AsianAtHeart

I'm not ignorant of the evidence, neither am I "resistant to evidence"--for any reason. Theodosius appears to be the bigoted one here. The fact is, the evidence does not support the theory of naturalistic evolution. There is zero evidence of animals evolving from one class into another class; e.g. canine to feline, bovine, serpentine, porcine, equine, etc. Within one of these "kinds" there is speciation that occurs, and one could argue as to whether or not the speciation is a true, environmental-influence type evolution or whether it is just a loss/shift in genetic information in the process of haploid meiosis (gametogenesis) and sexual reproduction. But there has never been any evidence of speciation that added new genetic information to the genome that gave rise to a new organ, trait, or function. Nebraska Man was very definitely "an embarrassment to science." I'm quite surprised that anyone should even try to defend it. Perhaps you do not know what occurred. You had best educate yourself on this case before attempting to defend it. "Experts" and "scientists" managed to fabricate an entire drawing of a cave-man-style hominid based on a single tooth found in a farmer's field in Nebraska. It should be embarrassing enough to have presumed to know the entire musculoskeletal frame of a man (or woman) from a single tooth, without any DNA evidence extracted, even. But the most embarrassing part of the "king has no clothes" charade was that this tooth was later proven to have come, not from a human, but from a peccary. From that swine's tooth, they had purported to know even the facial features of this "Nebraska Man" and had a full-fledged drawing of his entire physique. Not embarrassing?! If this does not embarrass you, I doubt we have much common ground upon which to continue this discussion.

Clearly, some here have a poor understanding of the principles of language acquisition versus language learning and how linguistic abilities in one's natural language will transfer to the new language. If teaching primary students up through about grade 4, the native language, apart from behavior management, would be entirely unnecessary. The nearer to adulthood the student gets, the more of his or her own native language will be helpful. Adults learn by comparing the L2 back to their L1. Small children can learn without this. The "direct method" in which the L2 is the only language permitted in the classroom, has its shortcomings. On the other hand, a method in which all instruction is translated is absolutely worthless--and illegal in the United States for the simple reason that, knowing it will be said again in their own language, students will lazily wait to hear what they understand, thus learning nothing. Judicious use of the L1 during L2 instruction is important. It can help students bond with their teacher. It can help their minds open new schema for understanding linguistic structures of the L2 which may not be present in their L1. And it can more efficiently communicate important knowledge that their L2 skills would be unprepared to receive.

I can assure you that people whose systems go haywire in the presence of EMF are not dead. Side issue--did you know that some people have been plagued by hearing a radio station 24/7 after getting bi-metallic tooth fillings? Yes, having metals in one's mouth can, unluckily, tune in just the right frequency, and, like the old crystal radios which required no electric input other than the radio signals themselves, bring in the sound right near the ear. I don't have the EMF meter with me, and I don't remember if it had more than one setting for sensitivity, nor do I remember the units. All I remember is that for the fluorescent lights the analog dial went over halfway on its range--close to 60% on the reading. But percent of what? I'm sorry, I just don't remember anymore. I do also remember, however, that the reading was quite strong even at a range of several feet away from the light fixture. Now, how much was due to the transformer/ballast in the fixture, and how much to the ionized mercury vapor of the lamp itself, again I do not know. Perhaps searching online could provide some benchmarks on the expected EMF for various types of lighting.

I agree with most of the unquoted portion, but this portion is worth understanding better for those who may not know. EMF is not noticed by most people who are in good health. EMF can, however, adversely affect those whose bodies have higher levels of metals, such as copper, mercury, and lead. It is not merely imagined--for some of these people, simply walking underneath of a high-powered electric line can cause them great physical distress. While this is rare, it is a known phenomenon, and can potentially be treated by doctors via removal of those metals from the body. I have used an EMF meter on a fluorescent light, and was surprised at just how much EMF was picked up. Try it on an LED light, though, and you are likely to find zero EMF. There is a huge difference.

I don't understand this. It seems like 51 million baht for two trucks would be a corrupt amount of money--could two trucks have been worth that? If he refused to pay that amount for the trucks, he would then have been refusing to be party to said corruption. Is he now being penalized for integrity?

If you're hiring a Thai to do the work, it should not be illegal for you to supervise it. After all, you're the one who knows what you want and how you want it to be done--you're the one paying for it. So being onsite and acting as a foreman/crew boss should be fine, so long as the actual work is carried out by a Thai. If you know what you want, you can just instruct someone else in it who may be less skilled and willing to work for less.

Anyone who knows anything about going solar will know that solar can work very well for night lighting. Many street lights these days are solar-powered. How could that be done without batteries? That said, if you want a no-battery system, there is always the option of grid-tying your solar panels and doing what some refer to as "grid storage." You feed the grid during the day, it feeds you at night. Tit for tat. No, I wasn't expecting lights to be incandescent. I was thinking more of neon lights and CFLs. Fluorescent lights are not so energy efficient, even if they are better than the incandescents, and they contain mercury which is highly toxic. Furthermore, some persons are sensitive to their EMF. A mercury-free lighting setup would be wonderful.

I was wondering how many solar panels they had installed to help counterbalance their electricity consumption, and how many of their lights were LEDs.

I'm for freedom of choice. Seatbelts do more good than harm, but sometimes they can kill or injure. To my mind, driving situations differ in the relative risks of wearing them or not wearing them. In town, at low speeds, I'd feel safer without one. On the highway, at high speeds, it's likely safer to wear it. Passing through mountainous or watery terrains, I'd prefer to go without. I've seen situations where people's lives were saved because they were NOT wearing a seatbelt, such as when a whole van with 16 people plunged off a logging bridge (not a high-quality bridge, and low to the water) into a river--all 15 of those wearing seatbelts perished, the one passenger without a belt managed to escape. I do believe that these situations tend to occur less often than the other way around, but I think people should have freedom to choose for themselves. So I'm happy if the traffic laws on seatbelts are not fastidiously enforced.

It is my understanding that it is illegal to kill dogs in Thailand. What, then, should those humans do? Feed the dogs instead of the monks?

I was once asked to show cash, but it was over a decade ago at the Mae Sot border to Myanmar when I had done a quick border run and, upon returning, was alone in a line of mostly Burmese. That was also the time that the IO mistakenly stamped me in for something like 15 days -- which must have been what all those Burmese were getting. It was a bit of trouble to get that fixed--and they had to initial their correction of it in my passport. The mistake required some explanations at immigration later on, as well. (I vaguely remember some cash getting passed back down the line of Burmese ahead of me, as each one passed the checkpoint. But I was unaware of the cash rule at the time, and didn't realize what was likely going on, which is why my memory of it is faint.) I've never been asked when arriving by air.

I thought the British drove on the same side of the road as the Thai, so I find this a bit strange.

Actually, Non-Immigrant visas are the path toward citizenship in this backward Land of Surprises. Note that the "resident permit" requires a Non-Immigrant visa. Next, note that the residence permit is a requirement for the Thai-citizenship application: However, our drunk foreigner of this story has a considerable strike against him already in this process: Drunken driving is hardly "good behavior," nor would it be exactly drug-free.

According to the Bible, God is invisible, so I would question anyone who actually claimed to have seen God. We should not expect to see an invisible Being.

To me, this is actually confusing. What are you implying? What do you want them to learn? Should they have learned by now how uncomfortable the masks are and be more than ready to put them off? Should they have acclimated to the masks now and just put them on without thinking? Should they have learned how to adjust their budget to accommodate frequent mask purchases, and consider it all simply "normal" now? Should they feel naked without one, having gotten used to using it for so long? Or should they have learned how hard it is to breathe through a sweat- or rain-drenched mask and be quick to put the soggy thing away? Should they have learned to avoid unwanted attentions by just donning the mask? Perhaps they should have learned by now that they look more attractive with a mask on, as people can only see their beautiful eyes, not their aging mouths? I would say anyone can learn. But what should they have learned?

There is only one universe, and God has always been its Creator and Ruler. Nothing has, nor could have, created itself. Nothing has come to life by mere chance.

Monks are supposed to eat nothing solid after noon. It's hard to see how they would become corpulent that way. It basically limits them to two meals a day, and nothing anywhere near bedtime. And I thought monks got exercise while out walking every morning, and while cleaning and maintaining the grounds of the wat. Practical activity is more wholesome than lifting iron.

Nonsense.

You're right. I've never worn a condom with a prostitute. Do you know why? Drumroll . . . . . . . . . . . . . ???? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . because I've never slept with a prostitute! (And it's sure a good thing that it's not mandated to do so!)

Honestly, I've seen to many COI issues with WHO and CDC, and no longer put much confidence in either of them--and Mayo these days seems to just toe the party line as well. So I looked at the link from the NIH that you included. Did you even read it? Read this excerpt again...

Do you have a study to show that? I have heard doctors saying virtually the opposite--unless, of course, your mask is one of those respirator style devices that covers virtually your whole face and bulges out on each cheek.

But isn't that basically the point of the Big Bang theory? I do, certainly, agree with you that nature testifies of the existence of God. To take the Big Bang as an example, it is supposed to have been a huge explosion, and the matter that ejected from this explosion is said to have formed all of the known stars, planets, and galaxies. Judging by the rate of supposed expansion of the universe, the effects of the alleged Big Bang are still seen. But when was the last time you saw an explosion produce objects that twirled in circular motions? Every explosion I've ever seen caused the ejecta to emerge in straight lines--straight out from the center of the explosion. The only reason for anything to be deflected from that line would be the resistance of some other mass--but the universe, prior to the Big Bang, is said to have been an empty vacuum of space, so there could have been no mass out there! All one needs to see to be immediately knowledgeable enough to reject the plausibility of the Big Bang theory is Jupiter and its moons. Jupiter has dozens of moons, the largest of which is larger than the planet Mercury. We still do not know the full count of Jupiter's moons, and they orbit in opposite directions, without ever colliding, almost like clockwork. An explosion could never have produced such orderly motion. More details here: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/jupiter-moons/overview/ And the moons can be at different orbital speeds. [https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/moons/jupiter-moons/in-depth/] Wikipedia has a list summarizing the major features of each of the moons, including some info on their orbits. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jupiter's_moons There's just no way that all happened by chance, random processes from a Big Bang.

Here is another Biblical evidence for why this could not have been true. So Elijah, who had been taken to heaven, as we might recall, in a fiery chariot, was brought from heaven to visit and to encourage Jesus.

ATMs are for those who have a bank card with their account. My account is not that type of an account. Would you have an ATM card for a CD?

I, personally, use my fingers as far as they can fit. Certainly, they do not reach the ear drum. I almost never touch a Q-tip--can't even remember the last time I used one in my ears. I don't believe that I have very much buildup though, and some people might have a bit more. I do put tissue in my ears on rare occasions--not to clean them, but to dampen loud sounds. I have sensitive hearing, and some places where speakers and microphones are in use have the decibels ramped up so high that my ears actually hurt--and most others seem to be fine with it. In times like those, a little extra wax might be helpful!