Yay! Well, it bites that the Nikon tech support was not more helpful, but I'm really glad you have your camera operational for the birth of your sweet little baby!

I remember someone saying they originally signed on with their real name as their username, but then wanted a new account with something more anonymous. I saw her post that she had been able to change it, and I'm guessing she went through admin. Hopefully you'll hear from them soon.

Not as ironic as this. :)

Okay, a few points here: 1. The OP simply asked if anyone was going to go see it. It has morphed into something quite different, but, no, that wasn't the bottom-line point for the OP. (Not saying she would disagree, just that it wasn't her point when she started the thread.) 2. I don't believe schools should teach creation any more than they should teach in a science class that lightning comes from Thor, or that the Earth is the center of the universe. I don't believe schools should teach creation because at various points in in time, both of those aforementioned ideas appeared to require no more faith than any scientific explanation. An average ordinary person living in the times before concrete scientific proof would have been asking scientists the same questions you are asking me, and the scientists' answers would have seemed as ridiculous to them as mine may seem to you. "So what you are saying is that little thingies in the clouds jump to the ground and it makes a pretty light and a big boom? I don't see how that takes less faith than just believing Thor throws it when he's angry. I mean, you can't prove what you said. Just because I don't see Thor doesn't mean he isn't there. I can feel his presence every time there is a thunderstorm. I think you should be teaching about Thor in science classes alongside your lightning 'theory' and let it be debated." The way creationists feel about their theory right now is the same way proponents of every other myth must have felt in the years preceding the complete dissolution of their myth by science. Private schools can teach whatever they like. Parents can teach whatever they like. I have no problem with public schools teaching creation myths in a history or literature or debate class, but they have no place in science classes. 3. Proponents of creation really like to try to put evolution and creation on the same level. As you put it, "they are all faith based." I understand your desire to do that, because, well, it's really all that's left in the bag of tricks. However, one requires a belief in a mystical being, one does not. Science has consistently explained away religious myths, proving them false. Religion has never once proved science false. So they are not exactly on the same level, you see? 4. It's a logical fallacy, as I'm sure you know, to assert that something (in this case God) must be true because you can't prove it is false. The burden of proof of anything, including the existence of God, as I'm sure you know, rests with the individual making the claim. Simple rules of logic, but thanks for trying. :)

Ugh! I had horrible growing pains when I was younger, and the only thing that relieved the pain was wrapping an Ace bandage around the area. There was something about the constant pressure that seemed to make it go away. My daughter also has these, and she responds well to Ace bandages, ibuprofen, and Epsom salt baths. I usually pour about 1-2 cups in her bathwater and she soaks for a while. I've read that it is the magnesium that helps.

Well, personally I tend to believe the expansion/contraction theory, but I haven't really read up on any of the more recent discoveries since becoming a mommy almost 11 years ago. :001_smile: So I don't believe that, as you say, nothing became something. I believe something has always existed (there's that pesky time reference), and it continues in a state of expansion/contraction. The universe expands until its temperature cools to the point that it begins contracting upon itself. The more it contracts, the faster it contracts, and eventually collapses in upon itself, to begin the cycle again. And so you may ask, "But where did the 'stuff' come from?" I believe my answer of "Maybe it always was there" is more reliable than your answer of "God spoke it into being" because we can clearly see that the "stuff" does indeed exist, but you can not prove to me that God does. It takes far less faith to believe that the things I can see have always existed in one form or another than to believe that a god I cannot see created it. As I see it, the concept of a creator adds an unnecessary element to the equation. Are you really trying to see? Because if so, you could spend years studying all the observational and theoretical data that physicists have amassed over the years, so that you could understand it better, at least in deeper terms than "nothing became something, exploded and became everything". I certainly don't have as deep a level of understanding as I would like. But just because I do not fully understand all the science involved does not mean I need to attach a deity to explain it. I'm okay with saying I don't know. Historically, when there is an unknown, religions create a myth to explain it. When science becomes able to explain the unknown, the myths are no longer needed. So (in my opinion, of course) the reason that what I believe is so radically different from what you believe is that deities have a way, over time, of becoming unnecessary.

"Eternal" loses its meaning when you try to think of what happened "before" the Big Bang. The nature of time itself completely changes when you start talking about a singularity with the density of our universe, compacted into a point of zero radius. Think about that... Zero radius. And it's not like it was just sitting there, floating around in space. There was no space. Everything that now exists, including what we call space, was contained within that singularity. Time is a dimension that we humans are very fond of. But it is just that, a dimension.

K12's Literature program sounds just like what you are describing. It is packaged with grammar, spelling, vocabulary, and composition, but I would pay for the package for just the literature alone. Some of the classics are abridged versions (Robinson Crusoe, Don Quixote) but they are quality versions. All of the books can be purchased as a package, except for the 3 or 4 novels of your choosing. How that works is that they have a list of probably about 30 or 40 novels that you can choose from. The "lit guides" for these are all online and available to you. So you pick the ones you want to use and they are entered into your online schedule. There are 180 total literature lessons per year, so this year we haven't done any of the extra novels because we were only doing literature 3 days per week at the beginning of the year. Anyway, if you have any questions, let me know.

Awww. :) My daughter (almost 11) just started shaving a couple of weeks ago, and I felt just like you about it. I only have one child of my own (not by my choice) and I thought I would really have a hard time with her "growing up". But gosh, I am so loving the young lady she is turning into. We have such great chats, and she is just so awesome. She amazes me. And thank goodness for the free Schick Quatro that we got from a motel room. Like Karen sn said, soooooooooooo much better than what we had growing up!

5' 6"

I was shocked that my daughter didn't react more negatively to her palate extender, considering she is hypersensitive. She took it well. I gave her ibuprofen when she needed it. As far as cleaning, I would use a toothpick nightly after she brushed to pick out any remnants she missed. (She would lie on her bed and tilt her head back so I could have a good look.) And then I would send her in to brush once more. I would have loved a water pik, but we didn't have one, and the toothpick seemed to work well enough.

I get how you're grouping the topics within the seasons. My only thought is that the winter topics you have chosen can be awfully technical. I have found with my daughter that once we have made it through an in-depth chemistry unit we are SO happy to do something less abstract, like biomes or rocks and minerals. Depending on how in-depth you go, chemistry, astronomy, and physics can get really technical, and following them with a more concrete subject can be a welcomed relief. Not to mention the fact that cabin fever and winter doldrums can add to the effect. And nope, I don't think you're nuts. I love how you plan. Your graphic made me smile; it totally appeals to me. (And sorry. I don't mean to be dominating this thread. Hopefully some others will respond.)

I actually agree with this premise. I don't think I would learn about my society as a whole only from the people with whom I live. I might learn about my family's particular, individual stand on issues, but that is not the same as learning what my society as a whole values and condemns, what it considers successes, or what it sees as the nature of good and evil. That would be better learned through looking at works of popular culture. What movies and books succeed in our society? And what values do they portray? I'm not at all endorsing popular culture, but I do believe that it is a reflection of our society in general, good and bad.

Nope, just crossed my arms and blinked really hard. :D

Ack. I misread your original comment. Boy, isn't it amazing how one little word (in this case, "not") can make such a HUGE difference in meaning?? Sorry!

How many times per week do you plan to do science? That would obviously make a difference. I think your plan is good. Some topics won't take as long as others, so it should even out. And with the way you have it scheduled, you are spending, what, about three weeks per topic on average? Again, depending on how many days per week (or more specifically hours per week) you do science, I think it should be sufficient to cover those topics in enough depth. Keep in mind, also, that the 5th grader will (most likely) be able to work a little faster and longer than the first grader. There may be more independent work at the higher level also, but I think it is very do-able. And for what it's worth, I'm having a hard time with the 1-subject-per-year concept myself. :)

Just for my personal clarification, do you believe the evidence for evolution doesn't exist, or it just hasn't been discovered?

Hmm, never saw that in the physics department at UNC, either. But hey, we're just two people. ;)

Nor have I said what my beliefs may or may not have been prior to my disbelief in Christ. ;) But you asked a why question, and I and others have tried to answer. Am I to assume that you really weren't wanting an answer, but were more interested in trying to show us the error of our ways? I suppose it could be said that our answers were trying to show you the error of your ways, but only as they pertain to your misrepresentation of us. We've tried to help you understand our thought processes, because you asked. Rocks have a purpose (with a lower-case "p") but I, at this point, have no reason to believe they have meaning, in the human sense, or possibly even in the animal sense as well. Of course, we could really get philosophical and debate whether rocks and viruses even do exist outside of our consciousness, but that we be an extreme tangent. Why would it not be privileged?

Maybe I should go back and reread this thread, but I haven't seen that. I haven't seen someone trying to have it taken out of the theaters, or actively trying to stop it from being seen. That would be censorship. They are simply stating their opinions on the content of the movie and the process by which it was made. Even if one were to claim that no one should waste their money seeing it, that's not censorship.

I'm pretty sure I've addressed this one already. Well of course I have considered the question. But as I stated before, the answer or lack of answer to that question does not determine whether my life has meaning. You only believe it does and can see it no other way because the meaning you choose for your life requires it to be that way. Your meaning is tied to your creation. My meaning is tied to my existence, regardless of how that existence came to be.

If the actual cover of the book is the same as the dust jacket, I toss it without further thought. But if the cover underneath is a solid color, for instance, I carefully remove the dust jacket and keep it neatly in a stack in a closet because I am certain that one day I will get around to ordering the plastic covers that someone mentioned on the old board that are like the ones libraries use and are very strong. Because, golly, I want the more visual front cover. One day...

Okay, indiscriminate wording on my part, personifying an inanimate concept. Let me try again. A fundamental truth is an idea that would be evident to people regardless of cultural or religious background. I don't see how the way I (or the universe) got here should have any bearing on my determination that my life has meaning. I am here. I have life. I give it the meaning I choose. If that meaning is so far out of whack with some universal truth, most likely there will be negative consequences in this lifetime that may lead me to reevaluate. Why we are here, or how we got here has no bearing to me on the fact that I am here, and I determine to live a full, meaningful life (as I define it) while at the same time (hopefully) not impeding others from doing the same.

We must have been typing at the same time. :) I do believe there is a fundamental Truth (as outlined in my previous post) but I also believe that indeed everyone does make their own meaning in life. You choose to take on the meaning of life as defined by the Bible. I don't. Someone else, as you said, may take on a different meaning. This is a fact, right? We do choose our own meanings. Now, how closely our personal standards of living and our definition of the meaning of life relate to a fundamental truth is an entirely different subject that fully depends on what we define as that truth. Which I think is what Jenny was saying all along; that if we get those definitions from completely different dictionaries, it makes debate pretty pointless. :o

Obviously not. But there are two different arguments going on here. One is whether a person can hold human life meaningful without being a Christian. I am not a Christian, yet I attach value to human life, so obviously it is possible. The other point of debate is whether there is a "Truth". Personally, I do believe that there is a universal truth, and the universal nature of that truth has revealed itself within a multitude of religions. You know it as the Golden Rule: I have heard Christians say that it is only because The Golden Rule is from God that all the other religions/spiritual groups have found it. I believe that a fundamental truth will be obvious not just to a single religious group, but to a wide variety of those who seek the truth, and that is why you see a prevalence of this one idea throughout history. And of course, not all people will accept the ideology behind the Golden Rule, and some will believe, like you said, that women should be beaten. But if that belief were a foundational truth, it would be widely held and more acceptable. However, this is not the case. It is far more widely held that we should treat others the way we want to be treated. This is what makes it a fundamental truth to me, and it does not rely on any single religious doctrine.