Universal faith-based beliefs are assumptions of individuals which cannot be falsified/proved by facts.

In other words, if existence of an object is neither proved nor disproved, it becomes universal faith, for example, existence of a ‘God’. No one can prove or disprove existence of God. It is beyond the fact or logical reason.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the protestors that were herded around, and some of which were arrested in the Seattle riots would have been SHOT in any other totalitarian country. They don't have protests........ do you know why? Because the would-be protestors KNOW that they would get shot, so they don't bother........

Tune in late nights on weekends. You would be amazed by what's explored. I agree that Darwin's ideas are not directly responsible for the actions of others; its the ongoing deification of Darwin that's the biggest problem--along with the continuous application of what just might not be true in the social sciences. To have Darwinism shape social science is deadly, especially in the form of direct manipulation of man's soul, quality of life and purpose as they appear in social groups.

Wait until one craps on your car and then see if you do not become prejudiced.

Looking at this issue and blaming democratic governments is like treating cancer with band-aids. There are many people who see the recreational use of mind altering substances as wrong and a subset of these people feel it is important to force that view on others. The democratic process empowers them to do just that. Since their ideals are the root cause, why not put your effort into changing the cause instead of whining about the symptoms?

These people have arguments that need to be addressed to them, not around them, if you want the issue resolved. The usual political protocols apply in the form of conciliation and understanding instead of confrontation. Confrontation will only harden their resolve.

Personally, I have no use for such things and judge those that use them negatively for their choice

but philosophically, I am against criminalization except in situations that put others at risk or impose on their freedoms and property. How would you address my point of view?

Faith is belief with evidence presented yet unseen

And can someone tell me why the symbol for anarchism is ALWAYS drwan the same way???

The father of science was a woman. From here on I'll call her the mother of science...
The mother of science was the first mother to go out and check if what she thought was the sound of a bear approaching her camp was accompanied by the smell of a bear approaching her camp, where her babies were sleeping. She used redundant sources to confirm a hypothesis. She would have been thrilled to discover she was wrong.

Look at the video man!

I don't think the police are who I would be thinking planted the perps.

There are many creationists out there... it is possible to disagree with his beliefs and his agenda without making assumptions and attempting to mock him. His beliefs don't necessarily stem from his childhood; I don't understand the need to tie this in (although it smacks of envy.)

if you break the law you get punished

I actually have mixed feelings about this[...]the US drug laws are wildly disproportionate to the crime. So I think we should refuse to extradite for this sort of thing.

hi.. ummm vaccines are not a reaction to fear??

.... why is it that my teen has not been injected with vaccines, could it be that I did not buy into the fear based propoganda, could be..

why is she alive, according to mainstream medicine at 17 without any meds in her she should be dead or at least sick with..... instead her healthy immune system works for her..

guess all that organic food, pure air and water and prayer is working....

health is not an accident and there are enough people on the planet who refuse vaccines to prove that you can live without them.... to each their own Living Truth...

blessings for health

"They" did not back up.

She certainly resisted moving back, though the man with her would seem to have tried to pull her away. They could have simply turned around and walked away.

They could have walked BACKWARDS faster than that. They were not trying to get away, or at least the woman wasn't.

That suggests she wanted confrontation.

In fact, one of the last things before the police act, is that she DOES confront them.

The initial appearance of the couple in the video appears as if she is either trying to dance in front of the police

, or draw her companion towards them.

The only evidence we have is video taped behavior, and that behavior is not consistent with innocent bystanders with bad timing, but of protesters SEEKING confrontation.

Second, if you are facing a wall of armed and armored police, why do you approach them?

It only requires a couple brain cells to decide "wrong direction". Further to this, and without any police training myself, does ANY armed force allow a potential adversary to get behind them? Of course not. The shields, armor, and clubs form a single wall facing the opposition, and is not effective once the opposition is between or behind.

They're not getting past, but I sure bet they could have walked a block out of their way if they actually had somewhere to go.

In short, it's unimportant why the riot police were there.

There are only two reasons to NOT avoid an armed police force. The first is, you're in the wrong. The second is, you're just stupid.

The police were not running, not rushing, the students could have WALKED away.

They CHOSE not to. That doesn't dictate that they "deserve" anything, but it DOES mean they are setting themselves up for a fall

First, the video is presented right from the start with an anti-police bias. It's not meant to be objective, so we certainly can't expect it to tell the "whole story".

Second, there's no useful audio, but the two "students" in the film appear to be deliberately confronting the police.

At the very least, they are consistantly moving TOWARDS the police, when they should be moving AWAY.

First is his eternal perspective. The Bible says unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given. The son is not born, the child is born. The son is given because the son eternally existed. He prays in his high priestly prayer “restore to me the glory Father that I had in your presence before this world was made.”

Jesus is the only creature in existence as part of the God head whose reason for existence is in him-self. Jesus fuses every moment of history with meaning. If he is transcending over time, if he is the eternal “I Am” and is always ever present then he fuses all time with meaning.

Second is his internal imperative. He did not come to set up a political power that would rule and constrain from without. He came to touch the hearts of men and women that would bring the imperative from within.

Napoleon said “Alexander’s kingdom and my kingdom will ultimately come to not, but Jesus’ kingdom is indestructible because ours was dominated by power and force. He has dominated the life of people with the power of love.

Third is his personal directive. As vast as this world is, as vast is this world was, Christ had time for the individual. His message is personal in the cosmic scheme of things how marvelous it is that he has time for you and me.

Forth is his inspirational incentive. How his existence has influenced and inspired people throughout time, from then to today.

Fifth is his incarnational distinctive. As the word became flesh and dwelt among us full of grace and truth.

if there is any insight (other than intelligent designer, that is) for RNA and DNA to have become more "complex" over time.

It's easy to see that early forms of DNA would have been very simple things to begin with but, over time and exposure and interaction with the environment and other primitive RNA and DNA strands, bits and pieces being added, subtracted etc.

Is there any insight into this process? Points of "connection" that have been identified in the DNA strand, so-called "junk" DNA, etc.? I'm interested in the insights from people here who actually have a background in biological processes.

It probably is true then that the primal ooze didn't promise what form it would or could eventually take .

i expected an atheist to pounce

The only reason one can recognize "Anglican", "Catholic", "Protestant", "Baptist", etc, is because they differ in their dogma, even though all are nominately Christian.

Not really. That would be suggesting that all guiding systems work only in one direction, and they don't.

OK. Since there is no control over what survives or not

, then how can it be claimed that we "evolved"? Doesn't that mean we got "better" over time? Or does it just mean that we changed?

If we just changed, then why is it that there is a steady progression towards more complex, and, for lack of a better word, "better"? According to this hypothesis, evolution could have, AT ANY POINT during the ascension out of the murky soup from which we crawled, gone the other way, yet, with all those literally MILLIONS of chances to go towards the bad side, and die out, we get man.

...it is far more likely that the unfortunate beings on the lifeless planets are not whining about their bad luck.

That to me is like going to a casino and going to the roulette table and betting on "red" for whatever number of times it took to get to "MAN".

Or, perhaps, we are the result of many missed opportunities, and could have been much more advanced, yet evolution didn't follow that route.