heavensounds

I think that the right question here would be...Science AND God - not put them in the beginning as something that is impossible to live together. It seems that there are always two "camps" in this debate and the fence sitters are forced to take a "side." Cab yiz really believe in science if you believe in God, and vice-versa? Please understand I am not any kind of authority on theology or philosophy; physics or biology. I am reasonably educated but don't claim to have any great insights or original ideas here. I'm just another person who has a hard time rejecting things that make sense to me intellectually and imperically; yet I feel there is an important spiritual aspect to being alive and human that science just can't address. Here are a couple of examples: Evolution. It makes sense to me that living things will adapt and change over time with their changing environments. There is fossil evidence to support this. Why is this idea rejected by so many Christain groups? Is it not possible that God created plants and animals with the capacity to change and or *gasp* evolve over time? It doesn't mean His initial work was "imperfect", in fact, I think the fact that living things CAN change makes His work even MORE amazing, dynamic and perfect! The Big Bang/beginning of the universe and earth. In Genesis (if my understanding is correct), things pretty much appear in the same order that science says they do. First there was "nothing", then there was light and matter, earth and water, then fishes, plants, animals and people. It seems the only thing we disagree on is how we got "something" from "nothing." Is it not possible that God was the one who "made" the big bang happen? THAT seems easier to believe than the current scientific explanation. I just think Christians could gain a lot more credibility by being more open minded to scientific evidence. How long did it take the Church to acknowledge that the world was indeed round and revolved around the sun? Again, I obviously don't have this all figured out (ha!)...I welcome any comments or insights YOU may have. I'm sure there's a lot I haven't thought about, but the important things here is that we should not step on one side or the other, we should all together seek the truth in life, because arguing with arguments is becoming extremely boring!

As I am listening to you, I have the feeling that you will certainly be with her and it doesn't matter what we say here! Because things with girls are just going this way - if there is something going on, you too will be together for sure and all this talking here is just so that you could feel better! Well, I think that you have the right to open girls eyes if her boyfriend is an *bottom* and abuses here or their relationship in any way, BUT if the only problem between them was in the fact that they weren't in love any more or something not wrong from the guy's point of view, then you should not have helped in their break-up! So, I don't know your situation and if her boyfriend was good or bad...this is up to you to live with your actions..About the fact that you want to be with her so soon, I'll repeat myself - wheter you like it or not, things will just develop as they will - in love there is very little manouvering space in this sence, BUT you are the one who makes decisions all the time and if you think that you are doing the right thing, being with her, then do it and don't care for anything as you have done a good thing, but if your heart or common sense or inner sight tells you that what you did with that break-up was wrong, then you should quit with that girl, because the sole beginning of your relationship with her will be marked by a bad thing of you helping her break-up with a guy that did nothing wrong...It is up to you to judge the situation and look deep inside you...

I live in Ljubljana, Slovenia - Europe and I have a 10Mbit / 10Mbit internet connection on an optic cable. Things really work quick with this! I just can't imagine having only 1Mbit again as I did in the past...this 10Mbit gives you much more freedom, because you can download a lot of stuff at the same time and don't need to worry about slow browsing...Of course, if optic cable is not around your house, 10/10 can be quite expensive...here it is very very cheap (TV+phone+10/10internet for only 13?/month)!So yes, that's my entry to the online world

I think that it is worth mentioning that there are several kinds of cloning that already exist in nature, and some of them are already widely used by humans. Most people think that this is something new and "in the future" but it is not..it is here with us!Take fruit trees. If one is particularly productive, farmers might take a cutting from it and grow a whole new tree... or a whole orchard. They are producing a genetically identical adult from a part of an existing adult. Cloning. And they've been doing this for thousands of years. If we stopped doing it and eliminated all the crops produced in this way, I would be surprised if there was really much left...Next example is something called parthenogenesis. Some female animals can produce offspring without a sperm. They just become pregnant or lay one of their own modified eggs. Since there is no genetic material involved other than their own, the offspring is again effectively a clone of the mother.To suggest, then, that cloning itself is immoral would be like saying feeding people is immoral or that a bolt of lightning is immoral. It happens naturally, it is very useful to us, and is so far largely without harm.Which isn't to say NO harm. I would by lying if I said there were no drawbacks. Genetic diversity is usually a good thing, and having a lot of genetically identical individuals makes a population more vulnerable to disease and less able to spontaneously adapt to external pressures. There is also some concerns about issues surrounding cloning, if not cloning itself: Should clones be property? Should people be allowed to clone others without their permission? Should the government prevent gender ratios (or other traits) from getting unbalanced?So although I would say that cloning itself is absolutely NOT wrong, there are still many ethical issues involved that need to be resolved before such a practice can become even more widespread than it already is, or those issues might cause even greater problems down the line.

Well, I want to clear something up at the very beginning: Suicide is for selfish people who are not strong enough to deal with life. My advice to anyone thinking about that stupid thing that doesn't change anything: "Your life is no worse or better than anyone else's. There will always be someone who is worse off. Find other ways to deal with life. If suicide is your only option, think about the people who you will hurt and who will miss you. If you do not think there are those who will miss you, look again. Do you hate selfish people who only think about themselves. That is what suicide is, only thinking about your own problems. Life should be treasured. Don't be ready to waste it."So yes, it is completely self-centered, pridefully selfish. From a religous point of view, we owe an allegence to God who thought of us first, loved us first and put us on this earth for a very good reason. Rather than die in self pity, why not pray and ask God the reason for our being. Judas was so proud that he thought himself above repentence; unworthy of forgiveness and chose to commmit suicide. Jesus said it would have been better he were never born. If a son came asking for forgiveness with sincere heart, what parent wouldn?t forgive him. How sad for the parent of a son who didn?t trust in his father or mother?s forgiveness and ultimately waste his life by commiting suicide.

On one hand, I think that legalization is the only way to go. What is the point of having marijuana illegal if much more powerful drugs can be bought over the counter? Alcohol, a whole slew of research chems, many perscription medications, and many naturally occuring drugs (IE; hawaiin baby woodrose seeds), can all be obtained legally and can cause a whole world of problems marijuana could never approach. Legalizing marijuana will also solve many problems. First off, the large-scale myth that weed is often laced with PCP (while I do know of this happening, you almost always pay more for laced weed) or opium would be dispelled. The grade of weed will always be known to the buyer. Pot smokers would also be willing to pay a whole bunch of taxes on marijuana products, much like tobacco is taxed currently. And decriminalization would cut back on things like kids driving while high, if it was legal to smoke one could do so in controlled areas with no desire to continue to relocate. But then the problem would be - why stop with Marijuana? If all drugs were legalized, many problems would certainly arise. Where is the border between allowed drugs and not allowed? Certain people will always become addicted, but as noted above, there are plenty of legal drugs to become addicted to. Of course, there would also be many drawbacks if that happened!

I think it is most correct to define "religious statements" and then to observe that such statements are a form of "religious behavior", suggesting some form of "religion". In my opinion, a "religious statement" has the following characteristics. It purports to be a statement of fact and it is not a logical statement, that is, it is not presented as a theorem in a clearly defined logical system which can be derived from that system's axioms.I don't think that this is necessarily true. I think that the big dispute between various religions and atheism isn't so much logic vs. faith, but rather all make logical inferences from different axioms that are taken on faith. For example, take Christianity. One of their axioms is: God punishes evil doers. Other axioms define evil (in various degrees of ambiguity). A logical statement in the Christianity mindset, then, is that if I have acted in ways that are (by the axioms' definition) evil, I will be punished. The distinguishing thing about atheism is that its axioms are all empirical or are consistent with observations. Atheists generally trust their senses, or trust people that trust their senses, or trust people that trust people...etc. Yes, but then, are their senses trustworthy? If their basis for avoiding solipsism is to assume the world exists and that their senses actually report information from it, how does this differ from any other religious belief which asserts the same thing? I can see that, by simply assuming the existence of the world and the trustworthiness of the senses, instead of, for example, asserting the existence of God and deriving these beliefs from that assertion, they may claim to be applying Occam's razor; but how are they any better off in actuality? Is not their entire existence based on assumptions which cannot be proven (or disproven)? Also, how does this relate to *atheism*, that is, to the denial of the existence of God? Are we to understand that they start from the axiom "God does not exist" and conclude that the world does exist and that their senses are trustworthy? Somehow, that appears unlikely. I don't think you people are describing atheists, I think you are describing agnostics who, not being able to decide, have put the question of God's existence to one side and decided to get on with their lives. So the question becomes a purely semantic one. The beliefs of the various systems that are generally agreed to be religions are isomorphic to those of atheists, agnostics, etc. Of course, so is any belief system. When "religion" is generalized enough to be equivalent to "philosophy" or "belief system" then it is no longer a useful term. Let's not do that. When it is specified a little more, it could either mean a belief system that includes axioms that are not based on any observable phenomena. This sounds good to atheists, I think.But many Christians/Jews/Muslims etc. claim to be able to observe evidence of their religions, and there's no way to dispute those claims, even if one is skeptical. When specified further, it can be defined as a system that includes a certain view (either axiomatic or inferred) about sentient beings that are superior to humans. This brings its own problems. Atheists would then be considered religious

I have tried a lot of these SIMPLE programs, which at the end become a lot more painful, because of their lack of features and bad code. I just stick with Macromedia Dreamweaver and Photoshop for my designs, but for a beginner, maybe this Antenna would be OK - one or two pages on their site looked quite professional. For anyone, who'd like to really learn making websites - all these programs are not meant for that! You have to use professional tools and learn basics there, because only so, you'll be able to achieve further levels in coding and desiging...

Now that really is weard! I'd say that this article is not the complete truth, because we all know how media is able to exaggerate stuff. I think this is the case here also, because he must have done something else beside this simple magic trick to get fired! I really think that that would be possible only in the dark middle ages, but not know!

Hmmm..I wouldn't agree with you completely eventhough Firefox is a great piece of browser software! I was a long-time user of opera and all its features really made me their passionate user for around 3 years I think. But I noticed recently and even before that some pages do not load properly or do not load at all. That bothered me so much, along with a few other glitches that came with the latest versions of Opera, that I decied about half a year ago to switch to Firefox. I was impressed by it at first and its add-ons are really great! I used it a lot and it worked great with a few glitches and slow startups, but then came VISTA SP1 and IE7 in its full power and at that point I couln't believe my eyes!IS IT POSSIBLE THAT MICROSOFT FINALLY MADE INTERNET EXPLORER SO GOOD! I guess I really have to give a big applause to them since this latest edition of IE is THE best. It is compatible with all sites, it works, mouse-gestures can be added via add-on, tabs work great and link-menu is the same as in firefox! Plus it opens in a second on my vista as it is "native" browser and everything is nicely integrated...So right now I am using updated IE7 with VISTA SP1 and everything is just perfect:) I'd suggest anyone to give IE a try, because in this new Vista enviroment, nothing really can beat it unless you are to accustomed to firefox-addons!

I use GMAIL from its beginning and I still think it is by far the best email - service out there. Its SPAM blocker is incredible and even using your ISP's own mail service will never give you so much spam protection. This combined with 20mb filesize limit, antivirus scanner, 6gb of space, great label feature, speed and many other thing just gives you no room to think about other options - simply it just works.As for the messenger service I use MSN Messenger and more and more also GMAIL TALK, which has a great potential and if they are planning to develop it, it is bound to become as great as gmail. For now MSN is the most widely used in my country so I use it to communicate directly with friends. I think that it is healthy that there are a few big companies that compete with each other for the number one spot in these online services since that makes services constatnyl improve - which in turn makes us-users happy!

Well I think everybody want to die a quiet, unpainful death and not end up in a car crash! I think the most important question is WHY and what actually happens when we die - what is objectively better - dying in a car crash or slowly in your sleep. The thing is that death is a process - your soul has to depart from your body and for that it needs some time - this is why in India they leave bodies laying dead for a few days and they pray for the soul of the dead so that his departure would be as easy as possible. And this is why car accident is not ok - it usually destroys your body so that the soul has no time to completely depart from the body - this is also why there are so many occurances of people seeing themsleves being operated - their soul was not able to depart. So yes, just like anybody else, I'd like to have a calm peaceful death, but I don't think that the majority knows why this sort of death is the best way to die...

I'd really suggest FOXIT READER. It is completely FREE and it has everything that you'll ever need. Now it also has the option to create pdf's and stuff like that so it is basically free adobe acrobat, which opens in a matter of seconds - on my computer it just pops out while adobe acrobat was opening for sooooo long that I was loosing my nerves.I've been using this super-fast foxy since 2005 and it worked like a charm for me ever since...You should really give it a try!

Yeah, milk is great although I don't think it should be considered as the main food that inclueds all your daily vitamins and other stuff. A friend of mine drank a lot of milk a few years ago and he started to have some medical problems - can't remember what it was and even if I did, I wouldn't know how to write it But yeah, milk is good in normal doses - a glass a day is ok, but pushing it too hard is not ok in my opinion..I think that it is the same with all things - salad is also healthy but you can't eat it all the time as you are not a rabbit - you need various different foods to fulfill your daily needs...The one thing everyone should know is that it doesn't matter that much what you eat (of course it shouldn't be junk food) but more how much you eat...don't eat too much and you'll be healthy..

Well, I don't know what you've read then. It certainly wasn't qu'ran! Let's look at the history of Islam: During the whole previous century, Muslim land was colonized and we all know why! The greed of occidentals led them to kill many innocent people, stole most of the wealth in those countries, made profit on the suffering of millions poor people, being unable to defend themselves. After that, when they left, they have chosen the people who will stay in governance on these countries... first, after they have divided the ottoman empire, they have chosen kings, presidents and even whole governments, who accepted to be the representatives of occidental policy and affairs, under the masks of country dirigent. these kings and presidents, are just put there. They are just obeying the command from people, who are superior in the hierarchy, which means America, Israel and Europe. Their true mission is to maintain division between Muslim brothers, their mission is to maintain ignorance between Muslims, their mission is to make the land of Islam the furthest possible from real, true Islam. Laws in Islamic countries are broken, since alcohol is publicly sold, since the ill and orphans are not well treated, since the rich forgets the poor, since everybody lies, since everybody takes corruption, since banks get interests... The Arab leaders' mission is to maintain this, since they have to chose, either to be with their people against occidental unjust policy, or to be with the occident against their people. The occident knows very well how Islam can change Arab people...this actually happened 1400 ago... when true Islam came, Arabs were just like we see them now... fighting one another, ignorants, cheaters, corrupted, and prisoners of roman and persian policies... Islam, TRUE Islam, made them change RADICALLY in 20 years and after less than 100 years, when the Islam vibration continued from Spain to India, great developments were made, racism had disappeared, inequity was stranger to Muslim land, since the zakat ( purification of money) helped to insure the poor. Still, the occident and Israel know all this very well, that's why they are engaged in this war against Islam... they do the best possible to mislead people... now Islam is shown as a religion of terrorism and violence, thanks to the American media, network, the internet, and to those cheaters who kill innocent people in the name of god... Come on people, we are humans, we have brains, we should think, ask, look for answers, read about history, about future, and about TRUE ISLAM. Let's look at the qu'ran now and see what true islam actually is. Mohammad said: Then how can Muslims be real Muslims and kill innocent people? Think like this: TERRORISTS ARE NOT MUSLIMS, THEY ARE FALSE MUSLIMS, just LIKE CRUSADERS WERE NOT CHRISTIANS BUT FALSE CHRISTIANS! Mohammad also said: Do I need to say more to make you people think that all Muslims are maybe not that bad and that Islam is something GOOD and POSITIVE??