M&S

I'm looking for a rifle with the following characteristics, from highest priority down: .308 caliber, semi-auto, reliable, durable, easy disassembly/cleaning, less than $1000. Is there such a beast out there, or is it like Bigfoot and Nessi?

Which of these would you choose (if you were hypothetically in the cruiser market), and why?

And what would be considered the most ancient martial art of all, whether still practiced or not?

And what would be your responses to those rebuttals?

I'm not talking about the historical nuances or philosphies, but the actual fighting techniques used.

His marketing is over the top, but what about the actual content of his videos. Is it legit or just a scam?

....that so much focus and attention is given to Christianity on this forum, and that the secular world is steadily aiming at Christianity in particular as a threat, that Jesus Christ has affected the world so much that we base our calendar on His birth, etc. Love Him or hate Him, Jesus Christ has never been ignored.

If our faculties for reasoning are a product of natural selection, then they exist because they facilitate survival, which is not necessarily the same as them existing because they impart objective truth. Many animals can be conditioned towards a specific behavior through a stimulus/response mechanism utilizing their biological senses, which is how natural selection would work. We would be "trained" to keep certain mental processes because they produce a response to environmental stimuli better suited for survival. C.S. Lewis wrote "But it is not conceivable that any improvement of responses could ever turn them into acts of insight. The relation between response and stimulus is utterly different from that between knowledge and the truth known." Evolution of more acute eyesight could not bring a species to a knowledge of how light and sight function. How, then, can we trust the ability of our mental capacities if they originated in this manner?

I can see both sides. To claim to believe something firmly and not promote its tenets is somewhat disingenuous, yet to impose beliefs on others through law-making seems to violate the Christian principle of individual liberties. Does political lobbying actually achieve it's desired effect on those who disagree (seemingly no; people usually get offended); or is Rick Warren right in that we must change hearts before changing minds has any real effect?

Jesus Christ is offensive. He gives absolutes. The Bible is offensive. It gives absolutes. People say or do things every day that are offensive to my beliefs. People, if you disagree with me, fine, but if you think you have the right to live without me expressing my beliefs as much as you express yours, then move to China. You'll fit in well there. (On re-reading what I just wrote, it sounds angry--I'm not really, just trying to make a point.)

Especially since it was written some 1700 years before evolution was theorized?

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

I assume most of you live in a free country. If you're in the US, you are getting your wish in society, more and more secularism. So those of you who ignorantly and arrogantly dismiss as fools those who can see that logic dictates that design implies a designer, why do care so much about attacking them? The CIA and FBI are not at your door forcing you to accept Jesus. If someone mentions Christ to you, guess what? They've exercised their religious freedom. Get over it.

to read this article and refute the CONTENT of it without resorting to bald assertions, claiming "scientific" authority, or name-calling?

www.answersingenesis.org/

tj/v12/i1/universe.asp

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that evolution functions by random genetic mutations and natural selection, which requires a working system in place for it to progagate. So how does a process that depends on an already-existing system/platform explain the original production of that system/platform? How does one deal with the law of irreducible complexity in living systems (eg. interconnected, interdependent components of a system are useless and perhaps detrimental if isolated from the whole)? What is the evolutionary explanation for the ORIGIN of the information coding, or "language", present in DNA? Has life existed eternally, or did it begin at some point in time, and if it began, how was it that it began de novo, since abiogenesis (life coming from non-life) has never been observed in nature nor in a laboratory? Seriously.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." Billion and billions of demons, The New York Review, p.31, January 9, 1997.

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents--the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts--i.e. of materialism and astronomy--are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milkjug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset." C.S. Lewis, The Business of Heaven.

How does the order of the universe occur by chance? Logic depends on order. How can we trust that our logic is indeed logical?

Even if your memory "lives on" in your offspring, they eventually die and are anihilated too. And why should anyone care about their genes being propagated for the species? What difference does it make? If there is no God, then we're here for a while, we do some stuff (whether it's "good" or "bad" is inconsequential), then we cease to exist. The end. Sounds depressing to me.

Most people concede that morality exists in human nature (mostly), but why would it be necessary if we are simply products of random chemical interactions?

Does anyone have a genuine question, or is everyone simply asking stuff to make a point and disseminate their own personal philosophies?

and (different question), what is the best golf tournament in the world?