Free Republic

So who were they, and what happened to them? If they really are 40K years old then genetic and other data indicates that they are not the ancestors of today's American Indians. Instead, they must have been from an ealier group that went extinct.

Baer was not a flat out villain in that film. He was complex. He had a bad side, but the movie has Braddock subtley using Baer's consicence against him so that he would come out weak (IMHO). For example, when Braddock sees the film of Baer killing the guy, he can see the remorse in Baer's posture. He then walks up to the guy and tries to show him that he (Braddock) is a real human being. Baer is really afraid he is going to kill Braddock. He does not want to. A real villain would have exulted in killing people.

I got chill bumps reading this. Nick Cannoon huh? I may buy my first rap CD!

And to take it a step further, libralism is a mental disorder. I would guess that the children of black Republican voters would be LESS likely to get in trouble than the average white kid. Give me some funding, I want to do a study!

In my observations as a teacher in a black majority school district for nine years, I would say it is because the black kids misbehave more often.

Yes. www.constitutionparty.com

U.S. Magistrate Judge Felix Recio for Supreme Court Justice!!!

I have them upstairs much more than downstairs myself, I'd say about 5-1. The best non-posionous solution I have found is to take 2 inch masking tape, tear off about 8 inches or so, and leave it on the floor in the areas where you see them WITH THE STICKY SIDE UP. They prowl around at night, they don't get in a web. If you picked the right places you should catch several on each piece of tape in a few weeks.

John 2:15

"And He made a scrouge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple.....and poured out the coins of the moneychangers, and overturned their tables."

Revelations 14:20

"And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood came up out of the winepress, as deep as a horse's bridle, for a distance of about 200 miles."

a watershed event?

I much prefer the m2ps (mini-magnetosphere plasma propulsion, which is studied by a Dr. Winglee. It uses plasma to make a huge "virtual solar sail". Charged particles from the solar wind push against it. A tiny helicon can make a "sail" 15km in diameter.

Wow! Did the antrhopoligist have any Khosian type skeletons from Europe (or from wherever the Celts came from) to back his hypothesis?

The Khosians also have some peculiarities in their sex organs. Another group from Irish legend, the Formorians, were presented as generally deformed. I wonder if that also could be an exaggeration of the Koho's peculiarities?

Whether or not the mtDNA represents the only true human woman (with some leakage from the males) alive or simply the tiny minority of women whose genes survive to the present day is purely a matter of faith. How can we ever know which is the case?

I am more concerned that they get the dates right. There is a lot of pressure to keep dates old enough so that they seem "respectable" to the evos. What is instead of "the first (surviving?") woman " being around 150 years ago it was only 50,000? The article assumes the Quazfeh finds are modern humans, but they don't look modern to me, and there is no way to check them by DNA analysis.

The whole dating thing is based on mutation rates. How do we know mutation rates today have been constant for the last 150,000 years? The Vela Super Nova sent cosmic rays at highly elevated levels about 30,000 years ago. That should have raised mutation rates for many thousands of years. If the male DNA can enter the mitochondria, wouldn
't that cause more "changes" than the chance mutation rate? The more changes it has, the older they assume it is.

Fascinating stuff. I read up on the Khosians. When showed pictures of other ethnic groups, they identified the Vietnamese as being the same as themselves. If you look at them they do bear some resemblance, and look more like them than they do their classical negro neighbors. It makes me think that both very dark and very light humans are the offshoots. The skull shape and other mongoloid traits are a different matter though.

Do you know who wrote the book?


Also, I don't think I would shake hands with Slick, no telling where that thing has been.


http://www.constitutionparty.com

You are not much of a fiction writer. You better keep your day job, which seems to be as a hack for the liberal GOP establishemnt.

Have a nice day then.

In the scriptures it says "all scripture is inspired by God". Even if men wrote it down, the scripture testifies of itself that it is "God-breathed". Do you believe that all scripture is God-breathed?

Ok, then let me re-phrase it, you are trying to condemn the scriptures, which have led countless souls to God across the ages, including mine, in a vain effort to excuse yourself from having to heed their witness. And yes, I believe that if you continue to harden your heart then you will get your heart's desire- eternal seperation from God who created and loves you.

BTW, you seem to be doing a pretty good job of ingnoring my more salient points as well.

I do agree that the natural universe is also a witness to God, and that the creation account must be interpreted in the light of what the natural world tells us. I am an Old Earth Creationist for example.

If the laws of the Old Testament were a "step forward" then they cannot be "Moral Relativism" in the classical definition of that term. A "step forward" implies that there is an objective moral order. Relativism implies that there is not, that it is all a matter of personal preference.

Note to DS: As I am against child abuse, I hope he does not get zotted (this guy can't be outta college yet). His opinions are no real threat, and the interplay can be instructive.

You Say "Geez..you social conservatives fail to see any gray areas. There is no objective morality...but knowing that...we as a people should do the best we can."

Ahban says: Why should we do the "best" we can? If there is no objective morality, where do you get off claiming there is a "best"? The rational person who really believes there is no objective morality will indeed do the best they can - to advance their own interests no matter how badly others get hurt.

You are mistaken when you say that religious conservatives have no gray areas. As the scripture says, "one man regards one day above another, another man regards every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." Some things are gray, but not all things. It is instead you who leave no room for gray areas with the claim that their is no objective morality. That is a claim that leaves all black, with no area of light at all.

You say, "Wouldn't you like everyone to have a chance to be happy? So using our combined intellects..let us make a system which maximizes the opportunity! What we need is a set of rules that is flexible and inclusive without turning humankind to a primal survival test."

Ahban says: I would like everyone to have a chance to be happy. I only desire this because I believe in an objective moral order that has love of neighbor as a central theme. Lacking this belief, I would have no reason to "like everyone to have a chance to be happy". My primary concern would be to insure my own happiness, even at other's expense.

As for your appeal to "use our combined intellects" to make a system that "maximizes this opportunity", I would say that this has been tried many times. Each and every time it has been tried outside a framework of objective truth, from the French Revolution, to Marx, to Hitler, to Pol Pot, it has resulted in a totalitarian nightmare. Idealistic dreamers like yourself may start such revolutions, but they are soon supplanted by remorseless thugs who take the philosophy of moral relativism to its logical conclusion.

You say,"What we need is a set of rules that is flexible and inclusive without turning humankind to a primal survival test."

Why is that what we "need"? Why don't we need a set of rules that allows for the benefit of the Master Race (the one we belong too of course) at the expense of "lesser people's"? What if I think I am the fittest? Why don't I want to turn humankind into a primal survival test? Isn't that going to make the race stronger? Why is allowing weakness to multiply good? Why do I need to be "inclusive" towards people I don't like? Because leftwingrightwingchickenwing says so?

You say, "True liberty is allowing for moral relativism. True liberty is about making up your own mind about what is right for you and your own life only. Let me stress that, You and your own life only!"

Ahban says: Negative. True liberty is the freedom to exercise one's God given rights. The definition you give is for "license". The Founders of this country knew the difference. They knew that rights came from God. License does not produce liberty, but slavery. As individuals fall to whatever vices tempt them, they then will victimize others in an effort to sustain their vices. Eventually everyone in this "free" society becomes a prisoner as things soon descend into law-of-the-jungle style anarchy.

Rights are a gift of God, and therefore liberty cannot mean the freedom to do whatever destructive thing you care to do, but rather the freedom to exercize your God-given rights. The difference between these two defintions of liberty is the difference in outcome between the American Revolution and the French Revolution (the Jacobian Terror, followed by dictatorship to restore order).

You say:"I don't know why I dignified such an oft-regurgitated response with a reply of my own..."

Ahban says: You haven't dignified it with a response of your own. You are reading right out of the handbook. To find your self, first find your Maker.