I was reading your reply and I couldn't help, but smile when I saw that you were from D.R. Very well put if I may say so.
Lovely surprise to bump into a Dominican here on John's Blog. Blessings to all...
John was right on the money. In mathematics "chance" requires a "set" of "something" to work from. When the set is not even a "zero" because there is no "place" to hold, this is where chance is suppose to start and make something out of nothing. Francis Schaffer use to say that if evolution were true we would have had to come out of Nothing-Nothing, and illustrated it by placing a "something" on a chalk board and whipping it off the board. Something comes from "something". Nothing comes from nothing. And Something cannot come from nothing. Chance cannot play a role, in terms of probability mathematics, when there is not a "set" to start with.
It is really sad that atheistic evolutionist in this sense are theist, the "god" chance does so much for them in bring about a world for them to play "god" in. They can deny their god exist and "chance" does not care because they operate by its rules and laws. They can deny "Reason" but use it for their cause. "Logic" is there as well, helping them to make sense of a meaningless universe where something came from nothing-nothing. "Thinking themselves wise they became fools..." Just a thought.
Someone compared the odds of random chance creating anything as intricate as the human eye to the liklihood of the unabridged dictionary being printed by an explosion in the print shop. Even secular empirical evidence rules out "chance".
There is so much more to this than can be said on here. However, you have to at least be honest about the data - http://biologos.org/blog/signature-in-the-pseudogenes-part-2/
John, as we have discussed before, data has to be interpreted. It doesn't stand out on its own sufficient means to meet the challenge. A person pours meaning into it. If you are to begin with the presupposition that common descent is true, of course you will spin the data to tell that story much like the stealth atheists at Biologos are doing.
The first comment by Malcolm is precious, "Christian anti-evolutionary organizations" are accused of never wrestling with the data and distorting and misrepresenting the facts. As if the Biologos people have no agenda.
Before Malcolm made such an ignoramus of himself by writing what he wrote, it would had been helpful for him to at least do a Google search and see what real biblical creationists believe about the subject. Honestly, it is exhausting having to do the leg work for lazy theistic evolutionists:
> Theistic evolution (or any Old-Earth theory) keeps chance as the first cause, but changes its name to "God;" it keeps evolution as the means, but changes its name to "creation."
Disagree, I don't believe in old-Earth theory.
Due to the nature of Science itself, it lacks the ability to prove a miracle. Because once it becomes a miracle, it automatically means that it's out of touch of Science.
Science is powerful only when it is repeatable and stable to reproduce the result under the same situation. For example, to prove God's miracle, it would've been like 'EVERY TIME GIDEON PRAYS, the dew has to fall where he prays to fall'. Now that's not right, because that makes God become like a specimen, contained within a box and trying to prove his own existence.
And the true-history-of-what-really-has-happened consists of great deal of miracles which was not local but through out the whole surface of this Earth. Therefore, Science tries to explain all what's really happened, then they have no choice but to invent this whole new idea of evolution and old-earth theory which does not contrast 'the limited evidence or knowledge they already acquired' from this repeatable phenomenena world of theirs. Suppose they try to explain Gideon's dew miracle. They would have no choice but to say 'the floor had some kind of dew protective mechanism on the first day, and the dew had the dew protective on the other day', which totally does not involve God to explain the miracle.
So, I believe that 'Science, which it lacks the ability to prove God's miracle from the first place, tried to prove the creation so hard, it went mad and invented this idea of Old-Earth Theory'.
And when it comes down to the Evolution, Evolution is actually quite consistant with all the other theories that we have in the biology era. When a biologist actually set up a hypothesis they want to prove from an experiment, they set up a hypothesis which is consistant with the theory of evolution, and they actually do not find a serious contradicting evidence. (except for the... relying on a chance, but that they can't run THAT experiment...)
I think the Theory of Evolution is sound and well formed theory itself. But it's just being used wrong, to disapprove God to be the creator of us. I say 'We evolve, but we just don't evolve that much. Just because we evolve, that doesn't mean it's the sole cause of our very own existence'. Plus, God commands the all being to 'Be fruitful and increase in number', and I see evolution as all-living-organism's faithful obedience to God's command. For me, 'all the living organisms are DESIGNED by God, and they CAN'T EVOLVE AT ALL' doesn't make sense, either. They evolve, but not as much as the scientists say.
> can a Christian adapt an unbelieving paradigm (i.e., evolutionary theory, caused by chance) and still maintain that (1) God is the sovereign Creator, and (2) Genesis 1-3 is His historical narrative of how the world came to be?
Yes... and No, I think it depends on how we see the 'chance' or 'evolution'. More than that, how we define and understand what 'science' is.
I am a physics major myself, and I know the science isn't as rock-solid as many people think. Once people truly know what science really is, it shouldn't bother them to believe God is the sovereign creator and Genesis 1-3.
And, I'm not saying 'Once you learn more and more about Science, you have no choice but to admit there's an infinitely intelligent being that created the whole universe and runs it'. No, and you can see the clear example from Dr Richard Hawkins. When people hit this 'infinite mystery of the very own existence of our universe', many people would still not run towards God. They would run into Anthropic principle.
What I'm saying is 'The very fundamental foundation of science is like a mud, not a rock'. The stuffs that we find from the high school science is rock-solid. They are the stuffs that are very well-defined, and rock-solid consistant with other stuffs. (theory of evolution is very consistant too, it's consistant within the limited world of theirs at least) But when you get deeper and get to the very fundamental foundation of science, it's not rock-solid. It follows the exact description from Matthew 7, 'house on sand'. So, once people study the science enough and realize that the science is a house on sand, it wouldn't cause people not to believe '(1) God is the sovereign Creator, and (2) Genesis 1-3 is His historical narrative of how the world came to be'. It depends on, how well people understand the mud-like foundation of science.
Regarding the first statement on TE (or an old-earth theory):
I agree in the sense El Amigo De La Playa wrote in Post#1:
--"It [theistic evoution] is basically Daniel saying he will eat all Babylonian food, it is ok, he´ll just pretend he does it in the name of the Lord..."
El Amigo's comment helps illustrates a point made by Dr. Humphreys in his paper, "Timothy Tests Theistic Evolution", CEN Tech. J., vol. 11, no. 2, 1997 - http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_timothytest2.pdf
Below is an excerpt which makes the case better than I could:
Humphreys writes:
"...A more accurate epithet for theistic evolutionism would be [i]Scriptura sub Scientia[/i], 'Scripture under Science'...[This] is an attitude which eviscerates (disembowels) the usefulness and authority of Scripture...
...[i]Scripture sub Scientia[/i] sets a precedent for cloaking one's own ideas with the appearance of Biblical sanction. It would be far more honest for theistic evolutionists to throw out the Bible completely and concoct their own religious texts. But it would be even better if they would abandon their compromise with evolutionism and embrace the Word of God without reservation!..."
~"Cloaking one's own ideas with the appearance of Biblical sanction" brings me to the second set of questions asked. A Christian may attempt to hybridize an unbelieving paradigm (in this case, evolutionary theory) with Biblical truths (God as sovereign Creator and Genesis 1-3 as historic narrative) but the result always misses the mark. It is the sin of compromise and frankly, idolatry of man's wisdom over God's.
In my opinion, TE is a form of idolatry as defined and explained in J.C. Ryle's sermon, "Idolatry" (1 Cor 10:14, "Flee from idolatry")
Updated, revised manuscript by Tony Capoccia http://www.biblebb.com/files/ryle/warn8.htm
Ryle, explaining what Idolatry is said:
--"Idolatry is a worship, in which the honor due to the Triune God, and to God only, is given to some of His creatures, or to some invention of His creatures..."
Ryle continues:
"...It is not necessary, for a man to formally deny God and Christ, in order to be an idolater. Far from it. Professed reverence for the God of the Bible and actual idolatry, are perfectly compatible. They have often been done side by side, and they still do so. The children of Israel never thought of renouncing God when they persuaded Aaron to make the golden calf. "Here are your gods," they said, "who brought you up out of Egypt." And the feast in honor of the calf was kept as a "festival to the LORD (Jehovah)" (Exodus 32:4, 5).
Jeroboam, again, never pretended to ask the ten tribes to cast off their allegiance to the God of David and Solomon. When he set up the calves of gold in Dan and Bethel, he only said, "It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem. Here are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt" (1 Kings 12:28).
In both instances, we should observe, the idol was not set up as a rival to God, but under the pretense of being a help—a steppingstone to His service. But, in both instances, a great sin was committed. The honor due to God was given to a visible representation of Him. The majesty of Jehovah was offended. The second commandment was broken. There was, in the eyes of God, a flagrant act of idolatry."
Evolution... it's means of improvement or advancement is death "survial of the fittest." For "theistic evolution" to be biblical most of the 7 days of creation must occur after the fall of man and the curse of death. With true biblical creationism, God's world was "good" and he rested after the 6th day. With no death there can be no evolution. Either you believe the Bible or you don't, there is no compromise, "theistic evolution" (like Jumbo-Shrimp) is an oxymoron. Natural Selection on the other hand is a different story, it just shows the variability of God's perfect creation.
To take away the miraculous act of God in creation (the literal rendering of Genesis 1-3) necessitates the substitution of either a god who chooses to use time and his ever so slow transformation of living organisms to bring into being what we see today or a non-god called chance and time, much, much time. Either one are gods man can live with. They are limited in power and glory. Such gods are impersonal and no doubt are not holy. With such gods surely there would be no day of judgment and certainly there could be no eternal hell. It took either one of these gods much time after all to make what exists today. Either one of these gods expectations of man could not be very great.
These are not the true God who has revealed Himself in scripture. They give us the revelation of His attributes including His Holiness, the revelation of His will, the revelation of His eternal decrees including His eternal judgment of sin, the eternal damnation of unregenerate sinners, and His plan of redemption and ultimate glorification of His elect through Christ. This leads me to the second question. Through the redefinition of biblical terms "professing Christians" can believe and do just about anything. The real question is will God own them to be His? Throughout the scriptures, the test of salvation has always been faith in the revelation of God. Faith has always been linked with actions corresponding to what God had revealed to man. Abel recognized God's use of a blood sacrifice in the covering of his parents' nakedness while Cain leaned on his own understanding motivated by an exaltation of self. Noah believed what God had revealed and acted accordingly and for 120 years was mocked and laughed at. Abraham believed God and actually offered up Isaac on the alter concluding that God would have to raise him from the dead. James uses the latter example as an example of what biblical saving faith actually is, as opposed to the "belief" of demons! (James 2:19-21) I am both shocked and grieved to see those posting on this site giving evolutionists believing "Christians" assurance of their salvation. Jeremiah warned his countrymen of coming judgment. All the other prophets were leading them into futility by speaking smoother things than God would allow and speaking peace, (Jeremiah 23:16, 17). God had not sent them. If He had they would have announced His words to them and turned them from their evil ways (see Jeremiah 23:21, 22). The prophet Ezekiel has a warning to those who give false assurance see Ezekiel 13:9, 10.
Those of you who hold to a low view of creation (an old earth view) you no doubt hold to a low view of what it is to be a Christian. "If any man be in Christ he is a new creation. The old things passed away; behold, new things have come." (2 Corinthians 5:17) A new creation! The very same word! Behold! The new birth is an absolute miracle by God (2 Corinthians 5:18). Everything out of nothing spoken into existence in the creation, what glory, what majesty! Behold! What wonder, what glory, what mercy, what transformation! A vile wretched sinner at war with its creator is now in humble submission and love, a devoted slave of its redeemer. Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.(see John 3:5, 6) You must be washed by the water of the Word. No! More than that, you must be born again of the incorruptible seed of the living and abiding Word of God! (see 1 Peter 1:23) It is a contradiction for a person to be miraculously born again of the living and abiding Word of God and then reject the veracity of that same Word of God and believe a lie. If you reject the testimony of God's Word you can be sure of this; God will not acknowledge you on judgment day.(see Luke 9:26) What will you think of the wisdom of fallen man then. You have forfeited your soul for such a cheap price. May God grant you a heart of repentance and give you a heart of flesh. May He put His law within you and write it upon your heart to the praise of the glory of His grace. –His Unworthy Slave
I agree with J.Mac's critique (and R.C.'s) on chance. They are right on. Saying something happened because of chance is like saying someone chose something because of "free will," which of course explains nothing. It's just a label for mystery. However, I think he/this blog may be drawing some unnecessary conclusions.
"Secular evolutionary theory abandons God as the first cause, replacing Him with chance."
Materialism, not "secular evolutionary theory" (not sure what the "secular" modifier implies) abandons God as 1st cause, but evolutionary theory does no such thing. In fact, evolution says nothing about the origin of the universe at all, or the origin of life for that matter. Nor does it say everything came about by blind chance (even Dawkins in "The Blind Watchmaker" says that is a false hyperbole) because natural selection is by definition a non-random process. Plus, good Calvinists that we are, we know nothing occurs by chance since God has declared the end from the beginning.
"Theistic evolution (or any Old-Earth theory) keeps chance as the first cause, but changes its name to 'God;' it keeps evolution as the means, but changes its name to "creation." Agree or disagree? Make your case."
I find it depressing, not that Christians are still debating whether or not the earth is more than 6-10,000 years old, but that Christians who have adopted an OEC position are still accused of merely baptizing chance and atheism with bible talk. This is disservice to the many respected folks who have spent a lot of study and prayer on shaping a biblical approach to the fact of a 4.5 billion year old earth. Because there are so many respected OEC theologians, even many that are Reformed, to ask if they "keep chance as the first cause" while merely changing chance to God by sleight of hand is to ask a seriously uncharitable question. Of course they don't. So yes, I disagree. T.E.'s and OEC's do not, in any way, make chance a first cause, nor do they conveniently relabel it God. Now for my case.
For starters, no T.E. or OEC actually says that. No theist says that chance got us here, but rather the outworking of God's plan. So explicitly, the case is closed. Even implicitly, there is a huge difference between T.E./OEC and materialistic evolution. Just ask any good materialist; saying evolution was "planned," in any way, is a big no no. We were not intended to be here. This, I think, is a philosophical question, but even on a scientific level, folks like Simon Conway Morris have some good evidence that humans were inevitable. As for OEC, well they reject evolution, so the criticism applies to them even less.
"Second, can a Christian adapt an unbelieving paradigm (i.e., evolutionary theory, caused by chance) and still maintain that (1) God is the sovereign Creator, and (2) Genesis 1-3 is His historical narrative of how the world came to be?"
(1) No. A Christian cannot accept a sovereign God and also accept that we got here by chance alone (though, neither does any evolutionist as I pointed out). However, evolution itself is not an inherently "unbelieving paradigm." Dysteleological, materialistic evolution, yes, but minus the materialism, evolution is just a sound scientific theory. (2) As for accepting Genesis as a historical narrative of how the world came to be, that is a much stickier situation. My short answer is no, if by "historical narrative of how the world came to be" you mean YEC. And it seems everyone here conflates the two. But yes, you can obviously be T.E. and OEC and accept "Genesis 1-3 is His historical narrative of how the world came to be?" But, as always, the devil is in the details, and we will never agree on what the implications of saying Genesis 1-3 is "historical narrative" are, nor will we ever agree on what it means for the text to describe "how the world came to be." I agree that there is, on some level, real history communicated and that Genesis describes how the world came to be, I just think it's description cannot be, properly speaking, scientifically falsified, though I suppose, at bottom, it's historical claims could, granting a degree of rhetorical/conventional/linguistic/theological license in retelling the events, as any robust understanding of inspiration does. In this sense, Genesis 1-11 should not be divorced from history. We really did fall, but clearly that fall is recast in Genesis in ANE themes and invested with a cosmic significance that may not always have a 1 to 1 correlation with modern science. This is just taking the text in context.
I was hoping you'd have an opportunity to respond to my last comments in "Uniformitarianism, Part 2" before the comments closed. Feel free to respond to those here since the overall topic is the same.
Point of clarification: I think "secular evolutionary theory" is differentiated from theistic evolutionary theory.
What OEC or TE folks don't realize is that they have bought a home built on sand in the middle of a storm.
Evolution began as a philosophical system stemming from simple observation, not true scientific inquiry. As technology increased and new methods of scientific study became available, scientists started with the premise of evolutionary theory, and interpreted the data in light of that philosophical premise. In other words, evolution began as a presuppositional rejection of the miracle of creation (which enabled them to study it), then as scientific methods improved it began with the assumption that creation was a natural event and therefore subject to scientific study. The scientific study, with its philosophical theory in hand, tested and found sufficient evidence to support their theory. Of course the scientific study itself is already rigged against the Bible because it rejects that it is miraculous. Scientists find explanations for evolution just like other people explain OT miracles (e.g. parting of the Red Sea) naturalistically.
Having rejected the miracle of creation and developed the natural explanation of evolution, Christians assume that science is right and therefore abandon biblical presuppositions for atheistic ones (albeit implicitly).
Christians have first bought the evolution house not realizing that it stands on the sand of anti-supernaturalism and was built with faulty blueprints. But the house looks firm, so it seems like a safe buy.
When we point out the sand and the original blueprints, TE and OEC folks decry the sand and the blueprints. They adamantly declare that evolution can stand on its own regardless of the sand and the original blueprints. But saying so doesn't make it so.
TE and OEC folks didn't wake up denying Scripture and embracing science. Rather, they created a plushy interpretation of Genesis that fits the mold of evolution. Where evolution has holes (origins), God fits.
Back to you, Garrett. We understand that TE and OEC do not accept chance as a primary cause. What we are saying is that because they know it wasn't chance, they necessarily put God there. I'm curious... what Christian has ever been the initial proponent of evolutionary theory. Were there any? I don't know... though I don't think so. It seems like Christians came late in the game and found a way to fit God in the theory.
You've again mentioned that evolution is not inherently unbelieving. Since science is naturalistic by definition, how is it not unbelieving? If it is such a sound theory, then why do many scientists reject it? When I think of a sound theory, I think of gravity, orbits of planets, and the like. Evolution is a philosophical interpretation of evidence that presuppositionally rejects God's miraculous explanation. You believe evolution primarily because you reject the long-standing literal interpretation of a miraculous creation.
You accept a non-literal, unverifiable ANE interpretation of Genesis 1 because it fits your evolutionary paradigm. The interpretation of Genesis 1 that you accept claims to be literal, but if it is so literal, why has it been non-existent for so long? Walton bases his interpretation of Genesis 1 not out of grammatico-historical literal interpretation, but out of a historical-critical interpretation that places his understanding and interpretation of other ANE literature as the cultural foundation upon which he interprets Genesis 1.
You stated that whatever historical character Genesis 1-3 portrays cannot be scientifically falsified. Do you realize that evolution cannot be scientifically verified? It is a theory of past events based on a biased pre-understanding of history. In other words, evolution cannot be objectively verified. It can only be verified under the subjective presupposition that Genesis 1 is not a miracle.
I'll add this, though it really isn't part of the discussion. The presuppositions that Christians use to reject a normal interpretation of Genesis 1 are the same presuppositions as those who reject the veracity of the Gospels and who are searching (for the 3rd time) for the "Historical Jesus".
Can a sovereign God use chance to accomplish His purpose? He does not, according to His Word.
The Creator, Sovereign God revealed in scripture is the one who declares "the ending from the beginning" as stated in Isaiah 46:10. He goes before and behind us (Psalm 139:5) and wherever we go, His hand guides us (Psalm 139: 10) A sparrow does not fall to the ground apart from His will (Matt. 10:29).
His plans "stand firm forever, the purposes of His heart through all generations." (Psalm 33:11)
There is no "chance" indicated by these verses but only the sovereign will of a loving Creator.
Garrett (#13) states "I find it depressing, not that Christians are still debating whether or not the earth is more than 6-10,000 years old, but that Christians who have adopted an OEC position are still accused of merely baptizing chance and atheism with bible talk. This is disservice to the many respected folks who have spent a lot of study and prayer on shaping a biblical approach to the fact of a 4.5 billion year old earth."
Garrett, this sounds like you are trying to shape the infallible Word of God to fit in with a belief (not fact) of fallible men. Jesus prayed that His disciples would be sanctified by the Word (John 17:17), not manipulate it to fit the ideas of the day.
We are to approach God with humility and reverence and we should approach His Word in a similar humble manner.
#14 Gabe:"The scientific study, with its philosophical theory in hand, tested and found sufficient evidence to support their theory."
Agreed. How assuming natural causes for the origin of species establishes philosophical naturalism is beyond me.
"They adamantly declare that evolution can stand on its own regardless of the sand and the original blueprints. But saying so doesn't make it so."
So you cannot consistently accept evolution as the best explanation of the data without also accepting philosophical materialism? You and Dawkins are at one on that point. This is why I would caution Christians considering the field of biology. Honestly, sometimes it's really difficult. You will inevitably come to a big fork in the road and will have to face big opposition either way. Maybe that's why more Christians don't go into that field in the first place. Too much grief.
"I'm curious... what Christian has ever been the initial proponent of evolutionary theory. Were there any? I don't know... though I don't think so."
Asa Gray, just to name one. Read "Darwin's Forgotten Defenders."
"Rather, they created a plushy interpretation of Genesis that fits the mold of evolution."
Ok, now you're just being insulting. Walton doesn't even accept evolution. You disagree? Fine. But give credit where credit is due and don't just write it off as an ad hoc, compromised position (there are geocentrists who would say the same about you). Honest scholars of the ancient texts disagree with you on this. No more hitting below the belt please.
"You've again mentioned that evolution is not inherently unbelieving. Since science is naturalistic by definition, how is it not unbelieving?"
Once again, it is strictly agnostic; it says nothing pro or con on the question of the supernatural. It can't. Hence, it is neither believing nor unbelieving.
"If it is such a sound theory, then why do many scientists reject it?"
In reality, many don't. Virtually all biologists accept it. If "many" scientists reject evolution, then I would submit that you must also say that "many" historians deny the historicity of Jesus, but of course you won't do that. And you shouldn't because many don't, just some on the fringe of mainstream opinion. I think "many" is the wrong word. More like "virtually none," "less than 1 out of 100" or "very few." Look the stats up yourself.
"Evolution is a philosophical interpretation of evidence that presuppositionally rejects God's miraculous explanation"
This argument frustrates me to no end (even though I have no major beef with presup. apologetics). I'll grant your claim, for the sake of argument. You know how much, as a scientist, I care? Not very much at all. I don't care where the idea came from, who thought of it, why they thought of it, or what they they were trying to prove. Really, It makes no difference to me. You know what really counts at the end of the day? Does it work. Scientists are pragmatic (and skeptical) to the extreme. The scientific process is ruthless. The question is, is it true? Does assuming this paradigm make sense of all the relevant data? Can it make useful predictions that turn out, upon investigation, to be true? YEC, on these questions, fails miserably. I wish it weren't the case, but it just doesn't line up with the cold, hard facts. If you assume it to be true, almost nothing makes sense. I know that's counterintuitive, but it's true. Assume the earth is no more than a few thousand years old and try and make sense of the data from biology, geology, astronomy, anthropology, archeology, etc. It just can't be done. I know I couldn't do it. I don't know how the hand full of Phds at AiG do it (well, I've read their articles, and I don't think they actually DO do it!). I don't want to waste my life trying to do it, in tears and frustration. I've tried for too long. Trust me, if I could disprove evolution, or find some compelling evidence for YEC, I'd be a saint; a very special place in heaven would await me. Plus, the guy who dismantles Darwin would go down in history as one of the most important scientists to ever live. It would be HUGE. But I just can't! Here's something to think about; someone here is SERIOUSLY wrong. 6,000 and 13.7 billion aren't even remotely close. Now if you think the bible mandates YEC, then good for you. But don't tell me that the only reason I accept evolution is because of some presupposition. No, it's because of the evidence in support of it. What you're argument boils down to is "Well, that's just your naturalistic interpretation of the evidence!" Is that how you treat the bible? "Well, that's just your interpretation of Genesis." Of course it is! The questions is, is it the correct interpretation! If you can look at all the evidence and say "You know, when you assume a 6,000 year old earth, all the pieces fit together quite nicely!" then I say, good for you. I've tried my hardest and I honestly, sincerely cannot see it (and, O, how I've tried!!!). Maybe I'm just not smart enough to be a YEC, because I look at the facts and say, "Good luck Kan Ham! You're a greater man than I." Let's just say I don't envy the person who has to explain modern science without and old earth or evolution.
"In other words, evolution cannot be objectively verified."
Gabe, evolution IS falsifiable. But, as all scientists know, you cannot ultimately "objectively verify," 100% prove ANYTHING in science. It's all based on inference, and so it's always, theoretically, subject to revision once more data comes in. If it ain't falsifiable, it ain't science!
"The presuppositions that Christians use to reject a normal interpretation of Genesis 1 are the same presuppositions as those who reject the veracity of the Gospels and who are searching (for the 3rd time) for the "Historical Jesus"
And guess what? Assume a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection and NOTHING makes sense! If you think my hermeneutic will allow me to go liberal and start denying all miracles you're just committing a slippery slope fallacy. Sorry, but the cases are just not analogous. If you think there's no difference at all in how one reads Genesis 1 and the gospels, then I think you're being way too simplistic/reductionistic. It's like saying if I deny I literal 1,000 year millennium I'm a liberal spiritualizer who can make the text say whatever I want. Sorry, but the text itself won't let me do that.
#15 Mary: "Garrett, this sounds like you are trying to shape the infallible Word of God to fit in with a belief (not fact) of fallible men."
Mary, you're simply trusting in the fallible interpretations of men. The bible therefore really cannot be understood. Hmm, that doesn't work, does it? Fact is, fallible people can get some things right. I think evolution is one of them. Plus, if you don't think you interpret the bible in light of modern scientific discoveries, then why does your biblical cosmology differ so much from Luther's in the 16th century? You think modern cosmology had anything to do with it?http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c6/MartinLutherCosmology-Tiny.gif
Actually, I am relying on the Holy Spirit to help me understand scripture and guide me in truth as we are promised in 1 John 2:27 and John 14:26. I also follow the example of the Bereans who "searched the scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."(Acts 17:11) I also heed the warning to "not believe every spirit but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)
I reject evolution because scripture clearly speaks of a sovereign creator God and it tells of history unfolding according to the plans of God not according to randomness.
Science is agnostic only in that is does not "preach" a particular view of God. However it is atheistic in its practice. You have already admitted this in the case in prior discussion. The field of science necessarily assumes there is no supernatural explanation. It is necessarily atheistic in practice. That is all I'm saying.
If a scientist showed up at the scene of the feeding of the five thousand while the disciples were passing out the bread and fish, they would take samples and necessarily conclude that the fish were caught in the lake and cooked, and that the bread was harvested and baked in normal fashion. The disciples could argue until they were blue in the face that Jesus created the fish and bread from nothing, but the scientist has enormous scientific evidence the contrary. The scientist a priori rejects the miraculous claim thereby making the evidence point in the direction of a natural explanation. This is exactly what you and all evolutionary scientists do. You a priori reject the miraculous claim of Scripture. The existence of evidence is only meaningful to you because you have already rejected a supernatural explanation.
I think you understand the relationship between miracles and science, but you don't apply it. You would agree that science cannot affirm the miraculous. But before the scientist can make that claim, he has to affirm that a miracle happened. If he doesn't not affirm that a miracle happened, then he will discover a natural explanation. Now that natural explanation will be a far cry from what actually happened, but it will satisfy the naturalistic interpretation of the evidence.
I am not surprised that there is evidence for evolution. I don't care that there is evidence for evolution. The natural evidence for evolution is meaningful only if you reject God's description of how He miraculously created.
In case this isn't clear in your mind, YEC is not a scientific position (at least not in my mind). I would never try to prove YEC on the basis of scientific evidence. You would obviously disagree with those who try to use scientific evidence to prove YEC, and that is fine. My argument for YEC is not based in science or extra-biblical evidence. My argument for YEC is deeply rooted in the plain normal sense of Scripture. Therefore I wish you would argue this issue biblically.
There are lots of people having this argument at the scientific level. I'm not interested in that and I honestly wouldn't go there. I want to stay at the biblical level. In a previous post I commented on what I see are fatal flaws in Walton's interpretation of Genesis 1. I also said that in order to accept his interpretation, it would need to be verified by other Scriptures that refer to creation and the biblical passages that seem to clearly take Genesis 1-3 as materialistic creation history need to be dealt with.
To make it easier, I'll paste the issues you must deal with biblically if you are going to reject a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. For the sake of discussion I'll stop talking about science for now. Let's just deal with the text of Scripture.
Many passages refer to Genesis 1-2 as God's act of creating matter in history, not just God creating order. See Genesis 6:7, Deuteronomy 4:32; Isaiah 40:26, 42:5, 45:8, 12, 18; Colossians 1:16, Revelation 10:6. How does the argument in Hebrews 4 make any sense unless Genesis 1 is a literal 6-day creation with one day of rest? By your interpretation the author of Hebrews completely missed the point of Genesis 1! In Mark 10:6 Jesus references Genesis 2 at a historical point in time.
With regard to "bara", though it absolutely necessary to look at usages, the primary determiner of meanings of word is context. Further, it is critical ot understand that all words have a range of meaning. A word does not mean the exact same thing in every case. It may be nuanced or it may have a completely different meaning. Context is king. Walton makes the mistake of looking at all the usages, establishing an overarching general meaning which he then specifically places onto Genesis 1. If you think about his interpretation logically, creating function and order is not the meaning of bara, it is the result. Walton is taking the result of the act of bara and turning it into its meaning. Of course in order to come to this conclusion, Walton has to ignore Genesis 1 and gives only examples that support his theory. Walton comes up with his meaning from other places and then imposes that meaning on Genesis 1 without regard to the fact that in Genesis 1 there was no pre-existing material to work with. Take Genesis 1:21, for example. God bara'd the great sea creatures and every living thing. Exodus 34:10 and Numbers 16:30 are other examples that doesn't meet Walton's criteria. In Psalm 51:10, what is the function or purpose being created there? If you use a concordance or Bible software to look up all the usages of "bara", you will quickly see that Walton is ignoring many usages. John Walton takes the result of bara in some contexts and makes that into the meaning in Genesis 1. That is not good hermeneutics or exegesis.
With regard to his interpretation of the creation of light. Notice first of all that the command is "Let there be light", and the result was "and there was light." I'm not sure how "and there was a period of time" fits into that equation. One of his slides says, "physicist's light cannot be seperated from darkness." Well, a physicist may not be able to seperate light from darkness, but I wouldn't put it past God. Additionally the word for "seperate" can also mean "distinguish" which is exactly what we see God doing by calling one day and the other night. Now when the light sources are created, then there is a kind of separation.
In this lecture (and another one I have heard) Walton merely states how the ANE universally thought without exception, but he doesn't back it up with other examples. In his discussion of "raqia" (expanse), he again asserts that it always and only refers to something solid, therefore that is what it must mean here. Well that isn't what it means in Psalm 19:1, or Daniel 12:3. John Walton doesn't mention those references in his lecture.
In his discussion of Day 3, he states that God doesn't create anything. That assertion is true only in his interpretation. From the creationist perspective God creates vegetation (there were none prior).
As I think about how John Walton tries to explain that "bara" means to bring order and function, he seems to forget that God actually created. He gives examples of what God "bara's": Jerusalem, male and female, nations, etc. And he proclaims "these are all functions and order!" What he neglects is that they are still things God created.
In other words, his explanation does nothing to explain how his interpretation is exclusive to the literal meaning. Everything God created, perhaps did indeed bring function and order, and perhaps possibly that was the communicative intent, but God still created those things--material or not.
Walton repeatedly states that materialistic creation is simply not the concern in the text, but rather function and order. Well it may not be the primary concern, but it is the necessary foundation for function and order. This is restating what I said in my previous post that his interpretation, even if true, is not exclusive. He claimed it to be, but didn't show how.
You tried to defend against my charge that his interpretation is not allegory. Well I stand by that charge because he claims his interpretation to be exclusive to the literal historical narrative of the text. Since his interpretation is not borne out of the linguistic character of the text but rather the philosophical mileu of the times, I don't yet see how it isn't allegory.
Hi everyone, I have been enjoying the discussions, I am almost caught up, phew! A lot of it went over my head (glad to know not only me) but I guess it's ok. I still believe that He created everything and that His Word is true.
Grace and Peace,
or browse by Topic or


text:
The GED tests give you the opportunity to earn a high school equivalency diploma.The GED tests are four tests in the areas of Reading/Writing, Social Studies, Science, and Mathematics. The Student Success Center offers GED preparation classes.
You are eligible to take the tests if you are not enrolled in, and have not graduated from high school, and you are 18 or older (or within 60 days of your 18th birthday at the time of testing) and are a current resident of California. Applicants must register in person and present current photo identification (including examinee's name, date of birth, address, and signature) at the time of registration, and again at testing. Tests are filled on a first-come, first-served basis, beginning on the first day of registration, and ending when the test has reached maximum enrollment.
For details about registration, call Joni Switzer 818-240-1000 ext. 5042 or come in person to Garfield Campus, Mariposa 125 or 126.
Glendale Community College
is not responsible for the content of external sites. Thank you for visiting the
Glendale Community College


text: Gameday Boots has created a line of custom college boots for students, alumni, and die-hard fans who want to show off their school pride in western style! Officially licensed Gameday college boots are quality handcrafted, distinctive western boots - with school pride! These University of North Texas cowboy boots feature a distressed leather foot under a matching 13" leather shaft. Official University of North Texas embroidered school logo accents. Single stitched welt. Fashionable 2" cowboy boot heel with rubber grip surface. Imported.


text:
Flying is a sensual experience. Sight, of course, rules the senses, whether in IFR or VFR conditions. Touch and feel play a role as well, but less of one once in cruise and everything is in equilibrium. That's not to say that they don't play an important role—I was once alerted that a major hydraulic failure was about to occur by what I felt in the way of vibration through my feet. But behind sight, I believe that sound is critical when it comes to flying. Specifically, the ability to identify certain sounds.
Reference the above hydraulic situation. It started with a vibration we could feel in the floor, but it soon escalated to a sound similar to that of an idling chainsaw. Within a few minutes, we had been alerted via an engine indicating and crew alerting system (EICAS) message what was going on, and the idling sound turned into a high-pitched whine. It was the pump tearing itself apart.
Every airplane has a certain "sound footprint" in each phase of flight. I've always been partial to the way an airplane sounds during the takeoff roll. It's a good time. After all, you're getting ready to go fly! The engine or engines are at full power, the wheels are spinning up, and the airflow is generating wind noise. There is a certain comfort level that you feel when you know it all sounds the way it should.
When I was a full-time flight instructor, I spent the majority of time in a fleet of Cessna 172s. The Skyhawk has a definite sound that it makes in all phases of flight: takeoff, cruise, descent, slow flight, landing. It makes a certain sound when you allow it to get away from you in a descent. The sound, with practice, will often alert you to a change in your condition—a disturbance in your equilibrium—before your eyes register what the panel says.
To this day, I think I can fly a 172 without even looking at the panel, because the sound talks to you and tells you what you need to know. Given that I have yet to fly a glass-panel Skyhawk, I'm going to need all the help I can get!
In so many ways, your airplane is talking to you. Often, that voice is the sound or sounds you hear. Learn them. Associate each phase of flight with the change in the pitch of that voice. Spend more time looking outside (which is why you probably wanted to learn to fly in the first place).
Take that information, and use it. If all else fails, it may be all you have.—Chip Wright
Tags: Cessna 172, learn to fly


text:
HOME CBS Alabama Crimson Tide Gear Alabama Crimson Tide T-Shirts over $60 (15 items) Product ID: 657381
Main Content
- 100% Cotton fabric
- Imported
- Officially licensed collegiate product
- Quality embroidery
- Mesh upper back lining
- Utility loop & rod holder loop
- Lightweight button-up fishing shirt
- Ventilation flap on back
- Four chest pockets with hook & loop fasteners
- Short sleeve
- Full-button front
- Imported
- Brand: Columbia
Tide Customers also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
Had fun at the first CFOA pump event. Some teams entered the first tournament, let's have more the second one. I know there are many out there who either play pump or are curious about it...sign your team up and have some fun. The atmosphere was great, relaxed and those entered enjoyed themselves.
Sign up fast before the prices increase!
I look forward to seeing many teams this round and the usual tough competition that the CFOA players bring.
Next Event : Carolina Classic April 9th
Location: Paintball Central Charlotte (located in rock hill SC)
CFOA 3- man Open Pump Event 2
Started by david5751, Mar 07 2011 03:44 AM
No replies to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


text:
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Hot Pink Pants
My trip to Arizona was relaxing and fun. My husband and I took naps every day and enjoyed the beautiful weather. Really a great break.
I wore this outfit yesterday. I'm a big fan of the crisp white shirt. It's classic and versatile. I'm wearing a pair of hot pink trousers and black accessories to round out the look today. The pants are such a great color. They are even brighter in person. I absolutely love them. I also chose to tie the shirt instead of tucking it in. I really like the look this creates. It makes it a bit less stuffy and more visually interesting.
I'm going around to catch up on all of your blogs today. I'm so behind but I will come by today and say hello. I promise.
Pants: Old Navy
Blouse: Uniqlo
Sweater: Nanette Lepore
Pumps: Calvin Klein via TJ Maxx
Bag: J Crew second had via My Sisters Closet in Scottsdale, AZ
Sunglasses: Elizabeth and James
23 comments:
- Amanda said...
So glad to hear you had a relaxing time in AZ! I love this outfit! The trousers are simply perfection and I love how you paired them with simple and crisp neutral colors like black accessories and the tied button-down! I would totally sport a look like this!!!
Check out my new inspiration series, I'd love to have you join in! :)
- November 1, 2011 at 11:18 AM
- Pam @ over50feeling40 said...
I think this is a great look..the amount of color is just enough to be stylish and fun, but not over the top. I also love a crisp white shirt and love the fact that it goes with everything. You look great!
- November 1, 2011 at 11:24 AM
- Style Journey said...
You are the 3rd person that I've seen wearing these pink pants! Damn my shopping ban, I want them so bad. The crisp white shirt is perfect with the pink. Glad your trip was relaxing. A nap sounds so good right now! Heather
- November 1, 2011 at 11:31 AM
- LyddieGal said...
You know I could not be a bigger fan of knotted shirts and of course the pants!
Glad you had such a great trip!
- November 1, 2011 at 12:23 PM
- SassyUptownChic said...
Those pink pants are awesome! Loving your bag also. Glad you had a great time in Arizona. I haven't visited there yet. I went to Vegas this past year, but have always wanted to go to Arizona. Found your blog from Tinfoil Tiaras.
- November 1, 2011 at 1:17 PM
- Bonnie said...
Did you wash your pants in Windex? Because I can see myself in them.
... You started the creepy factor, and I intensified it.
That's how we roll.
Twitter: @GlamKitten88
- November 1, 2011 at 2:12 PM
- Gracey at Fashion for Giants said...
Lovely; the perfect classic but fun look!
- November 1, 2011 at 2:28 PM
- Sherry said...
I've been dying for a pair of these babies ever since I saw J.Crew's fuchsia crops!! Love them! So glad you had a relaxing weekend!! :)
- November 1, 2011 at 2:44 PM
- The Suburb Experiment said...
Old Navy?! Why don't I see things like that when I go shopping there?
I like that you tied the top too - it looks fresh.
- November 1, 2011 at 3:38 PM
- Shybiker said...
Whoa! Nice pants! The tied shirt completes the look beautifully. And I love how many comments you get on your posts. You deserve lots of attention. :)
- November 1, 2011 at 6:33 PM
- Kat said...
Welcome back! You look well-rested. I'm running out of ways to say 'I really like your outfit'....so I really like your outfit! You're giving me ideas on how to style my own pink pants.
- November 1, 2011 at 6:43 PM
- laura said...
glad to hear your trip was fun and relaxing! I really LOVE the pairing of that crisp white top with those lovely trousers! the color is amazing!
♥ laura
the blog of worldly delights
- November 1, 2011 at 7:15 PM
- skippysays said...
So glad you had a nice little vacation :) I'm in love with those pants but unfortunately they're sold out online in my size :( I really hope they re-stock because you just made me love them even more :)
- November 1, 2011 at 7:24 PM
- dina vanessa mercado said...
lovely outfit.. complements you a lot.. nice color love it!!! enjoyed your blog, following you now.. hope you could visit my blog too..kissess!!!
- November 1, 2011 at 9:37 PM
- DeniseAngela said...
Hi there...... I found you thru Citizen Rosebud & love your style so I am your newest follower! Love the pink pants with your white top!
- November 1, 2011 at 10:58 PM
- Tinfoil Tiaras said...
Naps everyday? That sounds heavenly! I just love this look- especially those hot pink pants from Old Navy?I'll have to make a trip there soon!
- November 2, 2011 at 5:44 AM
- Pop Champagne said...
I love the color of those pants, this is such a cute outfit!
- November 2, 2011 at 7:21 AM
- Shybiker said...
17 comments?! And all of them raves. Your blog is becoming more popular than many TV shows. Just don't pull a Charlie Sheen on us. :)
- November 2, 2011 at 7:40 AM
- silvergirl said...
what the what???
everyone and their brother must have gotten those hot pink pants at old navy.
they are everywhere this week
oh, i miss shopping sooooo much
how was your performance??
glad you got some down time, i need some in the worst way, but not this weekend...mom in law is coming in town!
- November 2, 2011 at 9:46 AM
- Audrey said...
Glad you had a nice time in AZ! Fabulous pants....totally thought they were J.Crew! You look great! www.casualglamorous.com
- November 2, 2011 at 9:58 AM
- Collette Osuna said...
Holla tothe haute lady in the hot pink pants:)
You look great, and Im so happy you had a relaxing time away:0
A Funky Little Fashion Blog
- November 2, 2011 at 9:59 AM
- Fashion Meets Food said...
Loving your pants! What a pretty/fun shade! I just discovered your blog and love it. I am your newest follower.
- November 2, 2011 at 12:34 PM
- Nnenna said...
I looove your hot pink pants- I want a pair for myself! They look so great with you top knotted as you wore it :) Also, glad to hear you had a good trip to AZ!
star-crossed smile
- November 2, 2011 at 4:18 PM


text:
Moderators: peeker643, swerb, Ziner
by skatingtripods » Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:16 am
by Cerebral_DownTime » Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:59 am
by jb » Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:58 am
by Triple-S » Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:36 pm
Swerb wrote:Go start a blog if you want to tell the world your incomprehendible ramblings.
Cerebral_DownTime wrote:I have a big arm and can throw the ball pretty damn far...... maybe even over those moutains. The Browns should sign me, i'll let you all in locker room to drink beer. Then we can all go out the parking lot to watch me do motorcycle stunts.
by Orenthal » Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:49 pm
Return to No Holds Barred
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


text:
Only on the football field can Bucs linebacker Barrett Ruud forget about his mom's death.
By RICK STROUD
Published July 29, 2006
LAKE BUENA VISTA - The day was just dawning, full of possibilities, when Barrett Ruud and his brother returned to the house on the lake. His mother, Jaime, was waiting for them on the front porch with a camera they had forgotten.
But the only image Ruud has from that day is the one he keeps close to his heart.
It was the last time he saw his mother alive.
"It's still tough for me," Ruud said Friday, wiping tears from his eyes. "The only time I enjoy myself now is practicing. Other than that, I sit around all day and feel bad. Even when we go to meetings and stuff, I'll find myself out of it and have to snap back.
"It's something I never thought would happen."
Jaime Ruud died of a heart attack on June 30 at the family's vacation retreat in Crosslake, Minn. She was 52.
A nutritionist who had published books on the subject, she easily could have passed for 10 to 15 years younger.
The night before she died, her life never seemed more full. She was surrounded by family - sons Barrett, a second-year linebacker for the Bucs, Bo, a junior starter on the Nebraska football team, daughter Kim, who pledged the same sorority as she had at Nebraska, and husband Tom, who played football for the Cornhuskers and in the NFL.
It was their time to be together, an annual trip to the tiny town in northern Minnesota located on the Paul Bunyan Scenic Byway and home to 14 island-studded lakes known as the Whitefish chain.
Football was still several weeks away, and Jaime looked forward to being at the lake, sitting on the dock and working on projects for the Web site she had helped launch for the parents of Nebraska football players.
But Ruud's mother wasn't a spectator. She took long walks and horsed around with the boys on the Jet Skis.
"We've been going since we were 2 or 3," Ruud said. "We've done it for a long time, and it's one of my favorite places to go to. We just fish and hang out and ride the Jet Skis around.
"Everyone was there. She was actually out until late. I called it quits (Thursday night) because I was going to get up and go fishing in the morning. And she was probably up with my sister until 12:30 or 1 in the morning. The weird thing is she probably had about as good of a last night as you can have. It's kind of our big family deal in the summer. At least we got a chance to do that."
After retrieving the camera, Jaime was headed back to bed at about 7 in the morning. The rest of the house was quiet as the other guests headed to the store.
"She was going to go, and she decided to stay there," Ruud said. "It was about as sudden as you could get.
"They say she died of a massive heart attack. And she's a dietician. She walked all the time. She looked 10 years younger than she was. A massive heart attack is the last thing I thought she would get. I guess if you go out, that's the right way; being with everyone you love."
And make no mistake, Jaime Ruud was loved.
The news of her death hit the Nebraska football family hard.
She was the ultimate sports mom, who when asked by the local newspaper to list some of the most enjoyable events of her life settled for two: a state football championship for Lincoln Southeast when Barrett was a senior and Bo a sophomore and Kimmy making it to the state basketball tournament as a senior.
"When I think of work ethic, I think of her," Ruud said. "Because she had to take care of us. Because we were tough. We worked hard all day, but then we'd come home and just be bums. I'd come home and sit there all night and yell, 'Mom, can you get me this or that?'
"She had to take care of all of us and not to mention having to work on all her stuff all day, too."
Friday, Ruud returned to work. It should have been an exciting time, his second season in the NFL and with a legitimate chance to earn more playing time at middle linebacker.
But he was torn. His thoughts were with his family in Lincoln. Things just seemed a little less sad when they were all together.
"It's been a lot tougher since I left," Ruud said. "When we're together, it makes it easier. It was lot tougher for me when I left. My dad has his ups and downs. My brother has football practice next week. My sister will have trouble when she goes back to the sorority and stuff.
"I thought I would be kind of glad when camp started. It's still rough."
Linebackers coach Joe Barry said the team is trying to support Ruud as best it can but the words don't come easy.
"For someone to die like that, just bam, out of the blue ... you'd like to think if it was someone who had been sick or had cancer, you'd be able to deal with it," Barry said.
"But something like that, it's devastating. You don't know really what to say except, 'I'm sorry, and I'm here for you.' "
After finishing the Bucs' second workout Friday, Ruud soaked his legs in an ice tub. The rest of him is still numb.
"What I take with me is probably how friendly she was," he said.
"She was happy and treated everybody perfect."
[Last modified July 29, 2006, 01:58:22]
© 2011 · All Rights Reserved · Tampa Bay Times
490 First Avenue South · St. Petersburg, FL 33701 · 727-893-8111
Contact Us | Join Us | Advertise with Us | Subscribe to the Times
Privacy Policy | Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright


text:
Home > Departments > Public Safety & Emergency Management > Emergency Services Communications Center
Emergency Services Communications Center
The goal of the Mercer County Emergency Services Communication Center ("MCESCC") is to provide coordinated communications for the fire service community of Mercer County in the most effective and efficient manner possible. MCESCC serves every municipality within the county with the exception of the City of Trenton, which maintains its own dispatch center. MCESCC receives 9-1-1 calls and other requests for service and promptly dispatches appropriate emergency services resources. The Communication Center also provides operational support for the duration of the incident. The Center is located within the Dempster Fire Training Center and is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year by 12 full-time dispatchers, three supervisors and the Chief of Communications. MCESCC staff is required to be certified as Basic Telecommunication Officers and Emergency Medical Dispatchers, and many are additionally certified in Fire Dispatch. MCESCC handles more than 17,000 calls for service every year.


text:
All quotes tagged Revealation
(245 quotes found)
"Do not reveal what you have thought upon doing, but by wise council keep it secret being determined to carry it into execution."
"What if it's boring - or if it's not boring, it might be too revealing, or worse, it might be too revealing and still be boring"
"One does not kill oneself for love of a woman, but because love - any love - reveals us in our nakedness, our misery, our vulnerability, our nothingness"
"Quietude, which some men cannot abide because it reveals their inward poverty, is as a palace of cedar to the wise, for along its hallowed courts the King in his beauty deigns to walk"
"Never have I found the limits of the photographic potential. Every horizon, upon being reached, reveals another beckoning in the distance. Always, I am on the threshold."
"Any person seasoned with a just sense of the imperfections of natural reason, will fly to revealed truth with the greatest avidity"


text:
Based on the above principles, beliefs, and assumptions, and the information supplied by NACE members, NACE's position statement on the issue of unpaid internships is:
"The National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), representing more than 3,000 higher education institutions and employing organizations, recognizes the enormous value of internship programs to individual student participants and both the higher education and employer communities. We believe that the U.S Department of Labor criteria for assessing whether internships in the for-profit sector may be unpaid must be reviewed and further clarified to ensure they account for the incredible diversity of students, higher education institutions, and employing organizations involved in such programs. Further, all interns, regardless of their compensation, should enjoy similar, basic protections in the work setting consistent with all laws, ethical considerations, and sound business practices."
June 2010
JobplaceNACE Blog: http://blog.naceweb.org/
NACE's Tweets: @NACE.org
email@example.com NACE StaffCareersNACE's Newsletter: Spotlight
©2016 National Association of Colleges and Employers. All rights reserved.


text:
Amine Caroline Music
Download Amine Caroline mp3 music video free only for review course, Buy Cassette or CD / VCD original from the album Amine Caroline or use Personal Tone / I-RING / Ring Back Tone in recognition that they can still work to create other new songs. DMCA removal requests please send through contact page
Download List Music
Category: Music Video
Song / Music / Video with title/name Amine Caroline is delivered from Youtube and maybe containing a video's copy right. This web just only a search engine media, not a storage or cloud server from the file. We just linked the file or embed from Youtube then display them here to make visitor easy to find it.


text:
Chris Andersen has been dismissed from the NBA. I don't think I have ever heard it worded that way. Looks like he failed a drug test in a big way.
The only way to get "dismissed" is to fail four tests for steroids, or one fail test for some pretty serious drugs. A few of possibilities would be cocaine, LSD and heroin.
Seeing as how he has never been suspended for the roids, it seems pretty obvious there was some serious partying being done my Mr. Andersen. Chris will be able to reapply for the NBA in 2 years. He was in the first year of a 4 year deal with the Hornets.
Andersen, who averages about 5 points and 5 boards over a career of 253 games, was a fan favorite everywhere he played. His NBA career started with the Denver Nuggets in 2001. He also played in the IBA and NBDL before being signed by the Nuggets.


text:
We Sand, We Tear…
We shoot….
Oh gosh, sorry. I might have been typing this during Sunday night football! But you know how we get excited about Core'dinations here and when there are tools out there that enhance all the great things you can do with it, I gotta shout it from the rooftops!
So, I guess the cat is out of the bag and you know we are having a super fun week with SCOR PAL. Do you have one of these? Well, if you are a paper craft you better. AND if you love Core, then you BETTER! Scoring, then sanding with Core'dinations ColorCore Cardstock is the only way to go.
Scoring raises the cardstock so you can sand it and release that inner Core. It's gorgeous AND both design teams are going to show you easy and fabulous ways the Scor Pal products and Core'dinations can add interested to your papercrafting projects.
Did you know we have a Scoring Video? Check out our Technique videos for some awesome ideas on what you can do with Core, including the scoring video.
PLEASE make sure you check out the Scor Pal blog for some iNcReDiBle designs this week (I think there might be a prize over there 😉 ). They SIMPLY rock. You know we always have something up our sleeve for you when we do these fun blog events so keep commenting for a chance to win some great Core'dinations Cardstock!
So let's see what Designer Char Dobson has in store for us today…
Start by cutting a piece of cardstock 8.5″ x 4.5″. Scor at 2 1/8″ and 6 3/8″ (these are what the dots on your Scor-Pal are for). You can make gate fold cards in any size you want, just gauge them by the pre-measured lines on the Scor-Pal.
PLEASE NOTE: This is the older version of the Scor Pal and that the newer one has 1/4″ score marks and 1/8″ marks at each end.


text:
Skip to comments.Former Rep. Weiner reportedly considering NYC mayor run
Posted on 04/06/2013 6:53:06 PM PDT by haffast
Former Rep. Anthony Weiner is laying the groundwork for a political comeback, possibly as a startling addition to this years mayoral race, sources said yesterday.
Political insiders were abuzz at news that Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, had granted a lengthy magazine interview for the first time since his resignation in an embarrassing sexting scandal in 2011.
The magazine piece is step one of a two-step process for him to run citywide this year, said one Democratic Party source.
Hes looking at public advocate and comptroller, but he really thinks he can use this to get back in and run for mayor.
Weiner issued a terse no comment when asked about his plans.
Weiner has $4.3 million left in his campaign account, including $248,710 that would be matched 6-to-1 under the public-financing system.
A second source said Weiner has been contacting former staffers to prepare for his re-entry into politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Bill and Hillary and Huma and Anthony
September 5, 2012
They got a weiner for mayor now. Can't imagine one more could make it any worse.
I thought all the fruits and nuts were here in California.
The leaders of this country the worst in history.
He'll campaign on a "Foot Long in Every Pot and a Big Gulp to Wash It Down."
(Think about it. I think it's somewhere around a quadruple entendre.)
Gonna be a hotdogging campaign...
Pervert for Mayor of NYC.
Everyone's seen his goods/junk.
He would be better than the nut they have in charge now!
If you like to wag your weenie at underage chicks, where better to be than in charge of the place where there are more of them than practically anywhere else? This must be Huma's idea, Wiener is too dumb to think of it himself.
Mayor Wanker.
If he runs, he'll win. He's a perfect fit for NYC.
So NYC is going to trade a prick for a Wiener?
Thanks haffast.
From "the big apple" to "the little wienie". America really is declining.
Oh they SO deserve each other....
Although he'd be a perfectly suitable replacement for Bloomberg, you'd think by now that New Yorkers would prefer a mayor who's not mentally unstable ~ remember, Bloomberg got into gunrunning of all things ~ which is right up there with sending strange women pictures of your shorts.
Der weiner has the wrong entry into the groove.
New York Post: "State Sen. Malcolm Smith and city Councilman Dan Halloran were arrested this morning on charges they were plotting to rig this years mayoral election through fraud and bribes.
The pols allegedly formed an alliance built on cash payments and fraud to get Smith one of the states top Democrats placed on the GOP mayoral ballot, sources said.
FBI agents arrested them both at their Queens homes shortly after 6 a.m."
Who needs a TV? Just watch the next corrupt or nanny-rageous thing committed by local politicians. Or, in Weiner's case, "pole-i-tician". We need Weiner as NYC mayor like the B'nai B'rith needs his wife working there.
OK...he can run but only if we can see a picture of his junk.
Please...I just ate.
The Wiener The World Awaited!
He might be tied for "as bad" but would not be worse than the clown they have today.
I wish I were an Oscar Mayor Weiner.
I could see with Marion Barry's comeback people forgetting about his "cocaine" incident. But how is Weiner going to get people to forget about his "wiener" incident?
Republicans have no room to talk since they voted for Mark Sanford.
If they were stupid enough to elect Bloomersberg, they'd be stupid enough to elect this twit!
That thinking is the problem they are both bad. I can't believe Weiner would run after the embarrassment but most politicians have no morals and they keep getting elected it is amazing and disgusting.
That's funny! And very true!
It's as ridiculous as Barack HUSSEIN Obama running for President!! And being ELECTED!
Will be lots of fun watching rahm running for re-election.
He's going to get hammered at every stop and deservedly so
Marion Barry will advise his campaign.
'But how is Weiner going to get people to forget about his wiener incident?'
Oh, I don't think that people are going to let a little thing like that keep him from being mayor.
Vote For Weiner: A Hard Working Stiff
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
From the Manufacturer's Label:
Made in Germany with a patented enzymatic fermentation process designed to be absorbed quickly into the bloodstream.
Diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol that include 25 grams of soy protein a day may reduce the risk of heart disease. One serving of Almased provides 25 grams of soy protein.


text:
Sedum are grown for their distinctive fleshy foliage. They are available in a wide range of shapes and sizes - upright and groundcovers. A reliable, hardy and easy-to-grow perennial. Star-shaped flowers are usually in clusters or sprays that often change color throughout their bloom time.
Sedum prefer full sun with average to poor well-drained soil. Can be divided every 2-3 years in spring. Stems pull off easily and will root readily for transplanting. Winter damaged foliage can be cut back in early spring for a flush of new growth.
Our plants are all grown in plantable fiber pots that grow incredibly vigorous plants, eliminate transplant shock, and are 100% biodegradable. They have tremendous advantages over plastic pots.
Learn More


text:
>Runner's World - My Event Ratings>
In short: Beautiful scenery but terrible organisation. Wouldn't do another race organised by them. In full: I originally signed up for a 10k in October which was cancelled. I was offered an upgrade to the half marathon for this weekend, with onsite parking and a free t-shirt, which I accepted.I hadn't had any information about the race, and despite emailing I couldn't find anything on their site about water stations, distance markers or the route, so had to go by the scanty info they did provide, and turned up on the day. They had no record of my agreed t-shirt at registration (despite an earlier email saying it was all sorted) but did give one to me - although I'm very pleased I didn't actually pay for one since I don't think I'll ever wear it.The start was a farce, with a 15 minute walk along the road - disrupting traffic, and with no one making sure that the 20 mile runners who were coming through could actually pass - once we realised this was happening we tried to stay out of their way!The course itself was beautiful - courtesy of the new forest! - but the marshals were the most bored and unmotivated bunch I've ever come across, with the exception of one young lad at a gate near the end of the lap, who I think was the only one who spoke! The water situation has already been written about, but I can't believe they knew about it from earlier and hadn't bothered to do anything about it. At the finish there was one little cup of water given out, and the implication seemed to be that you should then buy drinks from one of the vendors, as I was given a look for going back to refill my cup. Finally, the run in to the finish came through the entrance road to the pub, and when we were trying to leave to get home there were still runners trying to finish, with no one directing the traffic to allow them to get down the road - hopeless!My husband came along to watch with our two small children, but because the start was delayed, and the course was longer than advertised they had a much longer wait than we had bargained for - oh, and no one knew that the two-lap course was going right past the entrance to the campsite so they didn't know to come out and cheer us on as we passed through.I know this is a long review, but I have done some fantastic races, and this just wasn't one of them. It seemed as though they had no idea of how to organise events, and would have been more suited to sticking with maybe a 5 and 10k and leaving the longer distances to someone more experienced. Date of review: March 12, 2012
In short: Great race!In full: Beautiful scenery, friendly runners and good organistaion. Cold and wet, but lots of cheerful marshals, and despite the hills I'm pleased with my time! Will definitely be back to do it again.Date of review: November 30, 2008
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Click here
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
Injury Clinics
About Runner's World


text:
314 ratings
By Event
Wine Riot Boston
Second Glass Crash Course
Wine Riot DC
Living Social Crash Course
Wine Riot New York
Australian Wines with No BS Presented by WTFLA
California Wine Festival
Boston Uncorked - Summer Solstice Seven
A Night in Lisbon
Pinot Days
Wine Riot Chicago
Wine Riot Boston
Boston Wine Week
Wine Riot LA
Second Glass Staff Crash Course
EmComm Crash Course
Boston Uncorked Winter Warm Up
Vino Viagra and the Panty Remover
Chef Louie Night
Kickass Wines from Spain and Portugal
Boston Wine Expo
Second Glass Wine Riot Boston
Mass Innovation Night #19
Dart Boston Pokin' Holes Ep 52
Loire Valley Trade Tasting: Boston
Boston Wine Week
Girls in Tech
Loire Valley Trade Tasting: Seattle
Tastings on the Lawn
By Style
Anthony R.
Drunken munchies
pulled pork
The wine that got you into wine
sampler cases of $5 wine at Trader Joe's
Current watering hole
If I could only drink one wine forever
Spanish Garnacha
After too much wine I talk endlessly about
how stuff works
Showing wines matching:
Style: red
Tasted at event: Wine Riot New York
2009 J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines Falcon's Perch Pinot Noir
USA, California, Monterey County
he liked it!
2009 J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines Seven Oaks Cabernet Sauvignon
USA, California, Paso Robles
he liked it!
2008 J. Lohr Vineyards & Wines Los Osos Merlot
USA, California, Paso Robles
he loved it!
2009 Yellow+Blue Monastrell
Spain, Jumilla
he loved it!
2006 Chateau Brande Bergere Bordeaux Superieur
France, Bordeaux
he loved it!
2009 Peachy Canyon Winery Cirque du Vin
USA, California, Paso Robles
he loved it!
he loved it!
2004 Bodegas Valdubon Reserva
Spain, Ribera del Duero
he liked it!
2007 Morlanda Crianca
Spain, Priorat
he liked it!
2004 Vaza Crianza
Spain, Rioja
he loved it!
2008 Leo Hillinger Blaufrankisch
Austria, Burgenland
he liked it!
2007 Jean-Max Roger Sancerre Rouge "La Grange Dîmière"
France, Loire Valley
he loved it!
he loved it!
2008 Bodegas DSL Calma
Spain, Rioja
he loved it!
2009 Mouton Noir Wines Other People's Pinot
USA, Oregon, Willamette Valley
he liked it!
2008 Charles Krug Family Reserve Generations
USA, California, Napa Valley
he loved it!


text:
fdrx wrote:I have an idea for you TwoPynts : you can make a last order and get the nicest tea bags you can find (japanese make great tea bags..) and then prepare lots of bags with different teas from your personal tea library... now your Christmas presents are ready! Give some teabags to the people you like in a nice box (or not), and with explainations on the different tea, etc... share your tea!
alan logan wrote:less is more.
easier said than done...
Try this experiment : choose one tea in your library. spend 10 days with it only. you can brew it in as many ways as you like, but have this one tea only.
debunix wrote:When I travel, I pick one to three teas to bring with me for a weekend to a week or more. I can be a great way to rediscover why I liked a particular tea so much in the first place.
debunix wrote:I obviously am not traveling to the right places!


text:
Magna Visual® Lustreboard Planning Kit
Item #: 360222 | Model #: MAVEBK3648 |
We're sorry, this item is not available in your selected Club. Check another Club
About this itemMagna Visual® Lustreboard Planning Kit with Magnetic Accessories.
Plan, schedule and control, instantly changing and moving data! Write-on/wipe-off magnetic porcelain on steel offers incredible flexibility. White board has 1 x 2 baked-on blue grid lines to help organize information. Boards accept dry erase or water-soluble markers; strips accept water-soluble markers only. Package includes mounting hardware.
Assembled Country
Component Country