WARNING - This post may not be suitable for all people. I am currently rather angry and this post (while it will not contain swearing) will be a very serious rant. So be warned that you may not like what i have to say, but this is a very real and serious issue to me.
I'm still writhing a little from a previous comment that i had to deal with on a previous post, but i wanted to touch on something that is very close to my heart.
It makes me very angry when i consider that the government finances an education system that is insulting, degrading, and spits in the face to anyone who takes religion and their religious beliefs seriously. It is insulting that our education system forces us to learn about evolution which, with its MANY flaws, is very anti-religious (some would say that evolution and religion can co-exist without conflict, but those who actually believe that and are Christian either don't understand evolution very well, or don't understand Christianity very well). Our country is founded on the freedom of religion, not the freedom to force anti-religious rhetoric down the throats of every child and young person in the country, so that they can then turn around and insult us and our children for not accepting that rhetoric as undenyable fact! This is a government that guarantees a quality education to every citizen and then when those citizens don't want to have to have their children listen to their rhetoric and do choose an alternative, they are still forced pay to have their neighbor be taught it, while at the same time having to pay out of their own pockets in order for their child to receive an education that is not prejudiced against them.
This is a problem that exists and is supported on all levels of the educational system, from grade school to state funded colleges. I am sick and tired of sitting back and listening to the rhetoric that places science and education as gods in our society and then claims that it separates church from state. When an alternative is brought forth that seeks to bring some balance to the problem and show that what has been forced on us is not as perfect as society would like us to think, it is criticized, rejected, and its supporters insulted. Now that's what i call a free country!
Do i have a reason to be angry? You bet i do!
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Science/Research DOES NOT EQUAL The Truth
Funny, but i could have sworn i've been saying the same thing for a long time now.
Basically the article states that the findings of less than 50% of research studies are accurate.
Public Library of Science Medicine (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124) as taken from this article.
John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false. But even large, well-designed studies are not always right, meaning that scientists and the public have to be wary of reported findings.
Basically the article states that the findings of less than 50% of research studies are accurate.
Public Library of Science Medicine (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124) as taken from this article.
Back to "Home" School
I was rather impressed with this article What Does 'Back to School' Mean for Home-Schoolers? by ABC News. It looks at ways that homeschoolers are dealing with going back to school, the students views on it, how homeschoolers are dealing with some of the criticisms toward homeschooling, and how more and more people are approaching it. I wish these kinds of resources existed when we had started. Since my mother was the first in our community to do it, i guess that that's not so surprising.
Some thoughts about homeschooling...
Public schools receive a certain amount (of money) for each student each day that that student is in school. That goes to paying for books, teachers, salaries, buildings, testing, etc. Why couldn't a percentage of that money go to the parents of homeschoolers to help them pay for school materials and the cost to them to teach their kids at home? Those parents still pay property tax that goes to pay for their child's education, and when the children aren't in public school the money that would be used to pay for their child's education doesn't go to the education system at all. So why shouldn't parents be able to utilize some of that money to improve their own children's education, while some of that money still being used to help the education system provide resources for the parents (ie gymnasium, playground, testing, etc.)? This would give the schools more incentive to help the parents rather than feeling like they are getting screwed out of the money that they need to run the schools. Both sides win and hopefully begin to be willing to cooperate more.
Also, as a therapist working with court ordered youth in an inpatient psychiatric facility, it greatly concerns me when i hear about "homeschooled" kids that aren't really being taught anything. I think that homeschoolers should have to have the same required testing as public school children. To have parents say, "I'm homeschooling my children" and then just letting their kids do whatever they want just doesn't work. It puts a bad taste in people's mouths about homeschoolers in general even when they are doing a good job, and is personally insulting to me as someone who was homeschooled for part of their education (4th - 8th grades). Well, that's more than enough for that rant.
Good article by the way.
Some thoughts about homeschooling...
Public schools receive a certain amount (of money) for each student each day that that student is in school. That goes to paying for books, teachers, salaries, buildings, testing, etc. Why couldn't a percentage of that money go to the parents of homeschoolers to help them pay for school materials and the cost to them to teach their kids at home? Those parents still pay property tax that goes to pay for their child's education, and when the children aren't in public school the money that would be used to pay for their child's education doesn't go to the education system at all. So why shouldn't parents be able to utilize some of that money to improve their own children's education, while some of that money still being used to help the education system provide resources for the parents (ie gymnasium, playground, testing, etc.)? This would give the schools more incentive to help the parents rather than feeling like they are getting screwed out of the money that they need to run the schools. Both sides win and hopefully begin to be willing to cooperate more.
Also, as a therapist working with court ordered youth in an inpatient psychiatric facility, it greatly concerns me when i hear about "homeschooled" kids that aren't really being taught anything. I think that homeschoolers should have to have the same required testing as public school children. To have parents say, "I'm homeschooling my children" and then just letting their kids do whatever they want just doesn't work. It puts a bad taste in people's mouths about homeschoolers in general even when they are doing a good job, and is personally insulting to me as someone who was homeschooled for part of their education (4th - 8th grades). Well, that's more than enough for that rant.
Good article by the way.
"My Favorite... Wiffee!"
My wife has now joined the blogging world. Her page is titled Lori's Random Thoughts. She blames me for "pressuring" her into it, but even if that is true, i know she will enjoy it when she gets going. One more name to put on the friends, family, and other list. Actually, i will probably be adding two today as i recently found out about my little sister's blog. So those should be up soon.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
"Let There Be Light"
This whole not causing debate thing is going to be much harder than i think i anticipated. I hope this doesn't turn into a major debate, but i wanted to answer Jewish Atheist's question brought up at the end of the comments to my last post
JA comments, "I've always wondered what people who believe in a young Earth think of how starlight has reached earth from millions of lightyears away."
Hopefully, i can answer that question without starting a major debate. As soon as i read this comment my initial reaction was, "what's to stop a God that can instantaniously create the stars from instantaniously threading that light all the way to earth?", but i've always hated answers like that. It somehow seems like a cheap and un-thought-out answer to a serious question. I've heard people use this kind of answer to this kind of question as well as in dealing with the fossil record and other arguments. It may be true and possible, but it doesn't really answer the question. It more says i have no idea, but i have to answer somehow so this is my go to answer. It's possible, it's accurate, but it's also very cheap. That doesn't mean that it isn't right though. Anyways....
This time as i was thinking about the threading thing, it seemed like someone was whispering something in my ear (i love it when that happens as it usually means that what comes next totally changes how i view a problem or situation). It was something that reminded me of some recent contemplations i had had about the creation story. The more i thought about it, the more sense it made (actually i didn't need to think about it for very long before it made complete sense). Oh, boy, i could go in so many different routes with this. Which one do i choose? If i talk about the poetic nature of the creation story it brings some real beauty and structure to it but will greatly extend an ever longer post. If i talk about my current contemplations about the uniqueness of the passages concerning day's one and four, it could provoke some real thought and fun (maybe not so debating) conversation....
I think for space and time's sake i will have to go the simplest route. So this will be a simple answer but hopefully it will clearly answer the question. Light (day 1) was created before the sun, moon, and stars (day 4). It existed and can exist outside of their control (but it currently doesn't). The sun, moon, and stars give light it's charge. It has direction and flow as directed by these celestial bodies. Thus it did not necessarily have to travel from them. The light existed. The celestial bodies gave it direction. So it doesn't necessarily have to have origionally come from the stars, it is just following the path led by them. I don't know if that answers your question or not, but that was as simple answer to the question as i could make it. Hope it helps.
JA comments, "I've always wondered what people who believe in a young Earth think of how starlight has reached earth from millions of lightyears away."
Hopefully, i can answer that question without starting a major debate. As soon as i read this comment my initial reaction was, "what's to stop a God that can instantaniously create the stars from instantaniously threading that light all the way to earth?", but i've always hated answers like that. It somehow seems like a cheap and un-thought-out answer to a serious question. I've heard people use this kind of answer to this kind of question as well as in dealing with the fossil record and other arguments. It may be true and possible, but it doesn't really answer the question. It more says i have no idea, but i have to answer somehow so this is my go to answer. It's possible, it's accurate, but it's also very cheap. That doesn't mean that it isn't right though. Anyways....
This time as i was thinking about the threading thing, it seemed like someone was whispering something in my ear (i love it when that happens as it usually means that what comes next totally changes how i view a problem or situation). It was something that reminded me of some recent contemplations i had had about the creation story. The more i thought about it, the more sense it made (actually i didn't need to think about it for very long before it made complete sense). Oh, boy, i could go in so many different routes with this. Which one do i choose? If i talk about the poetic nature of the creation story it brings some real beauty and structure to it but will greatly extend an ever longer post. If i talk about my current contemplations about the uniqueness of the passages concerning day's one and four, it could provoke some real thought and fun (maybe not so debating) conversation....
I think for space and time's sake i will have to go the simplest route. So this will be a simple answer but hopefully it will clearly answer the question. Light (day 1) was created before the sun, moon, and stars (day 4). It existed and can exist outside of their control (but it currently doesn't). The sun, moon, and stars give light it's charge. It has direction and flow as directed by these celestial bodies. Thus it did not necessarily have to travel from them. The light existed. The celestial bodies gave it direction. So it doesn't necessarily have to have origionally come from the stars, it is just following the path led by them. I don't know if that answers your question or not, but that was as simple answer to the question as i could make it. Hope it helps.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Closing up the Debate Shop
I really hate to do this, as i have really enjoyed debating with all of you. But unfortunately, i have to stop being actively involved in some of these debates (AKA not stirring up trouble, if that is going to be possible). I'm finding that these debates are consuming way too much of my free time, work (what i'm getting paid to do), family time, and energy. I haven't had such a blast in a long time, and i haven't been this intellectually stimulated since grad school.
Unfortuantely, as much fun and stimulating as this has been, i need to focus on other, more important (or so i'm led to believe) things, like a job, family, sleep, you know those other things. Being completely exhausted and yet staying awake for an hour after going to bed every night as my mind processes arguments, discourses, debate points, where i read or heard this or that so as to have verifiable resources for those who demand them, and such is usually not the best thing in the world.
So i will try to close up my arguments today ...hmmm... or maybe over the weekend... - (slaps hand) stop it, you must spend time with your family. - Well anyways, i will try to close up my arguments today, and maybe later i can come back and debate some more.
This doesn't mean that i won't be around and commenting on stuff. It just means i will try to not cause too much of a stir. :-( (Try being the key word)
Unfortuantely, as much fun and stimulating as this has been, i need to focus on other, more important (or so i'm led to believe) things, like a job, family, sleep, you know those other things. Being completely exhausted and yet staying awake for an hour after going to bed every night as my mind processes arguments, discourses, debate points, where i read or heard this or that so as to have verifiable resources for those who demand them, and such is usually not the best thing in the world.
So i will try to close up my arguments today ...hmmm... or maybe over the weekend... - (slaps hand) stop it, you must spend time with your family. - Well anyways, i will try to close up my arguments today, and maybe later i can come back and debate some more.
This doesn't mean that i won't be around and commenting on stuff. It just means i will try to not cause too much of a stir. :-( (Try being the key word)
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
A Rebuttal in a Long and Arduous Debate... Just the Kind of Think i Enjoy
In response to A Request for JC Masterpiece Regarding Evolution posted by Jewish Atheist.
By the way, in direct response to "I think it is simply because he has been taught only one side of the story, not because he is close-minded", no person can ever attend a public school of any sort and not know about the theory of evolution. It's the problems with that theory that most people are not really told about in school.
That's an interesting article and i appreciate the gesture. Unfortunately, i have done enough research and research papers in my years of undergraduate and graduate work to know that science is far, far from infallible.
All you have to do is look at all of the times the "missing link" between ape and man has been found. In one case it was the tooth that was thought to be some supposed human ancestor. It was given to Dr. Henry Fairfield Osbom, the head of the department of palaeontology at New York’s American Museum of Natural History. He thought it might have been a tooth from a "missing link". A drawing of what the "missing link" and his wife could possibly have looked like appeared in the Illustrated London News in 1922. Later it is quietly discovered that that tooth wasn't really any sort of link at all, but rather it was the tooth of a wild pig. Of course this was swept under the rug. In spite of the fact that the origional article had posted in a major newspaper, the short rebuttal appeared in a scientific journal that the general public would not read. Hmmm, i wonder why that was?
The past century is strewn with absolute proofs of "missing links" only to have those "missing links" later proven to be false. This kind of thing happens all the time. Science and scientists prove something only to turn around a couple of days, few months, a century later and someone comes along and "proves" that the last person was wrong.
I thought that his quote from the Quotations Page, Quotes of the Day for August 22 applies beautifully to this concept; "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had." Michael Crichton, Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003
US author & screenwriter (1942 - )
I thought that this quote was perfect as it summs up the nature of science, scientific studies, and research beautifully.
Needless to say i take many scientific journals and studies with a grain of salt. Oftentimes there is possibly some truth in what they say, but just as with bad exegesis of the Bible, people tend to read into the facts what they want to.
It's funny sometimes when i think about it because so many people put so much faith in science that those people treat it like a god even when it's falicies lay right in front of them, and to some people science is their god. I've seen the same thing with education, religion (that the religion itself and not God is the god), the concept of love, and especially money. The more i've thought about this idea the more that i agree with what one of my professors said once. Everyone has their own gods that they worship. It doesn't matter that they aren't made of metal and people don't physically bow down to them. They are their own gods none the less. (not an exact quote, but you get the idea)
By the way, in direct response to "I think it is simply because he has been taught only one side of the story, not because he is close-minded", no person can ever attend a public school of any sort and not know about the theory of evolution. It's the problems with that theory that most people are not really told about in school.
That's an interesting article and i appreciate the gesture. Unfortunately, i have done enough research and research papers in my years of undergraduate and graduate work to know that science is far, far from infallible.
All you have to do is look at all of the times the "missing link" between ape and man has been found. In one case it was the tooth that was thought to be some supposed human ancestor. It was given to Dr. Henry Fairfield Osbom, the head of the department of palaeontology at New York’s American Museum of Natural History. He thought it might have been a tooth from a "missing link". A drawing of what the "missing link" and his wife could possibly have looked like appeared in the Illustrated London News in 1922. Later it is quietly discovered that that tooth wasn't really any sort of link at all, but rather it was the tooth of a wild pig. Of course this was swept under the rug. In spite of the fact that the origional article had posted in a major newspaper, the short rebuttal appeared in a scientific journal that the general public would not read. Hmmm, i wonder why that was?
The past century is strewn with absolute proofs of "missing links" only to have those "missing links" later proven to be false. This kind of thing happens all the time. Science and scientists prove something only to turn around a couple of days, few months, a century later and someone comes along and "proves" that the last person was wrong.
I thought that his quote from the Quotations Page, Quotes of the Day for August 22 applies beautifully to this concept; "Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had." Michael Crichton, Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003
US author & screenwriter (1942 - )
I thought that this quote was perfect as it summs up the nature of science, scientific studies, and research beautifully.
Needless to say i take many scientific journals and studies with a grain of salt. Oftentimes there is possibly some truth in what they say, but just as with bad exegesis of the Bible, people tend to read into the facts what they want to.
It's funny sometimes when i think about it because so many people put so much faith in science that those people treat it like a god even when it's falicies lay right in front of them, and to some people science is their god. I've seen the same thing with education, religion (that the religion itself and not God is the god), the concept of love, and especially money. The more i've thought about this idea the more that i agree with what one of my professors said once. Everyone has their own gods that they worship. It doesn't matter that they aren't made of metal and people don't physically bow down to them. They are their own gods none the less. (not an exact quote, but you get the idea)
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Aparently i'm playing the "i'm an alienated minority" crap
This is a post in response to the post and comments coming from Jewish Atheist and some of the readers of his blog (read: not necessarily his viewpoint). I normally have a very good time reading his posts and debating about things with him and others. Please read the post and converstion that has come from it before reading this blog as not doing so will drastically take this out of context.
Read any major newspaper. Watch any major news station, except FOX News. Watch just about any major movie distributed by the major distributing companies and you will see beyond a shadow of a doubt that anyone with a conservative Christian view is treated like a loon. Your posts and the sources that you quote show this all the time. Even a major insurance company (i think it was allstate if it's that important for you to have absolute undenyable proof of this you can research it yourself as you appear to have plenty of time to do that kind of thing) recently fired a man because he spoke out against homosexuality on a forum on his own time and completely anonymously without ever making mention of his work or the company. When companies look for someone to fire/lay off they tend to first fire married WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) men with children because they are least likely to get sued that way. Almost any time a politician makes a statement of faith they get criticized by the media and the government. Just look at the attempts to bring conservative Christians to balance out the extremely liberal Supreme Court (or do you need research to back that up too).
Yes i know that Jews have been treated unfairly by many people. But as you yourself have even stated as a Jew you used to look solely for Jewish buisnesses to support. In the business world Jews are the most successful buisnessmen in the world. Which i understand in the context of the Bible. They are God's chosen and blessed people.
Those movie distribution companies that i griped about earlier are owned almost exclusively by Jews. Which is why Mel Gibson had such a difficult time finding a distributor for The Passion of the Christ (if you need research to support this statement as well, see my comment earlier). If it had been a movie about a major Islamic, or Hindu, or any other major religious figure, there would have been very little resistance.
I have no real problems with Jews. My cousins are Jews and i rather enjoy spending time with them.
I don't deny that Jews have been treated unfairly, but if anyone thinks that conservative Christians aren't persecuted they have turned a very blind eye. More Christians have been killed/martyered in the world in the last 100 years than have in the 1900 years previously combined. To say that conservative Christians are not persecuted is rediculous.
Read any major newspaper. Watch any major news station, except FOX News. Watch just about any major movie distributed by the major distributing companies and you will see beyond a shadow of a doubt that anyone with a conservative Christian view is treated like a loon. Your posts and the sources that you quote show this all the time. Even a major insurance company (i think it was allstate if it's that important for you to have absolute undenyable proof of this you can research it yourself as you appear to have plenty of time to do that kind of thing) recently fired a man because he spoke out against homosexuality on a forum on his own time and completely anonymously without ever making mention of his work or the company. When companies look for someone to fire/lay off they tend to first fire married WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) men with children because they are least likely to get sued that way. Almost any time a politician makes a statement of faith they get criticized by the media and the government. Just look at the attempts to bring conservative Christians to balance out the extremely liberal Supreme Court (or do you need research to back that up too).
Yes i know that Jews have been treated unfairly by many people. But as you yourself have even stated as a Jew you used to look solely for Jewish buisnesses to support. In the business world Jews are the most successful buisnessmen in the world. Which i understand in the context of the Bible. They are God's chosen and blessed people.
Those movie distribution companies that i griped about earlier are owned almost exclusively by Jews. Which is why Mel Gibson had such a difficult time finding a distributor for The Passion of the Christ (if you need research to support this statement as well, see my comment earlier). If it had been a movie about a major Islamic, or Hindu, or any other major religious figure, there would have been very little resistance.
I have no real problems with Jews. My cousins are Jews and i rather enjoy spending time with them.
I don't deny that Jews have been treated unfairly, but if anyone thinks that conservative Christians aren't persecuted they have turned a very blind eye. More Christians have been killed/martyered in the world in the last 100 years than have in the 1900 years previously combined. To say that conservative Christians are not persecuted is rediculous.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Long Weekend
Please keep us in your prayers. ... well, the oldest one just woke up so this will have to really be short. My wife and i are both really drained. We had been planning on going to visit some friends over the weekend when out youngest one (4 months) came down with, of course now i can't remember the name, i want to say it's called... oh yes crupe. She has been throwing up all weekend. On top of that my wife and other daughter have not been feeling well either. We, more she than me, have been up most of the night the last few nights taking care of the two of them. So now i'm going to work extremely exhausted on one of the days when i need to be most focused. Thankfully my sister decided to pay us a visit today as it became her day off this week due to scheduling changes, so my wife will have some help and maybe get some rest. I'd tell you how that is a mini-miracle but i don't have time. Either way, please as you read this offer up a quick prayer for us. Thanks.
Oh, and also for one of my other sisters, Christie, who is having a really hard time with marriage problems and such.
Oh, and also for one of my other sisters, Christie, who is having a really hard time with marriage problems and such.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Why Evolution Fails: The arguments and research
I haven't posted on this topic for a bit now. After some of comments that were left on previous posts in this series i realized that i had really hit some nerves for a couple of people. I had decided that since many posters seemed to think that the only way that what i have to say could be anywhere near true is if i had multiple sources to quote to back me up. So i was going to do a bunch of research for each post and find lots of pages and people whose views backed up my beliefs, but then i realized that with the limited time i have to actually do this is limited to about 45 minutes to an hour max in the mornings on weekdays and a little more time on the weekends (i'm not getting paid in any way and when i am at work i have work that i need to get done and can't sit around all day researching on the internet. My job actually requires me to do something after all). Added to that is the fact that i could do all kinds of research and find all kinds of support for what i say, but then the writing becomes about "the experts" and their opinions vs. other "experts". Now that's exciting isn't! So i've decided to keep doing what i'm doing the way that i'm doing it.
If commenters are going to demand that i backup what i say with "expert opinion" and "research" in order to argue the "expert opinions" and "research" that they use to support their side, then they can. Eventually i will do and add the research, but for now i just don't have the extra time. I want this to be an excercise in writing and an outlet for me to express my views and opinions.
I will not close the comments on my posts so those who agree and disagree with me can still state their opinions and views, but understand that just because you or i can find "experts" and "research" to support our views does not make it correct. I may have to write a post on why "science", "research", "experts", "statistics", etc. are not infallible as they like to act like or think that they are.
If commenters are going to demand that i backup what i say with "expert opinion" and "research" in order to argue the "expert opinions" and "research" that they use to support their side, then they can. Eventually i will do and add the research, but for now i just don't have the extra time. I want this to be an excercise in writing and an outlet for me to express my views and opinions.
I will not close the comments on my posts so those who agree and disagree with me can still state their opinions and views, but understand that just because you or i can find "experts" and "research" to support our views does not make it correct. I may have to write a post on why "science", "research", "experts", "statistics", etc. are not infallible as they like to act like or think that they are.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
A Father's Presence
I willo attempt to post 2 posts in one morning.... a difficult task indeed given the limited amount of free time i have in the morning. But here goes.
Around 2 this morning i woke up to crying. This time it was our older one (22 months old), Leah. I didn't want her to wake the baby, Hannah, so jumped out of bed and quickly went into their room. Thankfully Hannah hadn't woken up. I went over to Leah's bed sat down next to her and told her that it was all right, i was there. She immediately stopped crying and went back to sleep. But i stayed there for a couple of minutes just the same stroking her back.
It's been amazing watching my two little girls grow. I've learned almost as much from them as they have from me. But the thing that really struck me this morning is how she just needed my presence. Everything was alright once daddy was there. I didn't need to rub her back, but i did anyways. I didn't need to rock her to sleep. I didn't need sing her a famous daddy made up song. I just needed to be there. My presence was all that she really needed to make everything all right so she could go back to sleep in peace.
It's amazing because that's the way that i usually am too. Things tend to get stressed out at times. I tend to get irritated and frustrated and part of me just want to scream and cry, but all i need is the presence of my Father. Just spending time in his presence makes all of the stresses and cares of the world seem unimportant and a whole lot easier to deal with. It is in His presence that i find the peace and rest that i need.
Well so much for time to post a second post. I guess that i'll have to do it tomorrow.
Around 2 this morning i woke up to crying. This time it was our older one (22 months old), Leah. I didn't want her to wake the baby, Hannah, so jumped out of bed and quickly went into their room. Thankfully Hannah hadn't woken up. I went over to Leah's bed sat down next to her and told her that it was all right, i was there. She immediately stopped crying and went back to sleep. But i stayed there for a couple of minutes just the same stroking her back.
It's been amazing watching my two little girls grow. I've learned almost as much from them as they have from me. But the thing that really struck me this morning is how she just needed my presence. Everything was alright once daddy was there. I didn't need to rub her back, but i did anyways. I didn't need to rock her to sleep. I didn't need sing her a famous daddy made up song. I just needed to be there. My presence was all that she really needed to make everything all right so she could go back to sleep in peace.
It's amazing because that's the way that i usually am too. Things tend to get stressed out at times. I tend to get irritated and frustrated and part of me just want to scream and cry, but all i need is the presence of my Father. Just spending time in his presence makes all of the stresses and cares of the world seem unimportant and a whole lot easier to deal with. It is in His presence that i find the peace and rest that i need.
Well so much for time to post a second post. I guess that i'll have to do it tomorrow.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Thoughts on Psalm 19
I realized yesterday as i was looking over my site that my blog seems to be being consumed lately by the evolution issue at the expense of everything else. So to break up the monotony, and give myself a break, i wanted to look at a Psalm that i seem to have been reading quite a bit of lately. There's too much there to post everything so i will just go over some excerpts.
Psalm 19.
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.
In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,
As i said, this psalm has been one that i have gone back to again and again. As you can guess, this has been a bit of an influence for my current discussion. The concept is just so undenyable. When i look at the world andthe complexity of it all, even just the sky (our atmosphere) it is amazing how complex it is and has to be to sustain life on this planet. It is a beautiful work.
7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;
8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes;
9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold,
Yea, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
11 Moreover by them Your servant is warned,
And in keeping them there is great reward.
Every time i read this section it reminds me of a song with these verses as the lyrics that we used to sing at camp. I have a note in my Bible referencing that it is a song that i know. The problem is that because i know it as a song, i see it as that song and the words begin to lose meaning to me at times. But, when i ignore the tune and just focus on the words, i have found that they have such amazing meaning. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;" They are more than just words. At first glance they appear to be commands, but in reality they are really promises to us.
14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight,
O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer.
I have this verse underlined in green in my Bible.
I have a four color pen that i use for study. I underline a text in black if it is semi-interesting and i want to highlight it as such.
I underline in blue when what i read really has some meat or truth in it that i want to highlight (the previous passages are underlined in black and blue)
I underline in red when i have a note about what is there. When it is a song i put a musical notation in red next to the passage. When another scripture and it reference or bring better meaning to each other i either use green arrows or write the reference in red. When i have interesting notes i write them in red next to the passage. You get the drift.
However i use green when what i'm reading is of such significance that it directly applies to my life at the time, is of high importance, and/or i want to memorize it. In this case it is all three.
This passage is my desire for my life right now. That what i say and think be acceptable. That my mind be focused on the things above and not on the things of this earth that distract me and pull me away from God. "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight," For you are "my strength and my redeemer". Even in this is a promise. I can't do this on my own. He gives me strength and redeems me from my failures, mistakes, and sin. In Him i trust.
Psalm 19.
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the firmament shows His handiwork.
2 Day unto day utters speech,
And night unto night reveals knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language
Where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their words to the end of the world.
In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,
As i said, this psalm has been one that i have gone back to again and again. As you can guess, this has been a bit of an influence for my current discussion. The concept is just so undenyable. When i look at the world andthe complexity of it all, even just the sky (our atmosphere) it is amazing how complex it is and has to be to sustain life on this planet. It is a beautiful work.
7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;
8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes;
9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
10 More to be desired are they than gold,
Yea, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
11 Moreover by them Your servant is warned,
And in keeping them there is great reward.
Every time i read this section it reminds me of a song with these verses as the lyrics that we used to sing at camp. I have a note in my Bible referencing that it is a song that i know. The problem is that because i know it as a song, i see it as that song and the words begin to lose meaning to me at times. But, when i ignore the tune and just focus on the words, i have found that they have such amazing meaning. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple;" They are more than just words. At first glance they appear to be commands, but in reality they are really promises to us.
14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight,
O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer.
I have this verse underlined in green in my Bible.
I have a four color pen that i use for study. I underline a text in black if it is semi-interesting and i want to highlight it as such.
I underline in blue when what i read really has some meat or truth in it that i want to highlight (the previous passages are underlined in black and blue)
I underline in red when i have a note about what is there. When it is a song i put a musical notation in red next to the passage. When another scripture and it reference or bring better meaning to each other i either use green arrows or write the reference in red. When i have interesting notes i write them in red next to the passage. You get the drift.
However i use green when what i'm reading is of such significance that it directly applies to my life at the time, is of high importance, and/or i want to memorize it. In this case it is all three.
This passage is my desire for my life right now. That what i say and think be acceptable. That my mind be focused on the things above and not on the things of this earth that distract me and pull me away from God. "Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
Be acceptable in Your sight," For you are "my strength and my redeemer". Even in this is a promise. I can't do this on my own. He gives me strength and redeems me from my failures, mistakes, and sin. In Him i trust.
Monday, August 15, 2005
Why Evolution Fails: The Basic Premise II
Well, i wasn't planning on doing another post on this issue, Jewish Atheist brought forth an argument that i wanted to deal with. He pointed me in the direction of the TalkOrigins website which attemts to counteract some anti-evolution views. According to the TalkOrigins website, what they think i'm talking about is referred to the second law of thermodynamics. Maybe that is what i'm referring to, maybe it isn't. I didn't take this concept from that law. I took this concept from processing and understanding the world around me, and as such attempting to understand why what i see in reality seems to go directly against what evolution teaches. If someone else attributes this to the second law of thermodynamics, than so be it. I have done no such thing. But, for the sake of argument (which i rather enjoy sometimes) i will discuss this concept and what TalkOrigins talks about. (oh boy this post could get long)
Jewish Atheist stated "This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law of entropy, which states that on averagecomplexity decreases. Locally, it's obvious that complexity can increase. Anytime a plant combines CO2, water, and sunlight to make sugar, complexity increases within that plant." I'd say that this is a pretty clear description of what was said on the TalkOrigins website, so to save alot of complex explanation and extremely complex post i will go with this.
Obviously there are times and places where elements and processes become more complex, such as the plant producing sugar by combining CO2 and H2O and a sperm and an egg combining and using the resources around it to over time develop an adult human. Thus that must mean that my argument is clearly nullified. Absolutely not. Simple systems are able to change without alot of serious outside help thus becoming more complex or simple relatively easily. However, this does not work the same way with complex systems such as the complex single celled organism discussed earlier, the human body, the universe, etc. In order for a complex system to exist it must grow and develop using a plan. However when that plan has completed that complex system begins to break down, thus the complexity breaks down into simpler systems. Without outside processes/help/plans the nature of complex systems falls to decay.
... Uh oh, i'm running late. I have to go to work. I will have to finish this later or tomorrow morning.
Jewish Atheist stated "This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the law of entropy, which states that on averagecomplexity decreases. Locally, it's obvious that complexity can increase. Anytime a plant combines CO2, water, and sunlight to make sugar, complexity increases within that plant." I'd say that this is a pretty clear description of what was said on the TalkOrigins website, so to save alot of complex explanation and extremely complex post i will go with this.
Obviously there are times and places where elements and processes become more complex, such as the plant producing sugar by combining CO2 and H2O and a sperm and an egg combining and using the resources around it to over time develop an adult human. Thus that must mean that my argument is clearly nullified. Absolutely not. Simple systems are able to change without alot of serious outside help thus becoming more complex or simple relatively easily. However, this does not work the same way with complex systems such as the complex single celled organism discussed earlier, the human body, the universe, etc. In order for a complex system to exist it must grow and develop using a plan. However when that plan has completed that complex system begins to break down, thus the complexity breaks down into simpler systems. Without outside processes/help/plans the nature of complex systems falls to decay.
... Uh oh, i'm running late. I have to go to work. I will have to finish this later or tomorrow morning.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Why Evolution Fails: The Basic Premise
What is the basic premise of evolution? Basically, evolution states that life on earth has evolved over billions of years from simple single celled organisms to our complex environmental, social, religious, etc. systems, and that these systems are continuing to develop. It is survival of the fittest. As time goes by in order for life to survive it has had to continually adjust to a changing environment and a changing world. Those who don't adjust (evolve) die away and are replaced by others who do.
According to the evolutionary process we were once primates (having evolved along some line from a single celled organism) and over time we adjusted, evolved, and became man.
So what's the problem with that? In one word it's "decay". The idea that life has become more complex over time goes entirely against the nature of the universe. The term "Half-life" is used to describe the decay of radioactive material. Stars gradually burn out over time or are sucked into black holes. People and animals grow old and die of old age if they are not killed. The planets' compas/orbit gradually decays. Everything in both life and nature breaks down into simpler elements. Metal rusts, meat rots, trees decay, etc., etc., etc.
In order for evolution to work the opposite must be true. Evolution of life requires that things become more complex over time. After all, humans are more complex than apes. Apes are more complex than single celled organisms. There's no doubt that animals and people can adust to changing environments, but for them to become more complex requires something more than is possible simply by "chance" At it's very simplist it requires intervention by an outside force. Just look at the world around you. Do buildings build themselves or are they built and maintained by people. What happens if they're not maintained? They end up falling apart and then down. Our universe is like an unimmaginally complex mechanical clock. It is gradually unwinding and will eventually stop running.
This is a difficult thing for many people to accept because in order to accept this reality one must accept that something first created and then wound the clock. Some more powerful being put the universe into motion which in turn has many implications that many people don't want to have to recognize and accept. Thus it is easier to believe the lie that "there is no creator" than to live with the implications that there is.
According to the evolutionary process we were once primates (having evolved along some line from a single celled organism) and over time we adjusted, evolved, and became man.
So what's the problem with that? In one word it's "decay". The idea that life has become more complex over time goes entirely against the nature of the universe. The term "Half-life" is used to describe the decay of radioactive material. Stars gradually burn out over time or are sucked into black holes. People and animals grow old and die of old age if they are not killed. The planets' compas/orbit gradually decays. Everything in both life and nature breaks down into simpler elements. Metal rusts, meat rots, trees decay, etc., etc., etc.
In order for evolution to work the opposite must be true. Evolution of life requires that things become more complex over time. After all, humans are more complex than apes. Apes are more complex than single celled organisms. There's no doubt that animals and people can adust to changing environments, but for them to become more complex requires something more than is possible simply by "chance" At it's very simplist it requires intervention by an outside force. Just look at the world around you. Do buildings build themselves or are they built and maintained by people. What happens if they're not maintained? They end up falling apart and then down. Our universe is like an unimmaginally complex mechanical clock. It is gradually unwinding and will eventually stop running.
This is a difficult thing for many people to accept because in order to accept this reality one must accept that something first created and then wound the clock. Some more powerful being put the universe into motion which in turn has many implications that many people don't want to have to recognize and accept. Thus it is easier to believe the lie that "there is no creator" than to live with the implications that there is.
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Why Evolution Fails: The Origins of Life II
This post picks up directly where the last one stopped. It was supposed to be an edit that extended the previous post, but it got to be too long for one post. So if you're coming in new, than please read the previous post.
... Even if that were somehow entirely randomly possible, there would need to be more than just one type of cell. After all, there are plant cells, and then there are animal cells. Both are similar in some respects, but ultimately they are extremely different.
... Even if that were somehow entirely randomly possible, there would need to be more than just one type of cell. After all, there are plant cells, and then there are animal cells. Both are similar in some respects, but ultimately they are extremely different.
Next the step from single celled organism to structured simple organisms multiplies the problem exponentially. Even just by multiplying itself and somehow the multiplied cells attaching themselves to each other in a cooperative fassion (as opposed to fighting and ultimately destroying each other) still results in the organism that is just a random blob with no real structure. In order for these randomly formed cells that somehow attached themselves to each other to work together to create even a simple structure would require some sort of a design or plan. In order for there to be a design and a plan, there has to be a designer/planner. Unfortuantely, this is something that this randomly formed simple single celled organism is just not capable of on it's own.
This doesn't even touch on the exponential complexaties of even a simple complex organism. As the organism becomes complex it begins to need specialized cells for things like a circulatory system and other systems that must all work perfectly in conjunction with one another in order for the organism to not fail from the onset.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Why Evolution Fails: The Origins of Life
Let me set up a hypothetical synario for you. Let's say you go out into a wilderness. This wilderness is a great expanse full of dust, rocks, wind, sand, and heat. It's a very beautiful place, but it's a very wild place. Even though it is a wilderness it is also a very rich place. The rocks and ground are full of metal and ore. It has some of everything. Let's say you go riding through this barren and foreboding place on horseback and a few miles into the ride you catch something out of the corner of your eye. Upon closer inspection you find that it is a laptop computer. It's kind of old and covered with dust. You open it up and try to boot it up. It turns on at first but then fails after a few seconds. What would you assumption of this synario be? Would you assume that someone else had been there before and dropped and left their laptop there accidentally, or would you assume that all of the elements, the wind, the dust, the ore in the rocks, the sand, and everything else just randomly came together accidentally or on their own to form this laptop computer? That would be ridiculous wouldn't it!
Now, let's take a step back. What if the laptop computer that you came across was more advanced than anything you would see out right now? It is faster, more secure, with a bigger hard drive, and better OS (operating system), and in better condition than anything that you could buy. What would your assumption be then? What if this ultimate computer was able to repair itself when it was broken and build more of itself, from the elements around it, in an attempt to be able to do more things. Would you assume then that this advanced computer accidentally came to being on it's own from the materials in the wilderness? Not possible.
Yet this is what evolution teaches. A single living cell is more complex than the most complex supercomputer in the world. And yet, we are expected to believe that in some ancient primordial ooze this single celled organism that is more complex than the most complex supercomputer somehow created itself with no outside help.
Well, on a side note, this writing thing is quite a bit harder than i thought it would be. I started out this post attempting to write about the problems with the basic premise of evolution, and instead ended up writing about the origins of life. Ah well, the basic premise will have to wait for another day.
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Why Evolution Fails!
I am going to attempt to do a series on.... are you ready?... here it comes... "Why Evolution Fails!" (i bet you never saw that one coming) We will have to see how this goes. I have a habit of starting things and not completing them... something about having ADHD or something. So if too much time passes and i haven't finished the series, just give me a holler.
Anyways, the series should include, but is not necessarily be limited to, the following topics.
The Origins of Life
The Premise of Evolution
The Fossil Record
Footprints in the Mud
Carbon Dating
Mount St. Helen's
This series has been inspired by a post, comments, and discussion from "... and now for something completely different"
Anyways, the series should include, but is not necessarily be limited to, the following topics.
The Origins of Life
The Premise of Evolution
The Fossil Record
Footprints in the Mud
Carbon Dating
Mount St. Helen's
This series has been inspired by a post, comments, and discussion from "... and now for something completely different"
Monday, August 01, 2005
An Angry Person
It's funny, I'm beginning to realize more and more that i am an angry person. I am angry at society. I am angry at the world. I'm even angry at myself! I think i have every right to be angry considering the trash i see our society feeding us, teaching us, and doing whatever it can to instill in us so we can pass that same trash down to our families, kids, etc. Anger seems reasonable doesn't it? I have every right to be angry. After all God gets angry. The Bible is full of examples of God's wrath and anger. The destruction of Sodom & Gamorah; The great flood; The Israelites coming out of Egypt and the whole "Let My people go!" routine. It's all there. It's all pretty clear. We have been created in the image of God and God is angry. So that makes it alright.... right?
That's the funny thing about anger. The more i see anger, and the more i work with people that have anger, the more i recognize and agree that anger usually has a source. Oftentimes the root of anger seems to be fear and hurt. People become angry because someone or something has hurt them and that hurt, or the fear that that hurt may occur again, expresses itself in anger. It is a defense mechanism that we use to protect ourselves. I am hurt so i will attack whoever or whatever could make me feel pain to prevent myself from having to go through it again.
Anger is helpful, and it's even healthy at times. However, if we let anger and bitterness build up inside of us it makes us angry and bitter people. Our lives begin to revolve around it. Which leads to... "the dark side of the force"... a life mentality of anger and bitterness. And, that is not a good thing.
Off hand, it's interesting to note that anger and pride seem to go hand in hand... but that's another post for another time.
That's the funny thing about anger. The more i see anger, and the more i work with people that have anger, the more i recognize and agree that anger usually has a source. Oftentimes the root of anger seems to be fear and hurt. People become angry because someone or something has hurt them and that hurt, or the fear that that hurt may occur again, expresses itself in anger. It is a defense mechanism that we use to protect ourselves. I am hurt so i will attack whoever or whatever could make me feel pain to prevent myself from having to go through it again.
Anger is helpful, and it's even healthy at times. However, if we let anger and bitterness build up inside of us it makes us angry and bitter people. Our lives begin to revolve around it. Which leads to... "the dark side of the force"... a life mentality of anger and bitterness. And, that is not a good thing.
Off hand, it's interesting to note that anger and pride seem to go hand in hand... but that's another post for another time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
