I hope I saw a future president speak today. Obama radiated sincerity and walked that rare tightrope of speaking in a way that would let common people identify with him yet still demonstrate his intelligence. He's certainly a gifted, charismatic speaker. I'm crossing my fingers that he leaves the Senate soon since Senators' voting records seem to do them such disservice in presidential campaigns.

Great event good and short speeches by all-should be a lesson to to other campaigns. McCaskill was very good- Barak was superb in defining the difference between the two major parties.

I was very impressed with Senator Barak Obama. He speaks from the heart with great passion and I am proud to have Senator Barack Obama representing African-Americans in such a positive light, he definitely gives young African-Americans a positive role model to look up to thus far. I hope that he continues to stay on point and keeps his keen awareness of what is important to the general population that lacks the necessary resources to achieve the "American Dream." We all know that there will come a day when his "honeymoon" will cease and hopefully we will not be fickle in our support of him when he needs it. As far as right now, MARCH ON SENATOR BARAK OBAMA, YOU DID AN EXCELLENT JOB TO "SHOW US" IN THE "SHOW ME" STATE.

Barack.

Joe,

Barak is not African American; he is bi-racial. He made it very clear at the Democratic Convention that he was proud of both of his parents, one black and one white.

Time for one race or the other taking credit for someone who is half and half or even multi-racial to end. We no longer live in the ante-bellum south where drops of blood count.

Basically, he isn't even true African American because his father was 100% African or Kenyan. Therefore, he would be classified as Kenyan American (or whatever his mother's European heritage is). Most Africans who become Americans do not consider themselves African Americans. They are Moroccan Americans, Algerian Americans, Chadian Americans, Sudanese Americans, etc. The term "African American" is directed to blacks whose families have been here for some time.

Barak Obama is a poster child for bi-racial and multi-racial heritages. He is neither black nor white. Bi-racial and multi-racial Americans deserve better than a narrow, prejudicial label.

Thanks publiceye. I actually checked the spelling, and then went ahead and misspelled it anyhow. Often speed is the antithesis of accuracy.

==Barack.

Thank you.

==Barak is not African American; he is bi-racial. He made it very clear at the Democratic Convention that he was proud of both of his parents, one black and one white.

And he's also made it very clear that he identifies as an African-American. Race isn't a biological concept so having parents of two races doesn't define one's race--the social construct of race does and in this society it's generally true that being of two heritages means you identify with the minority.

===He is neither black nor white. Bi-racial and multi-racial Americans deserve better than a narrow, prejudicial label.

Barack is prejudicial to himself? Huh. I'm so glad you can decide for him how he should label himself and where he fits most comfortably.

Archpundit,

What you say may be true to a degree, but it is part and parcel of our American ignorance. Barack Obama is something more than what most blacks here can claim, i.e., he is African and American. However, this is where our provincial ignorance comes in. Most Africans do not call themselves African any more than we call ourselves North American.

Perhaps this is one more reason why we remain the "ugly Americans."

Africa is not a black continent; it is very diverse with many, many more nations and countries than our continent. Africans identify with their country. North of the Sahara, Africa is and has been basically white. I lived and worked there, and they would never consider themselves black. It once was the breadbasket of the Roman Empire.

Even blacks are beginning to rethink the "African" prefix to American.

Oh, so one has to choose the minority to identify oneself? We are not yet living in the 21st century where a vast group of our population is equally two or more races. That's ignorance!

I will write Barack and suggest he change what he might feel forced to call himself in order to begin a more just designation of race. I will also send him two articles of mine that were published in the San Diego Union-Tribune and the Peoria Star Journal that deal with some of these issues and received praise from real Africans and genuine bi-racials and multi-racials. As citizens of European extract, we never had to choose one ethnic group over another. Neither should they. He is not our typical African American.

This is just stupid:

===Oh, so one has to choose the minority to identify oneself?

He does choose to. What is condescending is this attitude that you know better how Obama should identify than Obama. Perhaps he knows more about his life and identity than you do.

ArchPundit,

My statement "Oh, so one has to choose the minority to identify oneself?" was in response to what you said, "Race isn't a biological concept so having parents of two races doesn't define one's race--the social construct of race does and in this society it's generally true that being of two heritages means you identify with the minority." What makes it so stupid to an arrogant pundit? Who cares if race is not a biological concept. It's an anthropological concept and perhaps a concept in other sciences. It certainly is one in medical science, and isn't medical science included in biological science? I never heard someone had to choose the race of the minority before (that reeks of the one or couple drops of colored blood, if you ask me).

How do you know if he chooses to or if somewhere along the line he felt he had to. I have registered hundreds of children for school, many of whom are bi-racial. Both the child and the parent are embarrassed that they have to choose one race when the child is two at least.

It's a growing movement in this country to recognize bi-raciality, as it is recognized in other societies. Bi-racial children suffer severely in a society where other children make fun of the race they cannot claim.

For one who claims to be a progressive, in this regard your approach is retrograde. I have a hunch that when I write Barack, his response will be more understanding and gracious than yours. He doesn't have that ugly spirit that comes out in some of your writings. I happen to admire the man. But I believe his Kenyan father and white American mother account for his more even-keeled disposition.

My Kenyan and Nigerian American friends do not consider themselves African Americans, yet they are pure black (not one drop of white blood among them). The article published by the San Diego Union-Tribune on Africa was assigned to a class to read and report on in what is considered the highest achieving high school in California. It was an exciting experience to read how the class responded to and what they reported on that article.

When you have nothing of substance to say, you feel you can dismiss the other person by saying, "This is just stupid." That's arrogance personified. If and when I get Obama's response (which I believe will be an intelligent one), I'll try to remember to share it with you. I don't think he's the provincial ________ (can't think of a proper term) that you appear to be.

===Who cares if race is not a biological concept. It's an anthropological concept and perhaps a concept in other sciences. It certainly is one in medical science, and isn't medical science included in biological science?

No, in fact, race is not a biological concept. In medicine race is used as a proxy for a whole bunch of social conditions that no one wants to do the hard work to understand. It's used as a control or explanatory variable when researchers are unable or unwilling to disentangle the environmental impacts on communities.

As to who cares whether race is a biological concept, that would be anyone who wants to talk intelligently about it. If one wants to understand human evolution, understanding that melanin levels have nothing to do with other characteristics is vital to understanding how humans evolved.

If one wants to discuss social conditions centered on race, one needs to understand that race is a proxy measure for social conditions that cannot be fully explained by direct measures.

If one wants to point out that the ugly history of using race to excuse eugenics or the claim that there is something inherent in the race of an individual that determines their intelligence, one needs to understand what race is.

==I never heard someone had to choose the race of the minority before (that reeks of the one or couple drops of colored blood, if you ask me).

No one said they do, I said they tend to. Again, reading is not your strong point Helen.

===How do you know if he chooses to or if somewhere along the line he felt he had to. I

His statements in his book about growing up as the son of a white woman and an African father. Given he wrote a whole book on it, it's fairly well explained.

===. He doesn't have that ugly spirit that comes out in some of your writings. I

Ugly spirit? Coming from a woman who decided how Barack Obama should identify himself because you think so despite his having written a book largely focusing on the issue, is ugly and condescending. If you are upset that someone called you on that arrogance and ugliness, perhaps you should look in the mirror.

ArchPundit,

To borrow your words, "This is just stupid." And just because some evolution scientists who have erred in other areas say something doesn't make it a fact. They continue to deal in theories, many of which are unproven and unprovable.

However, it still sounds like what you expressed at the beginning. And that was the first introduction of an ugly spirit.

LOl--so, you are a creationist, that explains a whole lot.

ArchPundit,

I didn't say that; you did. I just said much of what is put forth is unproven and unprovable. My options are open. I just can't accept whole hog what is not undeniably proven. And you're supposed to be a "Presbyterian?" How can you be a Presbyterian and not believe in a Creator? Give one or the other up.

http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm

The issue was settled before I was born in the Presbyterian Church.

Science doesn't prove, it demonstrates.

Many scientists would disagree with that statement.

The majority of Presbyterians believe in the Apostles' Creed: "I believe in God, the Maker of heaven and earth...and in...."

And the Apostle's Creed isn't inconsistent with evolution in unless are a literalist. Methodists, ELCA, Catholics, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians have all been fine with that for decades. Before trying to rant about religion, you might know something about it after the Great Awakening.

Proof is a mathematical concept. Science infers, it does not prove. You are essentially disagreeing with the definition of science. You are free to do that, but you won't find many taking you seriously. I bet you get that a lot.

Of course, nearly all scientists would wonder how someone couldn't accept the evidence for biological evolution, so your standards here are suspect.

The Presbyerian Church USA is just one Presbyterian denomination and does not represent the teachings of the vast majority of Presbyterians around the world, e.g., PCA, EPC, Orthodox, Associate Reformed Presbyterians, Bible Presbyterians, Scottish and Irish Presbyterians, Presbyterian Church of Brazil, etc.

As for the Catholic Church the following: "Let us go directly to the question of evolution and its mechanisms. Microbiology and biochemistry have brought revolutionary insights here....It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error... .(They) point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before....Human beings are not a mistake but something willed.

Thus wrote Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in 1986 in a little book entitled In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall. In this short excerpt the cardinal clashes more with Dawkins than Gould ever has. While leaving the question of mechanism to science, Cardinal Ratzinger differs where it counts: The development of life was not a blind process, but an intended one. To back up his contention, he points to advances in the fundamental science of life, biochemistry. He is on very strong ground."

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod might not be in total agreement with the ELCA. There are also various branches of the Methodist Church that are not in agreement with one another.

Most Christian denominations, including the Eastern Orthodox Church believe God created man and woman as total human beings not from another animal species.

It's a guess where the majority stands on this issue. And I don't generally enter into such arguments because my interests lie elsewhere as indicated by the variety of newspaper articles published around the country in major national newspapers.

I am not an authority on science and don't claim to be one, but I don't believe everything sciences tells us today that will eventually lose credibility tomorrow.

You are not interested in disucussion but in putting down those who disagree with your perceptions. So let's give up trying to discuss this issue. When I receive a response from Barack Obama, I'll send it to you.

---While leaving the question of mechanism to science, Cardinal Ratzinger differs where it counts: The development of life was not a blind process, but an intended one. To back up his contention, he points to advances in the fundamental science of life, biochemistry. He is on very strong ground

It's hard to tell why you dislike evolutionary theory given your lack of understanding of it. Ratzinger argues on faith, not on any biological evidence and is quite clear in his acceptance of common descent and the specific scientific mechanisms of mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, and recombination. Misrepresenting his argument as if he was arguing against the science is willful misrepresentation and a sin to a Christian.

==the world, e.g., PCA, EPC, Orthodox, Associate Reformed Presbyterians, Bible Presbyterians, Scottish and Irish Presbyterians, Presbyterian Church of Brazil, etc.

Just the largest by about 10 times over PCA. If you are referring to general Presbyterians, PCUSA is the primary body for Presbyterians. Of course, even PCA isn't clear on its position so they aren't anti-evolution as much as torn over the subject.

BTW, in the age of Google, it's not only dishonest, but stupid to pull a long quote without attribution.
Here is Ratzinger's summation from the writing you cited

""We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities." (Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58)
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church

Creationism denies the incredibly well estabished evidence for common descent through the mechanisms mentioned above.

And Ratzinger accepted that:

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution." (paragraph 63, from "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God," plenary sessions held in Rome 2000-2002, published July 2004) "

Saying that science doesn't have all the answer or may be incorrect is always true, that's the nature of the method. However, claiming it is completely wrong would require a theory that also fit the evidence we have and explains it better. Would you care to offer up such a theory that isn't falsified by the current evidence?

BTW, this is an issue that Peter Downs and I actually agree upon.

Presbyterians - There are more Presbyterians around the world that do not belong to the PCUS, which is decreasing in size year by year. I named the other Presbyterian Churches because all together they surpass the PCUS. With the Gay issue, there are threats of losing more congregations and congregants.

As for the information regarding the Catholic Church, it came from: "Faith, Teaching and Life of the Catholic Church by themes Church Magisterium documents & catholic teaching Sources of the faith

God the Father and Creator"

Concerning the doctrine on creation, "Ludwig Ott in his authoritative Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma affirms the following points (De Fide are infallible dogmas "of Catholic faith"):

* All that exists outside God was, in its whole substance, produced out of nothing by God. (De Fide)
* God was moved by His Goodness to create the world. (De Fide)
* The world was created for the Glorification of God. (De Fide)
* The Three Divine Persons are one single, common Principle of the Creation. (De Fide)
* God created the world free from exterior compulsion and inner necessity. (De Fide)
* God has created a good world. (De Fide)
* The world had a beginning in time. (De Fide)
* God alone created the world. (De Fide)
* God keeps all created things in existence. (De Fide)
* God, through His Providence, protects and guides all that He has created. (De Fide)

These are the specific De Fide statements found in Ott on "The Divine Act of Creation," pages 79-91. The various Councils (Lateran IV, Vatican I, Florence , and others), the traditional statements of the Saints, Doctors, Fathers, and Scriptures are cited by Ott to document the Catholic dogma that God is ultimately the Creator of all things however He chose to do the creating (Genesis 1; Colossians 1:15ff; Hebrews 3; Psalm 19)."

P.S Many Christians and Christian groups, as well as scientists, believe in evolution within the species; they just don't believe in evolution outside the species or family group.

I don't pretend or proclaim I know it all, but I do not accept carte blanche any theory. Besides, it's not important for me to know everything there is to know (an impossibility). So I focus on what interests me personally and what I consider to be important to know not only for this life, but for the life to come. I realized very young in life, this life is extremely short. My brother-in-law is in the throes of his last days at a mere 60 years. It is only in the past year he turned his attention to spiritual truths and values and his relationship with his Maker and Judge. So how important is the knowledge of the extent of evolution or not now? I have a hunch it carries no weight at this point.

http://ambienrx.zikforum.com/ http://ambienrx.ephpbb.com/ http://ambienrx.forumup.org/?mforum=ambienrxOrder ambien Order ambien Order ambien Generic ambien Generic ambien Generic ambien Ambien zolpidem Ambien zolpidem Ambien zolpidem Ambien addiction Ambien addiction Ambien addiction Ambien overdose Ambien overdose Ambien overdose