IDRIVESOFAST is out of here. His kind come and go. Someone tells them that their buddy made the papers so they check it out. They find us characters trashing on his stupidity and like a good friend he's going to take us on and defend the clowns honor. Problem is his friend has no honor and we wind up ripping the clown and the defender to shreds and they wind up lasting only a day or two.

Some of them go off the deep end and Cal and Company winds up getting rid of them for us. When some knuckle head like your buddy Drive Fast shows up the Citizen Gang instinctively smells blood in the water and goes after the critter. It's very similar to how nature eliminates it's weak and stupid in the wild. If by chance they survive then they are welcomed into the pack much like you were when you first came on looking after your biking buddies. The difference was you turned out to have much common sense and courtesy on our roadways and it showed. Now like the mob your stuck. To leave us is to die.

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Kind of like the last vulture circling.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I guess I'm the Hiena that's mad the lions ate all of the fresh kill again. Now I'm forced to go dig in the dumpster of old posts for my next meal. Rats!!!!!!!!

Kevin "Hack" King

Remember those old T-shirt sayings from the 70's?

Makin Bacon - Drin 'Til Yer Stupid

Maybe this one will help.

Patience My ___, I'm Gonna Kill Something.

It kills me to see a vet dumpster diving. Hope that helps

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Relax. Another mentally wounded creature will show up soon enough. There are plenty of brain dead num-skulls ready to say their last words..."Hey Guys, Watch This! Arrrrrgh we'll feast soon enough..... AGHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAaaaa!

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Good, I'm hungry!!! See you all tomorrow. I'll be broadcasting from DFW till Thursday. Good night all.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

At the Cattleman's in the Stockyards in Fort Worth.

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

.... they keep pulling me back in."

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Don't even think about it. Cal's the only one that can free you now.

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

Thanks for contributing nothing.

**** GIT REAL TOUGH ON CRIME ****

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY

why don't you cite some examples of radical Christianity that promote suicide bombing.

Quote some biblical scriptures that encourage Christians to kill and destroy non-believers.

Support the allegations of your post and get back with us later.

What "history of radical Christianity" do you have in mind?

A truly radical Christianity--one in which Christ's followers take Christ's actual teachings seriously and live them out consistently--would be one that is self-sacrificial and compassionate. "Radical Christianity," where practiced, has built hospitals, formed soup kitchens and reached out to the downtrodden.

The difference between Christians who have done evil and Muslims who have also committed evil deeds, is that the former are condemned by their own professed principles. Is it clear that the Prophet would take a dim view of today's jihadists?

That Christians, like Muslims, want every single one to believe every rule just as they do, just in case they are wrong and end up in hell, then they will have a lot of company. They are not satisfied with knowing about their own salvation alone, they want you to back them up! They will kill you if you don't.

has gone off the silly end again.

Do your fingers just start moving on the keyboard before your brain is activated?

Yeah, sometimes. Unlike professors, military types, republicans, radicals, and other carefullnists, I don't stop to think who might not like what I say, before I upset someone.
I just say what needs to be said. I am not charged as a diplomat!

And no one has ever accused you of having a brain, either.

But you miss my point.

It is not that what you say upsets anyone. If anything, your comments amuse.

And it isn't that you "don't stop to think who might not like [you] say." Rather, it is that, apparently, you don't stop to think at all before you write.

Did you really mean to suggest that "Christians" wish to convert at the point of a sword? Who did you have in mind?

I suppose the Crusaders and the Inquisitioners just had gold in mind.
Converting Iraq to democracy????? After 5000 years of Theism????? Or, brutal dictators. Or guys with 3000 concubines and 1700 wives.
Killing tens of thousands in the process!
Oh, no. Not us.
Oh, that was old religion you say?
How about Jim Jones? How about the dude that took a bunch on the comet as it flew by?
How about PTL shares? Might as well kill them!
I could go on and on, but I know just what you think religion is, is all that counts.
Ignoring violations of your own written word every day shows the foolishness of saying that what you stand for is it!
We are all weak and sin, I know. Excellent excuse.

As usual, it is hard to decipher whatever it is that you are trying to say here.

I seem to detect that you have an objection to anyone thinking that their religious (or political or philosophical) beliefs are true to the exclusion of others.

Is this correct?

The trouble, though, is that to believe anything is to believe it to be true. That's just what it means to have a belief. And to believe that it is true requires also thinking that anything that contradicts it is false.

Religious beliefs are mutually contradictory.

Therefore, anyone who has any religious belief whatsoever is logically committed to thinking that certain other religious beliefs are false.

So to object to anyone's thinking that their belief is exclusively true is to object to their believing anything at all.

Do you have no beliefs about anything whatseover?

I know that many of you have studied the Crusades. I'm just placing this here to remind some what Muslim children have been taught for centuries - and a possible reason for their deep-seated distrust of 'western' religions and/or philosophies. Many horrendous acts have been done in the name of 'Christianity' during the Crusades and during our own recent history. (Remember the white 'crosses' of the KKK?) Click here: THE CRUSADES One reason that the radical Islamists are winning recruits may be because of this deep-seated distrust based on the history of the Crusades. Whether this makes 'sense' to us or not is not the point. The extremists see the actions done in the name of Christianity just as horrendous as we view the acts of 'beheading', 'suicide bombing', etc. I feel that Muddle is right when he tells us that those extremists - of the eastern religions/philosophies 'know' that they are right - just as those extremists of the western/Judaic-Christian community, 'know' that they are right.. . believe that their religion/philosophy is 'true' and therefore their actions justified. Those who follow the Jewish tradition (and those who follow the Christian tradition) base their actions on the Ten Commandments. Today it would be considered 'extreme' for Christians to 'turn the other cheek' in this situation. It would also be considered 'extreme' to follow the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". I think we are selective in following the 'dictates' of our religious beliefs.

David's Mom wrote:

I feel that Muddle is right when he tells us that those extremists - of the eastern religions/philosophies 'know' that they are right - just as those extremists of the western/Judaic-Christian community, 'know' that they are right.. . believe that their religion/philosophy is 'true' and therefore their actions justified. Those who follow the Jewish tradition (and those who follow the Christian tradition) base their actions on the Ten Commandments. Today it would be considered 'extreme' for Christians to 'turn the other cheek' in this situation. It would also be considered 'extreme' to follow the commandment "Thou shalt not kill". I think we are selective in following the 'dictates' of our religious beliefs.

She also wrote:

'Truth' is in the eye of the believer.

First, I want to put some daylight between what I said and what she took me to be saying. She suggests that Muslims 'know' that they are right just as those in the Judeo-Christian tradition 'know' they are right. (Note her use of scare quotes flanking 'know' and 'true'.)

My point, rather, was that, contra our erudite friend, Dollar, there cannot be anything objectionable about thinking other people's religious beliefs are false. And the reason for this is that to believe anything at all is to believe that it is true to the exclusion of anything incompatible with it.

Even someone who wishes to invite everyone to the table by saying "All religious beliefs are equally valid" is making an exclusive truth claim, in that it precludes anything that denies it. (And, indeed, just about any living, breathing religious belief will deny it because it is incompatible with taking their religious beliefs to be really true.)

I take Christian truth claims to be true in just that exclusive sense.

Further, there is no good sense in which both Christoans and Muslims can know that their respective religious beliefs are true. People never knew that the earth is flat; they falsely believed it. A belief counts as knowledge only in the event that it is (a) actually true and (b) warranted or justified.

David's Mom read me in such a way as to put a relativistic spin on things. I could not be farther than I am from that.

As for the claim, "'Truth' is in the eye of the believer," consider the following argument. The statement is itself a truth claim. It purports to tell me something about the real nature of truth, namely, that it is relative to individuals or groups. Let "T" stand for the statement, 'Truth is in the eye of the believer."

Is T true? If you say yes, you have two choices. Either it is 'true' in a relative way ('true' for those who happen to accept it), or it is true absolutely. If the former, then it turns out that it really says nothing about the real nature of truth. We've no reason whatsoever to think that truth is relative (whatever that would mean). Rather, it just turns out that some people have a certain positive attitude toward T. To say that it is "true for them" is merely to say that they believe it; not that it has any purchase on the real world.

If the latter, then the statement is self-contradictory, as it is an instance of the very thing it attempts to preclude. Conclusion: the statement, 'Truth is in the eye of the believer' is necessarily false.

Finally, though I'm not sure why, she gives an example of "selectivity" in following the dictates of our religious beliefs. It would be regarded as 'extreme,' she says, to follow the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill.' The commandment may be read as "Thou shalt not murder", where murder is the unjustified taking of innocent human life. Thus, the commandment has the exceptions of self-defense, warfare, etc. built in. There is nothing extreme about an absolute and unyielding prohib ition on murder.

Commandeering a plane and flying it into a tower full of people is mass murder. Killing a terrorist to prevent that murder is not.

I am not qualified to argue with a scholarly student of philosophy the meaning of Truth – but I would like your opinion on my clarifications below:

I feel that Muddle is right when he tells us that those extremists - of the eastern religions/philosophies 'know' that they are right - just as those extremists of the western/Judaic-Christian community, 'know' that they are right.. . believe that their religion/philosophy is 'true' and therefore their actions justified.

Would it be more palatable to say persons believe that their beliefs are right? I can agree to that. I also agree that it is not objectionable for others to have a different belief – but this is where the conflict lies in human relations.

Finally, though I'm not sure why, she gives an example of "selectivity" in following the dictates of our religious beliefs. It would be regarded as 'extreme,' she says, to follow the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill.' The commandment may be read as "Thou shalt not murder", where murder is the unjustified taking of innocent human life. Thus, the commandment has the exceptions of self-defense, warfare, etc. built in. There is nothing extreme about an absolute and unyielding prohibition on murder.

Interesting interpretation of a commandment. It does not read – Thou shalt not murder. It reads Thou shalt not kill. The extreme believers of the Judaic/Christian religion understand that to mean one should not kill any living, breathing thing - therefore we have those who will not kill an animal or a human under any circumstance. The general populace considers them extremists. According to belief, the Ten Commandments were divinely given to Moses and the people of Israel. Jews and Christians have interpreted/implemented these laws (commandments) to fulfill their human needs. According to the Christian belief, the two most important commandments are to love God with all your heart . . . .and the second – to love your neighbor as yourself. Many Christians would declare that they believe and act upon these words of Jesus. Our history of Christian occupation of this planet does not support this declaration. The words of Jesus – and all acknowledged wise men, if followed, would truly be salvation to the world problems of today – IMO. Muslims have different beliefs – and the extremists of the Muslim religion are acting upon some of them. I KNOW that not all Muslims believe that beheading humans, killing innocents, etc. is right.

that the above statement is that very thing.
I admire your keen perception on the comment below:

As for the claim, "'Truth' is in the eye of the believer," consider the following argument. The statement is itself a truth claim."

Due to secular influences in American culture, most of the people we debate labor under the premise there is no absolute truth (i.e. right and wrong)
A huge part of the reason that Americans can kill innocent life at the rate of over 4,500 per day via abortion without a second though is the lack of absolute concepts in our culture.

In pro-life debates, I often hear “there are no absolutes of morality” it’s a matter of cultural preference.

By that definition there is no discernible difference between Hilter and Mother Teresa., they just had different preferences on what was right ??!

Fortunately the above is why the liberal (and the pro-death position) self-destructs when examined.
__________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

Your number is way down!
By the use of contraceptives, pills the next day, sheep skins, cloths, rhythm methods, abstinence, and many, many other methods, millions are kept from living.
Women should and can make the choice.

(Jean-Paul Sarte comes to mind when I read Davids mom's blogs)

Moral relativism is what you are referring to and it is a part of the politically correctness and emotive narcissism of the liberal mindset.

"Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory."(Wikipedia)

Taoist writings of Chuang Tzu and many others generally have in common the idea than man is basically the center of the universe and those views are diametrically opposed to Christian Philosophy.

Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) notably held that nothing is inherently good or evil (no big T truth and no little t truth either).

Anthropologists often espouse such beliefs:

Ruth Benedict (1887 – 1948) cautioned observers against ethnocentricism — using the standards of their own culture to evaluate their subjects of study. Benedict said that morals do not exist.

This is a growing trend among liberals under the guise of being politically correct, culturally sensitive, or the separation of church and state, holding us all to the same standards, etc. etc. etc..

Ironically, liberals are using the very guise of avoiding an egocentric point of view to justify their narcissistic 'make up as you go' set of 'truths' (little t).

All I can say is that a 'little' knowledge is a dangerous thing.

It seems that the 100 and 200 level undergrad courses combined with a desire to justify one's transgressions are all some need to justify their egocentric 'higher order' selective moral outrage, relativism and narcissism.

Good luck guys.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

To say that everything depends upon what one relates it to is saying that nothing is true.
That pretty much describes some puritans though!

To say that everything depends upon what one relates it to is saying that nothing is true.

You have just proved the theory that if you put enough monkeys on a keyboard for a long enough period of time, one of them will write a sonnet.

In your language: "Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while".

( ... if you mean 'True' with a capital 'T' that is!)

Of course- you blow it again with your 'Puritan' remark.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Hogs are much smarter than squirrels!
Blew it withPuritan remark? No. The only way they could mentally survive was to allow no one to question anything they said about religion.
Have you seen the movie "Scarlett Letter?" One with Demi Moore?
Ignorant jack asses.

If the hogs are so smart, why are they in pens and the squirrels running free. I don't see honeybaked squirrel at the store.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Kevin "Hack" King

I don't see many hogs as road splats, nor many squirrels not working either! Think about that!

I see less squirrels dead on the road then I do bacon and hams in the supermarket, the squirrels in my yard are just playing. what kind of work do the hogs do?

I yam what I yam...Popeye

Squirrels must work nearly day and night to find enough to eat. They don't play. The often fight over food.
Hogs get fed. They never know when the hammer hits them between the eyes!

I've got 8 big oak trees in my back yard plus a pecan tree and my veggie garden, believe me when I say my squirrels don't have to work, there's food lying all over the ground here. If acorns were a cash crop I could retire. You never did say what work your hogs do.

I yam what I yam...Popeye

?

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Well it is really acorns they root for, not nuts, although I suppose an acorn is a nut!
Now Mix, listen carefully and I will explain the blind hog saying to you:
Once upon a time when an exception happened to a rule by accident, it would often be called the same thing as "a blind hog" who will also get an acorn to eat just by rooting long enough.
Now Mix, hogs at one time often were more or less in pasture fields and not so much (as Jon Stuart says) in pens.
Large acorn trees shed their acorns into the mud and leaves under the tree trying to procreate. The hogs knew this, even the blind hog, and would root for the acorns to eat. They are pretty good!
It is something, mix, like if you were blind and turned loose in a vegetable garden, hungry, it is likely that you would not get the best stuff to eat like, say, myself who wasn't blind, say, but you wouldn't be totally without! The other hogs didn't help except to grunt.
Got it?

But that's just me.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

"Now Mix, listen carefully" -- Mixer, you really should learn to listen because then you would understand Dollar.

I think that $ is the squirrel -- hopefully, harmless (Dr. Denise's professional opinion).

Dollar, don't you remember me now?

That guy from Wikipedia you quoted is a fruitcake. Those words don't even go together!

on words that don't go together.

It may surprise some that there is a resurgence of interest in "moral realism" among philosophers. Moral realism is just the "old fashioned" view that some things really are right and others really wrong, independently of anyone's beliefs or feelings.

One excellent resource here is the very readable book by Russ Shafer-Landau, titled, Whatever Happened to Good and Evil? (Oxford). It's a good read, and is designed for people not versed in moral philosophy to understand the issues. (It is his easier version of the more technical Moral Realism: A Defence.

Seriously, it is a well-written book that is worth your time.

I have a review of it on Amazon, and the same review appeared in a journal (but I'm not gonna tell you which one is mine ).

My only argument with RS-L is that I am not sure that one can defend the objectivity of morality outside of a theistic context.

If the true story of origins begins only with the Big Bang and continues with the pressure of natural selection working upon species on this planet, why should anyone suppose that morality is objective. A straightforward evolutionary story suggests otherwise.

Follow me here - you are a brilliant man and I appreciate your mind.

It's always interesting to examine what concepts flourish in the absence of a Deity in an effort to explain the 50 million cells feeding 50 billion combinations of intangible concepts that make up the human consciousness. But regardless, rather than focusing on the levels of consciousness (or sub-consciousness)argument, (which I would prefer come from you) to support the concept of a 'creator' or 'Deity', I would like to postulate on the following:

Your hypothetical argument is solid, and I cannot find an area for disagreement whenever you state that "If the true story of origins begins only with the Big Bang and continues with the pressure of natural selection working upon species on this planet, why should anyone suppose that morality is objective"; however, just for the sake of argument, please allow me to address why your argument fails to be a 'viable' one.

Your argument is lacking one critical initial concept when you cite 'The Big Bang Theory'.

You see, I would argue that 'The Big Bang' therory requires a Deity given the universally accepted Laws of Physics, Energy and Conservation:

Newton's first law would require that 'something' put this Big Bang in to motion (See Galileo's Law of Inertia). Objects at rest, even unstable mass with incalculable density (especially mas of great density)must be acted upon to overcome the 'normal force', Fn and propensity to remain at rest.

Absent the fist law being applied or responsible for this initial expansion, Newton's second law would require that this 'something' acting upon the initial mass be a 'force (F)' to accelerate (A) this 'mass (M)in order to cause any movement or release of energy since the energy contained, according the the Law of Conservation of Energy, must be accounted for and is changed to Kinetic Energy,(Ke), it must have first been Potential Energy,(Pe); {Pe=Ke} and {F=MA}.

Of course, we are completely discounting that an 'ether' must already exist in order to act as the conduit for this mass, matter, energy and these photons to be distributed.

Well, even if we ignore all of this evidence we are faced with Newton's third law: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".

I suppose the 'equal and opposite reaction' to the big bang is yet to occur... thank God for that.

Of course since man cannot create nor destroy matter - where all the Mass came from is an entirely different argument in and of itself.

Therefore: An argument in favor of relative truth, by discounting the existence of a Deity, is impracticable and inaccurately flawed if it begins with the 'Big bang Theory'.

Just food for thought about the 'physics' argument in favor of a Deity

Care to postulate on the 'Id, Ego, and Super-Ego' for us?

Next we can examine our innate need to organize, create and the perfect science of Mathematics

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

This gibberish sounds like God must cause every apple to fall from a tree! Much of it was in the plan---in not all. And, we will never know with our limited thought.

Standard Big Bang Theory implies an absolute beginning to the universe. This, of course, invites the question, "What was before the Big Bang?"

Check out some articles by my friend,
William Lane Craig on such things. Bill has spearheaded contemporary discussion of the theistic implications of contemporary cosmology.

Ah, therein lies the finiteness of the human mind. What was here before the beginning? What precedes the super-ego.?

I am still waiting for your opining on the (id, ego, and) super-ego.

Where oh where does it come from?

Dumbed down for us 'neocons' of course.

Are you by chance a Theology or Religious/Philosophy Professor?

It seems I recall that you teach at the college level.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

It is like the "half-life" of radiation, isn't it? We don't know.

... nuclear degeneration and radioactive decay and radiocarbon dating.

I thought everyone did?

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Then if radiation only loses one half of it life at a time, when will it be dead?
Do you know?
If I eat half of an ice cream cone, and then half of whats left, then half of whats left, then half of whats left, then half of what left, then half of whats left.......and I don't give up, when will it be gone? How long?
Do you know, as you say?

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with radioactive half life.

Carbon isotopes in about 5730 years but doesn't lose half of half etc.

It releases it's 'energy' at an exponentially decreasing rate of energy vs. decay until it is gone (no longer radioactive).

As for your ice cream: If you keep taking half - you will never finish taking half dollar.

I would invest in a very small spoon for that ice-cream trick if I was you.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Sorry Mixer, but you should stick to politics. Carbon-14 does indeed have a half-life of 5730 years. That means that every 5730 years, half of it is gone. It does indeed lose half of half, etc. just like Dollar was implying. After 5730 x 10 years, (57,300 years) the amount of C-14 will be the original amount divided by 2 raised to the 10th power. If the original amount was 10 pounds, the final amount would be .009765 lbs. It would never completely disappear, just keep getting smaller and smaller.

Here's one for you: Some ancient human bones are found and tested for Carbon-14. They have 48% of the original C-14. How old are they?

I'll post the answer in about an hour, if you don't post it first.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

"It would never completely disappear, just keep getting smaller and smaller.

I see you used an over simplification I presented to dollar, in his theoretical 'ice cream' question, to attempt to discredit me. Did you expect me to explain this to dollar?

Okay, I'll play along "Gumpy":

I will allow you to draw your own conclusion on whether I know what I am talking about or not by considering this.

A radioisotope of a chemical element having an unstable nucleus that decays, (emitting alpha, beta, or gamma rays) will do so until stability is reached.

Your carbon example would become Nitrogen.

In other cases, the end product is a nonradioactive isotope of another element, I would use Uranium or Radium examples: i.e., radium-226 decays to lead-206 (but as I stated, your (dollars) Carbon 14 becomes Nitrogen 14). Since Carbon is not Nitrogen and Lead is not Radium, I think it's safe to say that the decay has terminated. Perhaps if you invest in a gieger counter you can test this for yourself.

Now, let's go a little deeper:

If we consider the Uranium atom, the mass deficit, and therefore the energy released in fission is different for U-233 and U-235 even though they have the same stored Coulomb energy.

I have two questions for you Gump:

If I add 2 neutrons to the nucleus of the Uranium -233 it becomes U-235. Yet, the energy released by these two is quite different and greater in the U-235 since it has a deeper nuclear potential well.

My questions then are: Will the two Uraniums deteriorate to become the same element?

Why or why not?

What does that prove about whether there is an 'end' or if they just get "smaller and smaller"?

You may wish to note to the bloggers since you are talking about tens of thousands of years in the case of a Carbon isotope and notify them that the most accurate radiocarbon dating is the most current since the nuclear testing during WWII vastly increased the amount of Carbon 14 in living organisms. You may even want to tell Al Gore.

You may further wish to remind them that any half life of that length (5730 +/- 40 years for your Carbon 14) would mean you would have to apply 'theory' to the 'decaying formula' applicable for your situation.

Example that can be reproduced in your classroom:

When you bombard oxygen with neutrons, you can form a radioactive isotope of nitrogen, but it has a half-life of only 7 seconds, so it vanishes in a minute or two.

A reversible process to ponder:

If Nitrogen 14 is fed by pressure differentials in a continuous process within a microwave cavity in which the atoms are held in a fixed direction of spin (column stacking?) while electromagnetic energy resonant with nitrogen 14 converts protons into neutrons thus transmuting nitrogen 14 into carbon 14.

Let's talk mathematical common sense:

Finally, tell me Gump, if the decay is at a rate that is exponential and inverse to the release of the radioactive (alpha, beta, gamma) rays, (a mathematical parabola) how can it not end?

No time limit for you Gump - but it's already been several hours....

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Your question about U-235 versus U-233 is easy. The U-235, which can be used in atomic bombs, decays into Thorium-231. U-233 is better for use in reactors, since it has lower long-term radioactivity of the spent fuel, turns into (primarily) three new elements when it decays. The three are Strontium-90, Cesium-137, and much smaller amounts of Technetium-99.

Also, your smokescreen about Carbon-14 levels being affected by nuclear testing since WWII is just that--a smokescreen. It's uncertain just how much difference nuclear testing has had on Carbon-14 levels, but the amount of C-14 in an organism is fixed once that organism is dead. That amount then steadily decays over time, and can be used to date the sample. We don't generally use C-14 dating for any samples that are as recent as WWII. So it doesn't matter if the C-14 in the environment has gone up since then, except of course that it matters to our health. Ironic that you would bring Al Gore into this discussion, considering that he is preaching about the negative effects that we are having on the world environment.

Well, enough of this pointless quiz. Try some humility once in awhile.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

The answer is approximately 6100 years old. The formula is below:

N(final) = N(initial)x e^(-.00012 x years)

In this case N(final) is 48% and N(initial) is 100%. Considering that 48% is almost 1/2, the answer is going to be slightly longer than the half-life, which you already knew was 5730.

See you later.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

You used a fifth grade math question to make yourself feel better? I was typing something a bit more substantial 'Gump' dollar himself could have answered your question. By the way, your formula is incorrect and depends on several factors. You really should avoid Wikipedia for Physics questions.

Feel free to read my blog to you regarding whether radioactive isotopes deplete. We disagree - and, as usual, I am correct.

You have yet again let emotion make you speak too quickly.

Read this to see how you think and why you need to stick to...well, read this:
Click Here.

Finally: A suggestion; at the level of kids you teach, maybe on this type of problem you can just multiply the 5730 times the 52% and allow for the error (+/- 40 years + 2%) to determine the approximate age. I really hope that's not the type of material you cover in your science classes with your 'kids'.

By the way, you ARE aware that more than one formula can be used - aren't you Gump?

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

What you are saying is that you are incapable of answering a "fifth grade math question" in an hour. By the way, it's actually a standard 11th grade Algebra-2 question. I teach that. I didn't get it from Wikipedia, although that is a good source for general knowledge.

Since you failed to answer the question, you are now trying to blow a smokescreen to cover your retreat. Well, you just shot yourself in the foot again. You are right that there is uncertainty in Carbon-14 dating. That's why I rounded off the answer to 6100 years. But you say that I need to "correct my errors and allow for the +/- 39.77 years. How did you get 39.77, out of Wikipedia? Are you sure it's not +/-40 years or 39.22 years? The number 39.77 is meaningless, when you are talking about 6100 years. You should have said +/- 40 years. Try looking up "significant digits" in Wikipedia.

I'm a math teacher, not nuclear physics, so I'll get back to you on the U-235 in a few minutes. My real point in all this is to point out that you should be slower to call other people "stupid" and "dolt". It really doesn't add anything to the conversation.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

You answed 1/6 of the three questions on Uranium and it was incorrect. As for your fifth grade science question: Try asking me when I am online and not trying to place my 'Yard of the month' sign in the proper position. Got to run - I'm on the Palm.

ref="http://newsbusters.org/">Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

...and discount the effects of open-air nuclear testing, tells me that you are out of your realm of knowledge. Since you are obviously unable or unwilling to answer my questions, perhaps you would like to discuss further this disagreement:

I assert to you, and you deny, that complications have emerged from Carbon testing because our atmosphere has enhanced levels of C-14 as a result of the open-air testing of atomic weapons between 1945 and 1968 or so, because of this standardization is done with pre-atomic testing samples, normalized to 1950.

Furthermore:

The major limitation of Carbon dating is that after about 40,000 years, too little C-14 remains in the materials for accurate measurement. For example, dating of older materials (including rocks and minerals) is accomplished using other isotopes (like the Uranium I suggested) which have half-lives long enough to date the age of the solar system.

Personally, I would rather it be calculated like it was through the work like Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose did using Einstein's Theory of relativity.

Regardless, as I was telling you, while you were posting your usual discombobulated conglomeration of unrelated snip-its, you need to start working problems with Uranium or something with a longer half-life that was not affected by the atomic testing of the past. In short, in my opinion, for anything other than ballpark dating of organic material, you need to discover something more accurate. I digress.

Let's continue and expand our Physics discussion. Read the link below. There is an over simplification in it as well. Can you tell me what it is?

Can you find the 'error' as you (improperly) claim existed when I over simplified my answer for dollar?

Now, for today's lesson on the Big Bang and Newton's Laws- Click Here.

Take a look and see if you can find something else wrong with my Physics erudition, if you can follow it at all of course.

I look forward to reading your critique of my comments on the 'Big Bang Theory' per the laws of physics.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

You tried to make Dollar look stupid, and you only succeeded in making yourself look stupid. That's got to really hurt!

Now, you are in a NO-WIN situation, and yet your ego won't let you let go of it. Kind of like the situation in Iraq, if you think about it.

My answer on C-14 dating was correct. Period. Those readers who still care about this discussion can verify that for themselves. Ask any Math or Physics teacher. You couldn't even come up with an answer. You whined that you didn't have enough time. Well, here's another chance for you: I left out a step in my answer. Perhaps you would care to explain how I got from:

N(final) = N(initial)x e^(-.00012 x years)

...to the final answer of approximately 6100 years, given that N(final) = 48% of N(initial) There's a step I didn't mention. Any idea what it was? How do you solve for the number of years?

Or, since you like nuclear physics, perhaps you could tell me how long it would take a sample of 63 grams of Strontium-90 to decay down to only 20 grams of Strontium-90. You can round it off to the nearest year.

And one last thing, Einstein, you said my answer regarding U-235 versus U-233 was wrong, but you never gave your version of the "correct" answer. Go ahead, make my day! I assure you that my answer will be verified by Wikipedia and any other reputable online source.

You made several errors in your explanation to Dollar. The first error was in trying to make someone look stupid. Another error was in saying that the carbon-14 would all be gone at some point, unlike the ice cream, which would be forever divided by half and never finish. In reality, Dollar's analogy was correct. The amount of carbon-14 would keep getting smaller, indefinitely, just like the ice cream. Each 5730 years, it loses half of the C-14 that was present at the beginning of that period. Theoretically, it could decay all the way down to a single atom of C-14, then that one atom could also decay, but you are talking about billions of years.

You had a couple of other mistakes in your reply to me, but I notice that you have edited your previous posts. (that's weak!!) For example, you changed +/-39.77 years to +/-40.25. Ironically, you still miss the point. Anybody who uses carbon-14 dating knows that the results are not accurate to 4 digits. I told you to look up "significant digits" and you obviously didn't take my advice. In a nutshell, when you are talking about 6000 years, it is totally irrelevant whether you use 39.77 or 40.25. The degree of precision is in decades, not hundredths of a year.

Well, I'm going to bed. See if you can come up with a coherent answer by the morning.

Oh, and by the way, I think that the Big Bang is the scientific confirmation of the book of Genesis, where God said, "Let there be light." So I guess we are in some agreement on that. (Or are we?) If you really want to impress me, talk to me about the Meaning of Life. I think there are clues to that in the book of Genesis, and I'll post those tomorrow.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

Oh my Gumpy, you are really showing your ignorance. Not only do you not know who James Carville is, and not only do you not know who outed Plame, but you cannot find the only true error I have made in my blog to muddle (although I knew the simplification would go unchallenged).

Allow me to 'dissect' your usual 'lies and diatribe'.

You said:

You tried to make Dollar look stupid, and you only succeeded in making yourself look stupid. That's got to really hurt!

Do I really need to comment on making you or dollar look stupid?

Now, you are in a NO-WIN situation, and yet your ego won't let you let go of it. Kind of like the situation in Iraq, if you think about it.

Let's see, you were wrong about my blog on Carbon 14 and misquoted me, and pretty much everyone here knows you cannot edit a blog that has been replied to. You attempted to answer one of three questions with a cut and past unrelated to the question and ignored the second part of that question and the next two altogether. Now I challenge you, yet again, to exercise some knowledge of Physics and you refuse to instead siting biblical references. And then, you attempt to change the subject to Iraq (where by the way you admitted you dodged serving by retiring to avoid going there). Now, you wish to clear your conscience for your cowardliness by saying it is an 'unjust war'. Back to Physics and Chemistry and fifth grade math.

My answer on C-14 dating was correct. Period. Those readers who still care about this discussion can verify that for themselves. Ask any Math or Physics teacher. You couldn't even come up with an answer.

I realize you think we wait all hang on your every improperly written blog, but some of us actually have a life. You gave a time limit to someone (me) who wasn't even onine. Duh. While you were 'challenging' me with a fifth grade science question, I was writing you and another blog, closing a 403-b and was off line working in my yard (yard of the month no less).

I'll tell you what, if you truly believe that there is anyone here who could not find the simple formula to plug and chug your simpleton answer - you indeed are a dolt. If you would like to challenge me to a date and time when I will be here and present a similar problem, I would love to wager money that I can solve the problem (especially one as simple as that one) in minutes or less- oh look - you did below!

Actually, any reasonable person could estimate that about 50% would be about 5730 years +/- 40 years (gee Gump - who actually gave that figure first to dollar - ME? Who introduced the error rate - ME?? Who denied that nuclear testing affected Nitrogen and Carbon 14 levels- oh, that's right - that was YOU).

You whined that you didn't have enough time.

Nope, typical LIE from Gumpy Girl. I wasn't here and when I was I was attempting to raise the bar - of course that was silly of me since you are a public school 'math' teacher.

Well, here's another chance for you: I left out a step in my answer. Perhaps you would care to explain how I got from:

N(final) = N(initial)x e^(-.00012 x years)

...to the final answer of approximately 6100 years, given that N(final) = 48% of N(initial) There's a step I didn't mention. Any idea what it was? How do you solve for the number of years? Or, since you like nuclear physics, perhaps you could tell me how long it would take a sample of 63 grams of Strontium-90 to decay down to only 20 grams of Strontium-90. You can round it off to the nearest year.

(Oh really, off the top of my head I would say about 47 years+/- a year - but that's not 'relative' here and since you refuse to address my problems- that answer is from the head - seems I recall the half life being about 28 years - regardless - answer my questions - yours are too simple) I know you would love to talk about Avagadro's number and read problems from your Math Book all day - but I want to talk Physics. It seems to me I already told you the equation resulted in a Parabola and was therefore quadratic. Talk about simple and boring....

And one last thing, Einstein, you said my answer regarding U-235 versus U-233 was wrong, but you never gave your version of the "correct" answer.
When you answer (if you ever can) MY question- then you will realize that decay DOES end and I was correct. You stated that it does not. Humm...maybe you should go back and revisit my questions- they lead you to the answer.

Tough to type on the Treo - sorry to those trying to read -

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

First of all, you WERE online when I gave you the problem with a one hour deadline--you were in the middle of mocking Dollar. When I posted my question to you, you logged off for a few minutes, then logged back on for at least 15 minutes, then logged off again. I thought you were going to post a response to me, but you didn't post anything to anybody.

Secondly, you DID change your post. You originally said +/-39.77 years, but you edited that to read +/-40.33 years. BOTH answers were wrong, so it was a moot point, but it demonstrates your lack of honesty. As long as I had not appended my answer to that particular posting, you were free to edit it.

Third, you threw out a question to me about U-233 versus U-235. I answered it, and you promptly declared it "wrong" but you have yet to post the "right" answer. Why should I answer any more of your questions if you won't even answer your own questions?

Fourth, your answer to the Strontium-90 question is wrong. Your guess was in the right ballpark, but it was just a guess. You were supposed to give an answer to the nearest year, and "47" ain't it. Considering that you tried to give an answer to the C-14 question to the nearest one-hundredth of a year, when it was over 6100 years, your answer to the Strontium-90 question wasn't even accurate to the nearest year, and it involves a time frame of less than 50 years. Nice try, but no cigar.

You mis-quote me repeatedly. (too many times to repeat) Your intent is to throw enough smoke that all the other readers lose track of the fact that you have made an ass out of yourself. I don't think it is working.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

1) Okay Gump, let anyone with any ability here at all attempt to change a post with a reply. Perhaps you were commenting on a 'preview' perhaps you are just lying as usual. Regardless, If you were so anxiously "watching me" log on and off, as I said I did, you might know that the site will automatically log you off after a period of time. Idiot. And by the way moron, I have a wireless network and broadband, as well as a Palm, and just because it says I am on the site "doing whatever you think I am doing with dollar" doesn't mean I see your lie filled posts. You need to stop stalking online people before Greg finds out.

2) If you think you answered the three part question let's let the readers decide:

Question from me, the smartest man alive:

If I add 2 neutrons to the nucleus of the Uranium -233 it becomes U-235. Yet, the energy released by these two is quite different and greater in the U-235 since it has a deeper nuclear potential well.

My questions then are: Will the two Uraniums deteriorate to become the same element? (you semi-answered this one from a google post)

Take my challenge - you have seen it - time is running out Gumpy.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

You're wasting my time.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

It is indeed a childish experience because:

A.) You can't answer the questions.

B.) You can't accept it whenever you are wrong.

C.) You argue about things of which you have no knowledge.

D.) You twist and misconstrue things to make yourself feel better.

E.) You insult people and run away.

You have yet to learn a lesson Gumpy. You challenged my military record and that of Max only to discover ours was indeed at least as good as yours (I am being generous).

You insulted me and called me names when I spoke out about your close friend and cohort, Ms. Pena, who was driving drunk. All of that information was proven true and you claimed I was someone else, yada, yada, yada. No apology either time.

Now, you take an innocent conversation I had with 'dollar' who I have just begun speaking to (after Hutch and I attempted to go without the frustration and confusion of dealing with) and tried to make me look like I didn't know what I was talking about. Nice try, problem is, I am not an idiot and when you realized I know more about Physics than you, you became confused, flustered and embarrassed. Oops, "sticking to politics" indeed Gumpy.

Now, yet again, I have proven for all to see that you lied in your last several blogs. So you, yet again, choose to run, not apologize or admit you were WRONG, and tell me how 'bored' you are.

Let's see - you asked questions and I answered them all, I asked questions and you did not answer them. Bored indeed Gumpy.

I proved all of my points in writing - here - for all to see and you have proved nothing )but that you will change the subject, call names, and 'dodge' (like you did from Iraq).

Yes, it has indeed been a very childlike experience dealing with you.

Now, as I said before, I am finished talking to you - yet again- but I do fight back.

If you feel the need to interject yourself in to a conversation I am having with dollar, or anyone else (I would have interjected in the blog between muddle and I that Richard Hobbs opined about; however, I do of course, realize you may not have been able to follow a civil and intellectual discourse such as ours) I would suggest you not make it an area where your knowledge is not so extremely limited that your arrogance and ignorance causes you such embarrassment and humiliation.

Now, I know you are just dying to know what I do for a living teacher. Good. I will tell you this, I made more money this morning than you will make this year. It was a GREAT morning indeed.

Okay Gumpy, you have a nice day, as I have said before, when you are man enough to apologize for the comments about my mother, and admit I was right about the now substantiated 'rumors' of Ms. Pena/Valesco, we can become more civil.

Until then, get used to be a very 'gumpish' whipping post.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

What in the bejesus are you two Einsteins back and forthing about?! Sounds like some of this might be classified and you guys may be getting visits from the Men in Black types with black Ray Bans and ear peices if you don't KIO KIO ASAP. Holy moley!

Kevin "Hack" King

Maybe the "big bang" was here forever before the big bang? Had no beginning and no end!

It doesn't surprise me in one sense. Everyone (including every intelligently honest liberal) is a moral absolutist at heart.

All you have to do is push the right buttons. If they defend looting on the basis of need, just start removing the stereo from their car and watch just how fast they grab onto the concept of absolute values!

Whatever Happened to Good and Evil? (Oxford). It's a good read, and is designed for people not versed in moral philosophy to understand the issues. (It is his easier version of the more technical Moral Realism: A defense.

What a difference it work make if a work like the above was studied in college philosophy in addition to Peter Singer’s Practical Ethics (Neither practical or ethical).

________________________________________________________________
the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.
John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address- 1961

I Use S-L regularly as a text. It is by no means a "Christian" tome, but it presents sa serious challenge to some of the more standard fare.

The really cool thing is that Russ was hired at UW-Madison to replace my major prof, Marcus Singer, upon his retirement.

You mean Davids mom twisted and spun? Boy, and I thought I was the only victim of the twist and run!

Get used to it, and talk quietly when you speak, she accused me of being loud

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

I really don't mind if you think your belief (today) indicates that all other religions are incorrect (not true) in many respects.
My attitude is that if a Muslim wants to be a Muslim, it is his business. How am I to be qualified to tell him he can't be a Muslim, or at least shouldn't be one?
Anyway, tomorrow we may say that Thou shalt not kill, really means unless it becomes necessary for me to do so.
Various people were killed for saying the earth was not flat, and that we circled the sun. Many "believed" the opposite.
I think what you are trying to say is that one must pick a path with the rules of the path applying, then follow it, at least til we falter, then find the path again. All will be well if we do that. Truth be damned!
Humans do need rules to survive on earth. We vote on them.
It has little to do with faith or who goes to heaven.

Of course I am not saying that believing something is sufficient for its being true. What of false beliefs?

My attitude is that if a Muslim wants to be a Muslim, it is his business. How am I to be qualified to tell him he can't be a Muslim, or at least shouldn't be one?

There is a world of difference between saying, "It is false that Mohammed is God's prophet (and here's why)" and saying "I am going to do bad things to you if you continue to believe that Mohammed is God's prophet."

People speak as though saying that someone else's religion is mistaken is equivalent to coercion, or that it somehow "violates their religious freedom." Were this so, then anyone who has any religious beliefs at all would be guilty of coercion and such violation, because believing one thing to be true entails believing that certain other things are false.

Anyway, tomorrow we may say that Thou shalt not kill, really means unless it becomes necessary for me to do so.

We may. In some circumstances this may be correct. Perhaps it is necessary to kill a rapist or a terrorist to put an end to their evil intentions. After all, believing that there are absolute, non-relative moral principles does not require thinking that there can never be morally justified exceptions to moral rules. SOmetimes two moral rules come into conflict such that it is impossible to adhere to both. Then we must decide which is the weightier.

On the other hand, if what you are describing is a situation in which my "justification" is simply that violating the rule would someohe serve my personal goals, etc., then, clearly, this would simply be wrong.

The world is a messy place, and sometimes--in cases of genuine moral dilemmas in particular--knowing right from wrong is difficult.

The fact the people or cultures have different moral beliefs at different times or places implies nothing about whether any of those beliefs are true.

Various people were killed for saying the earth was not flat, and that we circled the sun. Many "believed" the opposite.

And your point is....?

I think what you are trying to say is that one must pick a path with the rules of the path applying, then follow it, at least til we falter, then find the path again. All will be well if we do that. Truth be damned!

Well, then you are simply mistaken if you think this is what I am saying.

I am a Christian because I think that Christian truth claims are true. It is not the case that I think them true because I am a Christian.

Humans do need rules to survive on earth. We vote on them.

Here are some examples of "rules":

One ought not to molest children.
Rape is wrong.
Genocide is immoral.
Kindness is a virtue.
All other things being equal, one ought to keep one's promises.
Parents should care for their children.

Now, maybe I missed the headlines, but I don't recall voting on any of these. I take them to be truths that we discover. They are not the result of mere convention or invention.

Thank you for finally saying what I thought you meant before.
Rules are made to be legitimately broken, by me when necessary!
The position that I will decide when I can, and will tell you when you can not break the rules is the ultimate hypocrisy!
It is like telling priests they can't marry or co-habit, but overlooking it when they do.
Jews of old couldn't eat pork due to disease but were told it was against the Bible teachings.
Catholics--no meat on Friday, to help out the fishmongers! A few can!
Dangerous and stupid stuff.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) is good source to counter the current revisionist view of history.

Spencer: The Crusades were a small-scale defensive action designed to secure the safety of the Holy Land for Christian pilgrims. The Crusaders committed abuses that cannot be excused, but their excesses pale before 450 years of aggressive jihad warfare that went on before any Crusade was called.

Today, however, the Crusades have become one of the cardinal sins of the Western world. They are Exhibit A for the case that the current strife between the Muslim world and Western, post-Christian civilization is ultimately the responsibility of the West, which has provoked, exploited, and brutalized Muslims ever since the first Frankish warriors entered Jerusalem.

Bill Clinton affirmed this not long after 9/11, recounting the Crusaders’ sack of Jerusalem in 1099 in lurid terms as if it were something unique in history – when actually armies often behaved this way in those days, including Islamic jihad armies. This is not to excuse the Crusaders’ behavior, but only to say that it does not bear the weight that is put on it today.

The Crusaders’ sack of Jerusalem, according to journalist Amin Maalouf in The Crusades Through Arab Eyes, was the “starting point of a millennial hostility between Islam and the West.”

Maalouf doesn’t seem to consider whether “millennial hostility” may have begun with the Prophet Muhammad’s veiled threat, issued over 450 years before the Crusaders entered Jerusalem, to neighboring non-Muslim leaders to “embrace Islam and you will be safe.” Nor does he discuss the possibility that Muslims may have stoked that “millennial hostility” by seizing Christian lands centuries before the Crusades — lands that amounted to nothing less than two-thirds of what had formerly been the Christian world.

Professorial Islamic apologist John Esposito is a bit more expansive — he blames the Crusades (“so-called holy wars”) in general for disrupting a pluralistic civilization: “Five centuries of peaceful coexistence elapsed before political events and an imperial-papal power play led to centuries-long series of so-called holy wars that pitted Christendom against Islam and left an enduring legacy of misunderstanding and distrust.”

Esposito’s “five centuries of peaceful coexistence” were exemplified, he says, by the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 638: “churches and the Christian population were left unmolested.” But he doesn’t mention Sophronius’ Christmas sermon for 634, when he complained of the Muslims’ “savage, barbarous, and bloody sword” and of how difficult that sword had made life for the Christians.

[The Arabic word islam means "submission." Find out what life is like for Christians in Islamic nations. I know an Egyptian Christian who barely survived attempted murder by the observers of the religion of "peace." Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America by Brigitte Gabriel is available through the library.]

Here again, the multiculturalist hatred of the West, all its works, and all its pomps, has fed and continues to feed these myths.

It seems like everyone has forgotten about Islam’s conquests. From Medina it spread outward all the way into Spain and almost into France. This wasn’t done politely by asking all the kingdoms to submit. It was done by the sword. Islam was finally routed from Spain in 1492 when Granada fell. Lets see, from 632 to 1492, oh yes over 800 years and the crusades last how long?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Thanks. I knew you would find the 'right' answer to the reason that one should not give too much credence to the history of the Crusades. However, the Muslim child who is susceptible to radical Islam is not being given the version you just presented. There have been times in our history when Christians had difficulty 'surviving' the attempted murders by the observers of 'Christianity'. It is important that we understand the motivation of hate. If one cares to do anything to challenge that 'motivation' is another issue.

Why do I start all of these blogs when you don't read them anyway?

Click Here.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

True history is not being taught in schools today. In Britain teaching about the Holocaust and the Crusades is avoided because it might challenge some Muslim child's incorrect view of history. And it is becoming a lot like that here. Now NYC is creating a separate Arabic school for Muslims so that they can avoid the truth and be indoctrinated in Islamic teaching, all at taxpayers' expense.

The "motivation of hate" is an evil heart. We are all susceptible; some of us choose to give in and nourish those feelings and refuse to forgive. Then hate becomes a way of life, and anything that the object of our hate does is seen as a further excuse to nourish that hate.

If doing good would stop people from hating you, then Christ would not have been crucified.

The 'truth' is in the eye of the believer. What is manipulated history to you - is truth to someone else. True history has not been taught in this country for years. It is the history through the eyes of the storyteller. (his story) There have been facts that have been manipulated or 'left out' of our history. During this century, much has been done to correct this -and for such a young country - our history is fairly accurate. The facts are there - it is the interpretation of the facts that differs in many historical events. The history of Manifest Destiny was taught differently in our public schools than those schools on the Indian reservations. To truly forgive is to forget. . . .and as we can see, history has a way of not allowing us to forget - especially when evil actions from those with an evil heart remind us of the past. And so we have Arabic schools, Chinese schools, Jewish schools, Christian schools, etc., etc. etc. Most are/were established to teach the culture of a people to the next generation; some were estabilshed so that they did not have to associate with another 'culture'.

As you can see my “Blame America” Gland is severely underdeveloped, but my Absolute Moral Standards (The Truth) and Sense of History (The Truth) are well developed.

Truth is NOT relative. There is objective truth (facts), but people can view facts through their own biases (opinions). Muslims were (and are) invaders who were determined to take over all Christian lands and force submission; the Crusades were a delayed response to that invasion. Muslims were the aggressors, having conquered all of Arabia, N. Africa, and a large part of Europe (being stopped at the Battle of Tours in A.D. 732, the decisive turning point in the struggle against Islam); Christians were the defenders. That is the truth. Whether you or Muslims choose to accept the facts is up to you. Muslims (all or most, I don't know) deny the Holocaust because they, like you, believe that “the 'truth' is in the eye of the believer.”

What was not taught on the Indian Reservations? Please substantiate your claim, “The history of Manifest Destiny was taught differently in our public schools than those schools on the Indian reservations.” Don't forget that the "wonderful" Indian/ "Native" American cultures were illiterate, and that they learned to read primarily because of Christians.

And, no, we do not have Christian schools paid for by taxpayer dollars. In fact, government public schools are very anti-Christian.

The “culture” that will be taught at the Muslim school in NYC will not be assimilation; it will be their right of dominion and our forced submission. At a madrasah the Koran / Qur'an is memorized, and shariah law (which is legally binding on all Muslims and on all people who come under their control) and Muslim (not American and world) history is taught. (They will probably take classes in bomb-making and beheading techniques as well. ) But, with your all-truth-is-relative philosophy, such “teach[ing] the culture of a people to the next generation” will be acceptable because you seem to lack the discernment that recognizes evil and calls it by its name.

As you can see my “Blame America” Gland is severely underdeveloped, but my Absolute Moral Standards (The Truth) and Sense of History (The Truth) are well developed.

Truth is NOT relative. There is objective truth (facts), but people can view facts through their own biases (opinions). Muslims were (and are) invaders who were determined to take over all Christian lands and force submission; the Crusades were a delayed response to that invasion. Muslims were the aggressors, having conquered all of Arabia, N. Africa, and a large part of Europe (being stopped at the Battle of Tours in A.D. 732, the decisive turning point in the struggle against Islam); Christians were the defenders. That is the truth. Whether you or Muslims choose to accept the facts is up to you. Muslims (all or most, I don't know) deny the Holocaust because they, like you, believe that “the 'truth' is in the eye of the believer.”

What was not taught on the Indian Reservations? Please substantiate your claim, “The history of Manifest Destiny was taught differently in our public schools than those schools on the Indian reservations.” Don't forget that the "wonderful" Indian/ "Native" American cultures were illiterate, and that they learned to read primarily because of Christians.

And, no, we do not have Christian schools paid for by taxpayer dollars. In fact, government public schools are very anti-Christian.

The “culture” that will be taught at the Muslim school in NYC will not be assimilation; it will be their right of dominion and our forced submission. At a madrasah the Koran / Qur'an is memorized, and shariah law (which is legally binding on all Muslims and on all people who come under their control) and Muslim (not American and world) history is taught. (They will probably take classes in bomb-making and beheading techniques as well. ) But, with your all-truth-is-relative philosophy, such “teach[ing] the culture of a people to the next generation” will be acceptable because you seem to lack the discernment that recognizes evil and calls it by its name.

That you and I, out of all of the registered bloggers, are the only ones here? We are sharing a very private moment in a very public domain. I can see your facial expressions as you open window upon window; Wikopedia here, Muslim history there. A google search for proper spelling.
I can see the steam from your coffee condensing on your glasses; your hair pulled back and held with a single clip; the light of your monitor flattering your freshly washed face.
This situation has given me rare confidence, Denise. It has given me the confidence to ask what I've been wanting to ask for a while now.......

What would you have us do withMuslims who want to build schools; Muslims who live among us?

Have a good morning and a great day!!

Kevin "Hack" King

I would say that Muslims should pay for the schools themselves, and if the schools are used to train for terrorism, then they should be closed.

Any more questions?

I think I will get some coffee. Thanks for the suggestion.

It's like coffe laced with "Full Throttle energy drink extract. I knew you'd come back.

Kevin "Hack" King

...had your chute packed and weren't too low to eject - because bro - you crashed and burned big time on that one.

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

Gump has taken my place anyway. It's the thrill of the chase, even when nothing is caught

Kevin "Hack" King

As long as you get up one more time than you fall, you are still standing bro!

Do you want to see some current examples of liberal media bias? Click Here.

By the way, could you confirm or deny what I was saying about how you really need to be good with numbers and "mental math" to be a flier? Actually, that's what convinced me to become a math teacher. But I'd like to hear your opinion on that.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------
The real truth is simple--it's lies that are complicated.

Jet math isn't too complex. In the Air Force aircraft, our most common math problems are taking fuel consumption and ground speed and translating that into "how much fuel to get from x to y" problems. Airline math envolves taking fuel burn per minute and determining how much flight time we have (like when jets are holding over Hartsfield waiting for storms to clear). But the civilian plane's computer tells us the gas to get from x to y. The most complex quick math we have has to do with approach and landing speeds. The T-38 flies final approach (no flaps) at 180 knots plus 1 knot per 100 pounds of fuel remaining over 1000#s. In other words, if I have 1,500 pounds of total fuel, I add 5 knots to 180 (1 knot per 100#s over 1000#s) for a final approach of 185. We have about 20 seconds to do that math when in the closed traffic pattern. The tougher math is figuring out cross wind components and headwind components by using good ole soh cah toa geometry. That's enough shop talk.

Kevin "Hack" King