gadgetlady

And just because you believe it doesn't make it the truth. You're entitled to your own opinion. You're just not entitled to your own facts.

This whole "everybody knows it's true and you're an idiot" argument is ridiculous. Everybody DOES NOT know it's true. Read "Global Warming's Unfinished Debate" by S. Fred Singer or go to http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=188 for a tidbit. There's also a GREAT book called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science" by Tom Bethell that sheds light on a lot of topics. If you know anything at all about politics you know the behind-the-scenes facts rarely make it to the forefront. And if you know anything about news you know that impending catastrophe and doom sell. One more thought. Lobbying for environmental causes is a $1.6 billion industry.

I don't think I posted an incorrect statement. I said: I remember clearly the Kuwaiti oil fires in the early 90's, with environmentalists telling us that what was going on would destroy the atmosphere and things would literally never be the same. And I remember the Valdez tanker spill in the late 80's, with environmentalists telling us the coast of Alaska would never be the same. I don't believe things will "never be the same". I believe they are now back to normal, if not very close to back to normal. I don't believe 4 years of increased mortality amongst salmon eggs (BTW, that is not the total destruction of salmon eggs, just an increased mortality rate) or 30 years of mussel bed damage defines things as "NEVER" being the same. Again, I don't LIKE the Kuwaiti oil fires or the Valdez oil spill. What I was using these as an example of is the "the sky is falling" environmental knee-jerk response of blowing things out of proportion.

I don't think we close our eyes and plug our ears. However, there is a credible and growing bank of scientists who don't believe in global warming. I find their arguments more convincing than their gloom-and-doom counterparts. I'll be back when I have more time to give you some examples.

Well, see, here's the deal. I don't think you mistyped it. You spelled it that way twice; therefore I think you didn't know how to spell it correctly in the first place. And it seems to me that someone who is very concerned about coral reefs would know how to spell the word. Of course calling me ignorant, misinformed, and scary brings this debate to a much higher level. I'm just giving back what I received.

Either I didn't write what I said well or you didn't read it. What my children say "blah blah blah" to is "millions of years". We don't believe in evolution or that the earth has been around for millions of years, so whenever they hear that phrase that's what they say. As to the destruction of "corral" reefs, I didn't know such a thing existed. I don't quite know how a horse pen can make a reef. I'd love to see one. Coral reefs, however, I have seen. They are beautiful. And I didn't step on them.

That's not what I said AT ALL. I am not "fine" with the oil spill or the oil field fires. Both of those incidents were tragic. What I was saying is that I don't believe the "doom and gloom" environmental predictions that this thing or that thing will ruin the world. When I was young, I was warned over and over of an impending ice age. Now I'm being warned of an impending heat wave. Scientists can't predict the weather tomorrow. I certainly don't believe they can predict it in 100 years.

Are you saying they will never be the same? Because it seems to me the catastrophic problems predicted never came to light in either situation. Mussel beds that won't recover for 30 years, again a drop in the bucket for those of you who believe in millions of years, isn't "never being the same". And really, in the grand scheme of things, one small area of impaired mussel beds isn't the end of the world.

I didn't say there was NO environmental impact. You'd have to be an idiot to think a spill of that kind would have no effect. What I said was that it didn't have the catestrophic, disastrous, long-term effects that were predicted. The first article you posted says, at one point: As a result, many species suffered long-term loss, he said. For example, chronic exposure to the oil in mouths of streams boosted mortality among incubating pink salmon eggs for at least four years after the spill. Four years isn't catestrophic in my book. And for people who believe in evolution, it's nary the tick of a second hand.

I hope I can satisfy your curiousity! I don't claim to speak for all Christians, but I'll tell you my POV on this issue. And it has nothing to do with greed or love of big corporations. Recently I was at an aquarium with my kids and we were reading one of the signs about a habitat that was on display. The sign talked about how this particular coral had been around for "millions of years" (to which my children have been trained to say "blah blah blah" whenever they hear it) until man came along and endangered the coral. I pulled my children aside and told them while they were reading the various signs around the aquarium they would notice a trend: "Nature is good. Man is evil. Worship nature." Although said in jest, this really captures the essence of what I don't particularly care for about the various environmental movements. I do believe that we need to be good stewards of God's creation, but I don't believe in worshipping said creation to the exclusion of our needs, God, and reason. Two events in history stick out in my mind. I remember clearly the Kuwaiti oil fires in the early 90's, with environmentalists telling us that what was going on would destroy the atmosphere and things would literally never be the same. And I remember the Valdez tanker spill in the late 80's, with environmentalists telling us the coast of Alaska would never be the same. Both were wrong. God's creation has an amazing ability to heal itself and to adapt, and I think it is amazingly arrogant of us to think that we can have that much of an impact on it. Does that mean I think we should litter willy-nilly, be deliberately wasteful, and trash the planet? Of course not. A good Christian also understands that all of that which he has was given to him. God calls us to practice good stewardship. Just as Weyerhauser always replants new forests to make up for the forests they cut down, any practically-minded person understands that you can't just hunt all of the ducks into extinction. Have there been fool-hardy moves in the past? Yes, there have, both on the part of corporations and individuals -- and environmentalists, by the way. Did you know that there are more trees in North America today than there were when the first Europeans landed here? Much of environmentalism involves an alarmist attitude and I, for one, am tired of their efforts in trying to scare me into behaving the way they want me to and into buying their products. Al Gore stands to make a fortune on "green" technology. Furthermore, most environmentalists are tremendous hypocrites. I used to have an employee/friend who was marching to save the wetlands that she lived right on the edge of. I asked her what she thought used to be in the place where her house now stood, before development. Obviously, wetlands. 1 Corinthians 4:7 says, "What do you have that you did not receive?" Once we realize everything we have is a gift from God, we should understand we need to treat it with care. But there is a big difference between care and the blind, ridiculous worship of nature.

AMEN! Maybe we should start a Christian-bashing thread, open it up for everyone who wants to bash us, and then never visit there :rolleyes. Just let us have a little haven here please!

I just got back from church. AWESOME sermon about the evidence for the Resurrection. As soon as our church posts the sermone online, I'll post a link to it for anyone who's interested. Our pastor talked about how we can worship God with our MIND, and that being intelligent and being Christian are not mutually exclusive.

It's not too soon! We set up the 2007 cruise in July of 2006. And the whole family is very welcome. It seems like a lot of the bandsters find it easiest to get to the Texas port of Galveston and it is obviously very central to the US. The other options are leaving from somewhere in Florida or doing an Alaska cruise out of Seattle or Vancouver. I'm open to suggestions. Jenna, want to hop in here? You're the queen of setting up polls :mad:

It's legal to abort up until the day of birth. It's disgusting.

I don't see anything wrong with using the tools that are available to us to help us with our struggles. I wouldn't forego a prosthetic leg if I lost a leg, a kidney transplant if I needed a kidney, Vitamins if I'm not getting all of my nutrients from food, and I don't see a problem with having a band put in to assist in getting healthy. That's MY take! :mad: People who don't think banding is necessary probably haven't ever had a weight problem.

Ummmm . . . neither is Gore!

OK, everyone; you're all set up for edocs, and I should be getting these to you at the end of May. I'm leaving on Thursday for 3.5 weeks and am handing over the reins to Jenna (Princess_n_thep). You're in good hands. Please, please make sure your passports are in order and start on those packing lists!

Natalie's Mommy, I'm so sorry for what you're going through ((((hugs)))) I will keep you and your precious baby in my prayers. I was in Mexico on a vacation last December and I was reminded that in Mexico, "good enough" is, well, good enough. I used to travel to Mexico a lot as a child and I was reminded of the time that we were incredulously introduced to how they "made" drinking Water. "Don't drink the water", you know, as they say. We would dilligently use bottled water even to rinse our toothbrushes, and we'd get water from the Sparkletts jug in the lobby, "knowing" it was safer than what came out of the tap. Until we came back to the hotel late one night and saw the workmen filling the Sparklett's jugs from a hose in the back of the hotel. :omg: Can bad things happen in the US or anywhere else? Of course they can. The difference is you can't sue your Mexican doctor or hospital, so they just keep on "practicing".

I'm in OC - Costa Mesa. Interested in getting together but we're leaving on a vacation and won't be back until June.

Hi Carol, I sent you a PM as well. I'm going to go ahead and sign you up for the insurance and charge your card. Please let me know ASAP if this is a problem. Thanks!

I just read a great article about Easter; it can be found here: http://www.dailybreeze.com/opinion/articles/6877872.html?page=1&c=y Here's a cut and paste: Evidence of faith, cause for hope Here are ten reasons why the resurrection of Jesus Christ remains the most important occurrence in history. By Paul Viggiano Hope Orthodox Presbyterian Church Charles Hodge, the renowned 19th century Princeton theologian, penned these words concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ: "It may be safely asserted that the resurrection of Christ is at once the most important, and the best authenticated, fact in the history of the world." Hodge buttressed this assertion with 10 arguments. Nine of these arguments would pass muster vis-à-vis any other notable historical event. The 10th is undeniable: 1. It was predicted in the Old Testament. The Christian faith began at the dawn of man with God making a promise to redeem mankind through the death and resurrection of the Christ. The Old Testament was a widespread and well-known document. 2. It was foretold by Christ himself. People have twisted the Scriptures from the very beginning. For those who doubted the promise of the Messiah, or were inclined to bend the Scriptures to their own agenda, Jesus re-announced that he would die and rise again. 3. It was an easily verified event. The Resurrection wasn't a matter of secret knowledge. It was a physical resurrection. There was no faith required to observe the risen Christ. 4. It was substantiated by abundant, suitable and frequently repeated evidence. Jesus was a threat to the religion of the Jews and the authority of Rome. They wanted Christianity to end. All they had to do to achieve this was produce the dead body of Jesus. This would never happen. 5. There were numerous, competent witnesses of the event.The Resurrection didn't happen in a vacuum where only the devout or those skilled in piety could observe. Jesus was a public figure followed by hundreds and seen by thousands for 40 days after his resurrection and before his ascension. 6. The conviction of the witnesses was testified by their willingness to suffer even to the point of death. The Christian faith grew dramatically after the ascension of Jesus, due to the spirit-inspired testimony of the apostles who all (but one) were put to death for their faith. It can be argued that people have been known to die for a lie, but it is a much harder argument to make that people will die for something they know to be a lie. 7. God confirmed the testimony of those who witnessed the Resurrection by signs and wonders seen by entire communities. Jesus conferred the power to perform signs and wonder to his apostles; this continued for years. The authorities certainly had the time and occasion to expose these apostles if they weren't genuine. 8. The fact of the Resurrection has been commemorated by a religious observance of the first day of the week from the time it happened until this present time. The regularity of millions (now billions) of people meeting on a weekly basis for thousands of years speaks toward the reliability of the data. 9. The effects produced by the Gospel admit of no other rational solution than the truth of Christ's death and subsequent resurrection. The Christian church is his monument. All believers are his witnesses. The tome of literary, archeological and historical evidence of the Resurrection is simply unmatched. Unbiased observers have taken historical events as fact with much less evidence. The truth of the Gospel, the Resurrection, in fact all of Scripture can, and always has, passed every legitimate method of scrutiny. The real question is, "How legitimate are the methods?" Using man-made disciplines and evidences to determine the authenticity of Scripture would be like using my Casio to determine the accuracy of the atomic clock. Add this to the fact that man has a propensity to interpret facts through his own grid. For example, if someone's grid doesn't allow for miracles, he won't believe the event was a miracle no matter how much evidence he is given; he'll just wait for some new explanation. Besides, it would be foolish to think that God has left us at the mercy of our own ability to do research in order to know the truth, let alone be saved. This brings us to Hodge's last point. 10. Simply put, we know the Resurrection truly took place. Jesus said that his words are sufficient to judge us -- words which we still have in the Bible. The testimony of God's word is self-evident and undeniable. When people deny the Scriptures, they are denying something they know to be true in the depth of their heart. Man's accountability to God is not capricious; it is based in something men know. And what a glorious thing God has revealed to us -- that there is hope beyond the grave. Jesus is called the first fruits of the Resurrection because those who trust in him will be resurrected as well -- this is what the Bible calls the good news. He is risen indeed!

Wouldn't it be a sneaky coup if the guy who owned the first non-environmentally-friendly house in the example also made a big hoop-la about being "green" and then invested in a bunch of companies that produced the products or provided the services he advocated? What a windfall that would be for such a snea . . . um . . . environmentally friendly guy . . .

Hey Windy, PM or email me your email address!

Gotcha, Melissa! Your pre-edoc email went out today :-)

They'll get you on Please PM me your email address and I'll send you some online checkin instructions now! I'll get the edocs out to you when they're available. Or if you know my email address you can just email me directly.