E Bibles Proof - Way Of Life: Fill & Download for Free

I moved from Texas to Washington State. I had lived in the South all my life and in Texas most of it. Although I had lived in some of the reddest parts of Texas, like Odessa, I mainly lived in more moderate places like Houston, Fort Worth and Austin.I immediately felt a freedom and ease I never felt in the South. Everywhere I went in Texas and Arizona where I lived and South Carolina where I lived there was extreme racism and division and hatred for anything that wasn’t ‘normal’ or fit in the the white-dominant society. Anyone who looked different or dressed differently was viewed with suspicion, and that was hard to overcome for them.I immediately noticed large numbers of mixed-race couples not having to live in the shadows, people of all nationalities welcomed with little suspicion they were terrorists. I lived in Texas when the Vietnam war ended and Vietnamese refugees were shot and not allowed to start businesses in rural areas and hounded out of the fishing areas even though the reason they were allowed sanctuary is that they fought or supported the efforts of the USA in Vietnam. In high school there were always racist and other bullying of Jewish students and minorities.When I passed through the South in travels I saw the disparity in where minorities were allowed to live, the decrepit state of schools that had minorities and the overwhelming segregation still apparent. When I would mention it to locals they were oblivious to it, because it was just the way of life for them.One of the main differences was in the school systems approach. Science and Technology and civics were taught using facts. When I left Texas in the 1990’s schools were required to teach that evolution was not a fact and that creationism was an equally appropriate way to look at the universe*. Global warming was (and still is) not considered science in red states. The whole idea that people’s religious belief systems were equal to science in schools astounds me to this day.I felt that fear and hate and racism ruled in red states in the South, with that a constant discussion item. Where I live now it is mentioned rarely, if at all. Tolerance and freedom for all makes a much more relaxed place to live than the uptight and always angry red states. There is an empathy for the plight of others here, and that irks many from the red states who visit. They feel like trump that the homeless and veterans with PTSD and the poor detract from a beautiful sparkling city, while most people in Blue states realize that systemic oppression and the refusal of our nation to deal with mental illness, refusal to have universal health care, reduction in housing opportunities and other cultural issues pushed on our nation by the red states are the main reason we have such poverty and poor treatment of people in need.Edit 10/25/2019: Since people are still reading and responding to this, I would like to share a set of observations I just read made by a group studying current considerations of race in the American South. Divided by Design | E Pluribus Unum The observations comport with my recollections and still current reactions to what I see. Many people have stated that my observations are incorrect and must be from the 1950’s but this study gives credence to the view that race is still a corrosive divider in the South and is one of the reasons for that area ever struggling in terms of poverty and lack of opportunities in many areas. Here are some of the issues I found in the report:Blacks are much more likely to state that discrimination is an ongoing issue, while whites are not interested in focusing attention on any issue of race;Whites see success as a result of personal drive, do not acknowledge any barriers due to race and blame blacks for any lack of success;Whites have twice the rate of college education than blacks; college educated blacks have 2/3 the average income of college educated whites;Blacks are slowly increasing their rate of leadership in local elected positions, and a growing number of whites express concerns about living in a city with black mayors and elected officials;Both whites and blacks acknowledge that “who you know” is a major key to opportunity, especially in economic development, and blacks see themselves missing out in this area.There is much more to the report, and I encourage interested people to review it. It is also mainly subjective and not a scientific measure in most part, but does include facts to underscore the personal accounts of respondents.Edit 5/19/2020:*I am still receiving votes and comments, thank you for reading. One comment that I deleted because of the violation that it attacked me, calling me a liar, among other, worse names, for my answer to the question. He stated as proof that he grew up in a town near Houston that had no racism and did not teach creationism.As late as 2011, governor Rick Perry asserted that Texas public schools do, in fact, teach creationism. While the official state-approved science curriculum does not equate creationism with evolution, both are presented as theories, with Perry asserting that evolution is just “a theory that’s out there” with “some gaps.” http://www.cc.org/userlink/perry_questioned_evolution_and_creationism_new_hampshire_says_texas_teaches_bothA study was published in 2014 that showed that more than half of the state’s public schools taught creationism as a fact, using the Bible as the sole reference material. https://tfn.org/cms/assets/uploads/2013/12/TFNEF_ReadingWritingReligionII.pdfThe city the commenter took me to task about, Katy, Texas, is a small town that has tripled in size from 198o–2000, going from about 5,000 to 15,000 during that time, and is about 18,000 estimated today. Katy · PopulationThe city is 61% white, with blacks making up 7.3% of the non-white population, Hispanics 29.1%. The Demographic Statistical Atlas of the United States I did not mention anything about Katy in my response, so I am not sure why I was called a liar because the person did not think there was any racism in Katy where he lived and he was not taught that creationism was a fact. I am happy he did not go to school in one of the schools that did teach creationism, and that he did not experience any racism. But it only takes a cursory look to find numerous incidents in Katy schools, one of the latest here: Katy ISD investigating after Seven Lakes Jr. High students receive racist and threatening text messagesOf course, the incident could have been the action of just one or a few people, but somehow they got the text numbers of every black junior high student’s in the school so they could target them. But it proves the point I keep making in responses, that each person’s journey through life is personal, and calling me a liar for presenting what I experienced because someone else experienced something else does not make me a liar, or ignorant or any of the other and even worse things my response evoked against me.

Everyone dies, and no one really knows what’s next. Period.There is no more difficult fact.Be you rich and powerful or poor and living in the street, you are going to die and everything you’ve done will be for nothing. And worse, who the fuck really knows what comes next? Religious people will scream that they know for sure it’s heaven or hell because some people have been there and come back to tell of it. I’ve news for you - so far all the ones who claim that later retracted that they’d been there. It’s been a lie so far. Especially the little 5 year old boy they made the movie about. He said he lied about the whole thing. So who knows what really lies in the great after-death?NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE. After death, that’s the most difficult fact of life.See, after you die your life leaves your body and your brain shuts down permanently. You’re gone, irretrievable, changed permanently. I’ve “died” 3 times in my life where I had no breathing for over 6 minutes each time, paddles used 2 of those times. But since they got me back, I wasn’t all the way dead yet. I was borderline. So were you if you were “dead” and they got you back. When you finally DIE all the way nothing will bring you back and you will not be able to tell anyone what you saw, smelled, felt, tasted, touched or did in the great beyond, if there is one.Now, I expect a lot of bad comments on this, but it’s true guys. they’ll say Jesus died all the way and came back. They have no real proof. Things about Jesus were written over 200 years AFTER he supposedly lived. The people who wrote about him didn’t see a thing. And the books of the bible were named after popular people of the time, not the authors. So who can say what he must have done? You really can’t prove it because proof requires something factual, something you can use all your senses on, and this ain’t that. So Sad, Sam.So you have to face the Most Difficult Fact that no matter how smart, beautiful, rich, powerful, poor, homeless, or own the most homes ever, you’re gonna DIE. No, your conscious is not gonna be transferred into a computer to live on, no, freezing your head is not going to revive you later on like on Futurama, you’re just going to D I E. Dead. Gone. Over. Hasta La Vista, baby. Everyone on Earth is going to have it happen to them. And no, you don’t know where you’ll be after you’re really and truly dead. You could just be nothing all the way to Transcending to a new form in another dimension. (that one’s from me, LOL). No, honestly, it’s all in the dark. Get used to it. Nothing is going to change it. The movie Flatliners and it’s remake may be fun, but it ain’t real. When you’re dead, no coming back for any reason or attempt ever. All I’ll say now is goodbye, good luck and good riddance to most of you.

One of the best answers was provided in the 2005 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania - 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist. case.Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)The court’s decision by Judge John E. Jones III discussed at length why intelligent design theory (and creationism) should not be taught in the public schools, with the basic reason being that intelligent design theory and creationism cannot be legitimately regarded as being science.“As the National Academy of Sciences (hereinafter "NAS") was recognized by experts for both parties as the "most prestigious" scientific association in this country, we will accordingly cite to its opinion where appropriate. (1:94, 160-61 (Miller); 14:72 (Alters); 37:31 (Minnich)). NAS is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: "Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations *736 are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science." (P-649 at 27).“This rigorous attachment to "natural" explanations is an essential attribute to science by definition and by convention. (1:63 (Miller); 5:29-31 (Pennock)). We are in agreement with Plaintiffs' lead expert Dr. Miller, that from a practical perspective, attributing unsolved problems about nature to causes and forces that lie outside the natural world is a "science stopper." (3:14-15 (Miller)). As Dr. Miller explained, once you attribute a cause to an untestable supernatural force, a proposition that cannot be disproven, there is no reason to continue seeking natural explanations as we have our answer. Id.”‘‘“Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.”“It is therefore readily apparent to the Court that ID fails to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations. (3:101-03 (Miller); 14:62 (Alters)). Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community as an affirmative action program, as advocated by Professor Fuller, for a view that has been unable to gain a foothold within the scientific establishment. Although ID's failure to meet the ground rules of science is sufficient for the Court to conclude that it is not science, out of an abundance of caution and in the exercise of completeness, we will analyze additional arguments advanced regarding the concepts of ID and science.“ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed "contrived dualism" in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to support "creation science." The court in McLean noted the "fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach" and that "[i]n efforts to establish `evidence' in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach... all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science." McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267, 1269. We do not find this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago.”The court’s decision after laying out in some detail why intelligent design and creationism are not science then went on to point out these theories are religious in character and given the separation of state and church cannot therefore be legitimately taught in the public schools as science. Presumably, they could be taught in the public schools in courses on comparative religion, just as the US Supreme Court had ruled back in 1963 in Abbington vs. Schempp that while mandatory Bible readings and school prayers were prohibited in public schools, the Bible could be studied in comparative religion courses or in courses on the Bible as literature.