APW

The Founders
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,608

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by APW

  1. Posted · Edited by APW

    Drive-Ins are sadly, things of the past where I live.

    When I was a kid I loved going. Me and my siblings and our friends would lay on the roof of our car or stretch out on lawn chairs in the bed of my dad's truck.

    I remember the old Starlite Drive-In. There were these big palm trees all around the perimeter of the place, and at night the wind would blow through them and make an eerie rustling sound. And the cats...for some reason tons of strays lived in and around the theater (which was out in the boonies, not in town) and they'd be yowling and fighting so loudly at times, you could barely hear the movie.

     

    The last film I saw there was "Clash of the Titans" (it was a double feature with the Rankin Bass version of "The Hobbit"). I was sleeping by the time Bilbo Baggins and the Dwarves set out from the Shire on their quest....I was just a kid back then, and couldn't stay awake too long. :laugh:

     

    Lord, I haven't thought about the drive-in in a long time.

  2. Posted

    Wow.....I forget.

     

    I think one of the first members to trade PMs with me after I joined in '03 was Captain Picard....but the only member I knew in person and spent time with in the real world (and he doesn't count) was my uncle Subcommander Beavis. I think we spent most of our time here just yakking at one another and not really interacting much with the community at large.

  3. Posted

    One baby name site i visited says that the word "Omarion" means bitter.

    But, then it also claims that it (the site) invented the word....and I know that's BS, because I went to grade school with a guy named Omarion back in the 70s....

     

    So, I dunno. I'm not sure what it means.

    :laugh:

  8. Posted

    :elephant:

    A big grin because I'm moving out of my cruddy neighborhood and house, into an awesome new apartment soon.

     

    No more chasing heroin junkies out of my garage, no more gunshots going off in the alley behind my house, no more sheriff's department helicopter hovering over my block at 3 a.m. waking everybody up.....and no more dealing with drunk, aggressive panhandlers when I walk to the corner market for a Coke!

     

    From now on, it's 3-bedrooms and 1100-square feet of plush carpet, and secure gated community uptown.

  9. Posted · Edited by APW

    Denial of Christian creation doesn't make it any less of a fact. God's presence is observable everywhere you look, but because of the limitations of man it is difficult for some to accept as fact a supreme creator they cannot scientifically quantify with their stone knives and bearskins (to use a Spockism to describe modern technology).

     

    There are 3 BIG problems with evolution:

     

    (1) There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.

     

    Evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking you can accurately explain the next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.

     

    (2) No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers. Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals. But biology has found no law to support this idea, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part!

     

    (3) There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.

     

    The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.

     

    But mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them.

     

    Evolution is as much a religion as Christianity and should be held to the same standards. As the evolutionist insists Christianity's creation account is "myth", then they must also regard their creation account as myth.

  11. Posted

    Its great that another movie is in the works.

    But I have reservations about the Kirk-Spock Academy storyline. I love the TOS characters, but I'm just not sure I'm going to be all that excited about this film.

     

    Star Trek needs something bigger, a grander storyline to re-energize the product. Almost a Star Wars trilogy-like story in which some great evil threatens the very core of the Federation itself. Maybe even from within. Then we could have the TNG/DS9/Voyager mixed cast come together in some fashion and over the course of a couple or three movies restore the Federation.

     

    Those aliens from the TNG episode "Conspiracy" would be excellent villains. Weren't they (at least unofficially) said to be related to the Trill symbionts? That means they'd be smart, long-lived and potentially as dangerous (or more so) than the Founders. Section 31 would make another worthy enemy.

     

    Its not that hard to come up with something more dynamic than teenaged Kirk and Spock at the Academy.

    That's the safe movie to make.

    But IMO,Trek doesn't need safe.

  17. Posted · Edited by APW

    I watch it a lot at night.

     

    I like the show with Mark Summers (I think that's how he spells his name) where they take you inside factories and show you how things like twinkies, pretzels, and other popular snack foods are created. And I've been watching Top Chef.

     

    Originally Iron Chef got me hooked on the Food Network. Then Rachel Ray (I don't really watch her show to see how to eat for $40 a day.....I can eat just great on less than half that - I'm cheap :dude: .....I just think she's cute).

  21. Posted

    Well, I agree with a lot of your post, but not all.

     

    In don't agree at all with regards to Brokeback, which was nominated despite having made far less money (and having been seen by far less people) than many other worthy films which were totally ignored by a biased Academy intent on pushing its own social-political agenda.

     

    That said, I will agree with the race diversity points.

     

    Being from a family that is thirded almost evenly between white, black, and hispanic peoples I've always been pro racial diversity on television. But all sides are guilty of being bigots. When I hear blacks complain that the networks don't hire enough blacks for television roles or as journalists (or whatever), I ask them where are the white people on B.E.T. When my asian friends do the same, I ask about the lack on non-asians on AZN Network. The same for latinos. For all of the many latino channels on tv, I see almost no white or black faces on those networks. By contrast the networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, UPN, are very diverse.

     

    I don't know why the the merger between WB and UPN would exclude blacks.

     

    Then again, Star Trek has made me wonder about it at times.

    When the character of Leah Brahms was introduced on TNG, it was originally planned that she would be named Navid Daystrom and be a descendant of Dr. Daystrom from TOS (The Ultimate Computer). But the Trek people said "Wait...Susan Gibney's white, she can't be related to Daystrom."

    Why? I have white relatives and brown relatives and black relatives....all related by blood, not marriage.

    That one left me scratching my head for a while.

     

    All in all I think television is diverse and all-inclusive today. We have shows about different ethic groups, about gays and lesbians, news journalists of all backgrounds, and people behind the scenes who also represent an array of nationalities and religions (or philosophies). We have music channels featuring all kinds of musical stylings from traditional country, to hip hop, reggae, rock, pop, etc.

  25. Posted

    Ha...one of the reasons I like little ships.

    I can take advantage of my speed and maneuverability and use hit and run tactics against bulkier vessels. :dude:

     

    Of course, the second I take one solid hit, I'm done for.

    Which is why you pick your spots for hit and run attacks well.

     

    Still, I doubt I'd have one of my ship's try to stand up to something like Jim's Valderan warship.