Curly

I wouldn't worry so much about Kingsdale admissions being a lottery. A government review of school admissions proposes to ban school lotteries - so things may have changed by the time your friensds children are ready to apply.

I hope you don't mind me saying this but time is of the essence. It can be very distressing to spend time preparing something and then she doesn't get to see it. Try to get it there very quickly.

'The IMMF stated that the child was taken because her mother was mentally unstable and unable to care for her daughter, but medical professionals have evaluated Habiba and found her to be in perfect psychological health. Members of the Breastfeeding Committee of the Spanish Association of Pediatrics have reviewed the situation, acknowledged the healthy relationship between mother and baby, and suggested that the separation will have dire psychological consequences for both. They have asked that Alma be returned to her mother. On June 16, 2011, Habiba was allowed to visit with her child temporarily. It was reported that while they were together, Alma tried to nurse?which is comforting for both mother and baby, and recommended by the World Health Organization for the health of children up to two years old and beyond, as long as it is mutually desired by both mother and child?and was emphatically prevented from doing so by a supervisor' http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2011/06/17/a-mothers-nightmare-spanish-government-takes-away-rights-of-a-mother/

Do you have any children who could draw her some pictures to decorate her room? Or some photos of you and family with a little note saying you know you can't visit but you can be with her in spirit that she can put up. Or some nice music CD she can listen to - hospices usually have little cd players in each room. I hope you find something to send.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As I pointed out, if you roll a dice 100 times, > the probability of obtaining the string of digits > you end up with is around 1 in 10 to the power 50. > If you'd like worse odds, roll it 200 times. The > probability is even less. Ok let's say the impossible did happen and by chance a simple protein molecule was formed by the right atoms and molecules falling into place. You would then have to replicate those odds for the other 2,000 different proteins for just one life cell to remina active. Then the protein molecules need information from DNA molecules and DNA molecules need several forms of specialised RNA molecules all occurring by chance at the same time. Then you have to consider all the other factors that would have had to come about by chance. For example, by chance the earth is exactly the right distance away from the sun - any nearer we would burn to a crisp or any further we would freeze. By chance the earth rotates on its axis at the right speed to produce moderate temperatures and the other planets just happen to be there to prevent earth from shifting from its orbit. By chance we have gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force all required for the earth to have carbon, oxygen and iron - elements vital to life. If the electromagnetism was weaker atoms could not combine to form molecules; if stronger electrons would be trapped preventing chemical reactions needed for life - so just be chance it's the right strength. If the strong nuclear force was weaker 2% weaker only hydrogen would exist. If stronger there would be no hydrogen - again by chance it's the right strength along with the weak nuclear force which is just weak enough so the hydrogen in the sun burns at a slow and steady rate. By chance, the extremly complex process of photosynthesis provides the large variety of food we enjoy using the taste buds that just happened. Then there is our complex brain, language, emotions, nurvous system, organ function and immune system that is all just chance. If you walked into a room and found ketchup on the carpet and a child said the ketchup got there by itself you would believe them would you? Now please excuse me from retiring from this thread but the kids want to play Monopoly.

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >Neither of those verses explicitly states or confirms your interpretation. If it was so explicit the question would not have arisen. >An early Patristic source, the Protevangelium of James, names Mary's parents as Joachim and Anne. The Cave of Treasures >names Anne?s father as Paqud son of Eleazar. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew names her father as Issachar of the tribe of >Judah. Later redactions name her mother as Susanna. Particularly from the second century C.E. forward there has developed an immense body of writings making claim to divine inspiration and canonicity and pretending to relate to the Christian faith. Frequently referred to as the ?Apocryphal New Testament,? these writings represent efforts at imitating the Gospels, Acts, letters, and the revelations contained in the canonical books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. These writings attempt to provide information that the inspired writings deliberately omit, such as the activities and events relating to Jesus? life from his early childhood on up to the time of his baptism, or an effort to manufacture support for doctrines or traditions that find no basis in the Bible or are in contradiction to it. Thus the so-called Gospel of Thomas and the Protevangelium of James are filled with fanciful accounts of miracles supposedly wrought by Jesus. Commenting on such postapostolic Apocryphal writings, The Interpreter?s Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 166) states: ?Many of them are trivial, some are highly theatrical, some are disgusting, even loathsome.? (Edited by G. A. Buttrick, 1962) Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Bible Dictionary (1936, p. 56) comments: ?They have been the fruitful source of sacred legends and ecclesiastical traditions. It is to these books that we must look for the origin of some of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.? >The Talmud considers Jesus to have been a mamzer - the bastard son of a Roman soldier called Panthera - and therefore >prohibited from taking part in the congregation of Yahweh by the Deuteronomic Code. As said before there were plenty who wanted to discredit Jesus and that includes writings in the Talmud. However the quote demonstrates that despite the Rabbi?s opposition he could not deny Mary?s ancestry. >Africanus, the first Early Church Father to address the apparent contradiction, opined that both genealogies are those of >Joseph, explaining that he had two fathers - biological and legal - through levirate marriage. But then why does Matthew 1:16 not just say ?Joseph became father to Jesus?? >four women are named in the genealogy of Matthew. How do you explain that? Yes they are mentioned in genealogies, as was Mary in Luke but not as the genealogical link. Says M?Clintock and Strong?s Cyclopaedia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774): ?In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter?s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7).? >Matthew also skips several generations as recorded in 1 Chronicles 1-3 To prove genealogical links it was not necessary to name every link. For example at Ezra 7:1-5 several names were omitted in the priestly line at 1Chron 6:1-15. So it was not essential to name all the ancestors to satisfy the Jews. >Matthew claims Jesus is a descendant of King Jeconiah whose linage is cursed in Jeremiah 22:24-30: "Write this man >childless, a >man who will not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed will prosper, sitting on the throne of David or >ruling again in Judah.? While in Babylon, Jeconiah fathered seven sons. (1Ch 3:16-18) In this way the royal line leading to the Messiah was preserved. But, as prophecy had indicated, none of Jeconiah?s descendants ever ruled from earthly Jerusalem. It therefore was as though Jeconiah had been childless, with no offspring to succeed him as king -Jeremiah 22:28-30. >The point I am making is that your 'understanding' is not explicitly supported by the Scriptural canon. The Pharisees made similar claims on Jesus. They spent most of their time following Jesus around trying to ask him trick questions that they already thought they knew the answer to.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He clearly never played Spore ;-) > > It doesn't make you God, simply because the > alternative was "too unlikely". > > The anthropic principle notes that this > coincidence must have taken place, because if it > hadn't you wouldn't be here to observe it! It > requires no supernatural creature with a strangely > human-centric approach to the universe. So if I leave a pile of bricks, sand and cement in my garden, one day there is a chance it might turn into a house - all on it's own. Or if I get a stick of dynamite and blow it up (like the big bang) there's a chance I might get a new shed.

> Huguenot Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > I dropped my cigarette the other day and it fell > on its end.Right on the end, on the filter tip and stood > there erect ... We are talking about very different odds here. HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > On the subject of improbabilities ... >the probability of life arising on Earth by chance to that of 10^50 (ten > with fifty zeros after it) Mathematicians dismiss as never taking place anything that has a probability of occuring of less than 1 in 10^50 (1 with 50 zeros).

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Curly Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > HAL9000 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38: ... appear > to > > > be a contradiction in the scriptures? > > > > One genealogy is through Joseph, the other > Mary. > > Please provide the Scriptural authority for that > interpretation. In Matthew 1:16 Matthew does not write 'Joseph became father to Jesus' but instead Joseph was 'the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born'. And Luke, after acknowleging in Luke 1:32-35 that Jesus was the Son of God by Mary he says in Luke 3:23 'Jesus...being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph, son of Heli. If you want to do further research have a look at the commentary of Luke by Frederic Louis Godet or The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (revised edition of 1944), under ?Genealogy?, or McClintock & Strong?s Cyclop?dia (1882) under ?Genealogy? (page 773, col. 2, of Volume III), etc. Or sources outside the Bible confirm the general acceptance of Jesus??lineage. For instance, the Talmud records a fourth-century rabbi as making an attack on Mary, the mother of Jesus, for ?playing the harlot with carpenters?; but the same passage concedes that ?she was the descendant of princes and rulers?.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Huge > > I think curly is many things, and I probably > disagree with everything they say No, I'm just one thing. Me.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How convenient. So it's only the 'Bible' when it > suits you? What do you mean? 'Bible' comes from the Greek word meaning 'little books' not the 'complete works of'. > I loved your comments on scientists mate, like > it's either one messiah or another. If the > 'scientists' can't prove they're right then > they're just one more in a string of false gods? That's an interesting conclusion that I hadn't considered but one you have come to yourself. Well it's not a matter of scientists can't prove themselves right. More of the impossibility of it. For life to have begun by chance required the right quantity of chemicals to come together under the right conditions, such as temperature and pressure, and be repeated thousands of times. If a jigsaw puzzle was put in a box and the box shook for a million years, what's the chance of ever expecting to find a completed puzzle when you open the box? Whether evolutionists are serving the god of Good Luck or not is something you have to decide for yourself. (By 'the god of Good Luck' I mean a socially constructed idea rather than an intelligent being).

HAL9000 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What do you make of the Messiah's genealogies in > Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38: on the surface > these different listings appear to be a > contradiction in the scriptures? One genealogy is through Joseph, the other Mary. The Messiah was fortold to come through Abraham and David. Luke records the ancestry of Mary showing Jesus' natural descent from David. Luke does not name Mary and passes straight from Jesus to his grandfather because women were not named in genealogical links as was the tradition of both Greeks and Jews. Matthew shows Jesus' legal descent from David through Joseph as his legally adoptive father. The Jews kept very careful records and there were public offices where anyone who wanted to check the records could go. There were a large number of people who wanted to discredit Jesus and so they would have used the records office to dispute the geneologies Matthew and Luke recorded if they were wrong. I could go on in more detail but you get the picture.

Dear Administrator, How can I change my username to 'troll', as the Oxford Concise defines it as 'a fabulous being' and I do have a sense of humour.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You say the bible isn't incomplete but in the > following sentence you go on to interpret why > there is an implicit acceptance of incest until > Leviticus outlaws it. > > If it wasn't incomplete wouldn't the bible have > had a few more begats to fill in the gaps I've thought about this a bit more and you actually ask a very good question here. Why are there not more 'begats'? The purpose of the 'begats' was not to retell Adam's lifestory so it was not necessary to record all his children. Instead it was for a record of the lineage leading to the promised Messiah.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The world is 5000 years old, Of course the earth is billions of years old. You've been listening to those people that misunderstand the bible again.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've never heard anything so ridiculous as someone > saying something spectacularly contentious and > then forbidding comments on it. Because I know what you lot are like, lol! One comment turns into a character assasination. > Do I understand you're backing 'God' based on the > odds? Let's just get the comment into context here. Someone was saying they thought humans living for 800 years wasn't plausible. Given that our bodies cells have the capacity to renew forever and scientists do not understand why old age sets in it, I was comparing this to the mathematical probability of the necessary components of life finding each other by chance, something even scientists cannot reproduce in a laboratory. The purpose of this comparison was to help someone to consider that some things may not be as impossible as first thought. It was not put forward for general discussion as it's something you have to decide for yourself.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Or are you asking: Is there a big man with a white > beard sitting on a cloud who has the pope on speed > dial? Aren't you thinking of Santa Claus?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "As to whether that is far fetched to you depends > on your faith. I find the mathmatical probability > of life evolving far- fetched - more chance of me > winning the lottery and never buying a ticket (no > comments about that please before you all start on > me, lol) - so you have to make a personal decision > as to what you will believe after a careful > search." > > I may not have quite got that one. Are you saying > the bible is true because it's simply more > plausible? No. I'm saying that the mathematical probability of life evolving by chance is far-fetched compared to life having a powerful designer. (I thought I said no comments on this). > Not sure what people can turn up in a search? I > guess people could search their soul, and find > it's more convenient to run with the Bible stuff? Trust me. It is never more convenient to run with the bible stuff. > That doesn't mean it's true. No it doesn't. But I know which horse I'll back with the same odds. People choose to > believe stuff every day because it's convenient - > battered wives and cuckolds. It's not true though. What like evolution?

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > despite > europe's best minds for a thousand years having > dedicated their lives to theology and yet still > came up with many many differences in > interpretation, Obviously they were not some of the best minds, lol, otherwise they would have ditched the theology bit. > You say the bible isn't incomplete and any > interpetation is only there for those who want to > twist it's meaning for their own ends, but in the > following sentence you go on to interpret why > there is an implicit acceptance of incest until > Leviticus outlaws it. > If it wasn't incomplete wouldn't the bible have > had a few more begats to fill in the gaps and said > 'yes they were related but I bestowed them with > genetic diversity, and once there were enough of > you I stopped interfering and made incest rather > unhealthy to your genetic disposition'? > > I can't find those bits in the complete bible, > clearly I don't understand it ;) Wasn't 'Adam had sons and daughters' enough to complete the picture? I meant it's complete in the sense it gives you what you need to know, not that it spells out everything in out child friendly format. P.S I do agree with you that the mitochondrial DNA in itself is not conclusive evidence of an Adam and Eve, although it does at the very least support the account.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well that?s all of my theological questions > answered. How are you on Sports? RUBBISH!

Y'man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > ----- > > Y'man Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > 800 years they lived? And it was > incestuous? So we're all, supposedly, derived > from an incestuous relationship? Just a tad far > fetched don't you think? I'm looking for something > reasonable, not controversial. Sounds like the > Talmud is basically a proof reader, dots the I's > and crosses the T's. According to the bible everyone at that time lived for many years. Genesis 6:3 says God decided to limit the days of humans. As to whether that is far fetched to you depends on your faith. I find the mathmatical probability of life evolving far- fetched - more chance of me winning the lottery and never buying a ticket (no comments about that please before you all start on me, lol) - so you have to make a personal decision as to what you will believe after a careful search.

Brendan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The first marriage between Adam and Eve provides insight to these questions:> So who presided over the ceremony GOD and under whose authority were they ordained? God Who were the witnesses? The angels Considering only a few of the pages of genesis had happened and almost certainly weren?t written down yet, where the @#$%& did the reading come from? Gen 2:22-23 is a record of the marriage ceremony. It looks like Adam composed his own words. So it would not have been difficult for Adam to have done the marriage ceremony himself since he already had experience of marriage cermonies. There must have been plenty of people about by then for witnesses at weddings anyway as in Gen 4:17 says Cain built a city.

The bible is only inconsistent and incomplete and contradictory if you don't understand it. There are different interpretations because either people misunderstand it, read it out of context or misuse for their own ends or they don't understand the background and the culture of the people at the time. There are also problems caused by the meaning of words being 'lost in translation' so it sometimes helpful to go back to the original text or for those that can't read the ancient greek or hebrew compare different translations. Cain married his sister when incest was permitted in order to extend humanity. Genesis 5:4 says Adam had sons and daughters. We don't know her name because it doesn't say.

My son had a flat back of head. You wouldn't know he had a problem now and his hair is very short.

My son had a flat back of head. You wouldn't know he had a problem now and his hair is very short.