Today we will discuss organs. According to scientists, the human body contains some organs whose functions are currently unknown. Evolutionists agree that they are clearly "vestiges of organs inherited from our evolutionary ancestors." They point this out as undeniable proof of their flawed theory at work. However, with a little research, one will find that the appendix was at one time considered to be a useless remnant of our "evolutionary past" as well. More modern studies have shown that indeed the appendix does have a use. It plays a role in antibody production, and it also protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths. Ladies and gentlemen, science at one time firmly believed that the earth was flat. Science at one time also firmly believed that the solar system rotated around the earth. Those who were right back then and boldly stated that in fact the earth is round and it rotates around the sun were cast out of the sphere of legitimacy just as creationists and ID'ers are today. Just because science believes something today does not mean it will believe the same thing tomorrow; new discoveries are being made all the time. Perhaps in the future scientists will recognize that they were wrong about evolution as well. On an aside, it is interesting to note that the Bible is the only true source that has been consistant throughout the centuries. Maybe scientists will someday also recognize that the answer for everything lies in God alone.
~Tribal~
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Iran -- Iraq?
Fox News is reporting the following:
"VIENNA -- A document obtained by Iran on the nuclear black market serves no other purpose than to make an atomic bomb, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tuesday.
The finding was made in a report prepared for presentation to the 35-nation IAEA board when it meets, starting Thursday, on whether to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose economic and political sanctions on Iran."
Has the precious and holier-than-thou United Nations forgotten what just went on with Iraq? We have learned that sanctions do not work against tyrannical dictators who wish to destroy the likes of America and Israel. Did the IAEA forget that, even with sanctions, Saddam refused to let them into his country for inspections? Here is a nation whose president has called for the complete annihilation of the Israeli people and publicly supports terrorism, and the U.N. wants to put sanctions on them. What a ludicrously flawed way of solving the problem! You cannot negotiate with terrorists bent on the murder of every "infidel" walking the earth. What is a sanction going to do? If Iran cuts off their oil supply to the world, the sanctions will hurt the rest of the world more than it will hurt Iran. The only rational solution to the problem is military action to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions dead in their tracks. While the world wastes time deliberating whether or not to impose sanctions (oh no, scary sanctions), the madmen who have the plans for these weapons are putting them to use and actually developing these weapons. Military action is required immediately; not in a month, not in a year, right now. If America does not have the decency to do it, then I am sure Israel will, and I will stronglyapplaud their efforts. Call me a warhawk if you must, but we will see what terrible war will result if nothing substantial is done. Mark my words.
~Tribal~
"VIENNA -- A document obtained by Iran on the nuclear black market serves no other purpose than to make an atomic bomb, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Tuesday.
The finding was made in a report prepared for presentation to the 35-nation IAEA board when it meets, starting Thursday, on whether to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, which has the power to impose economic and political sanctions on Iran."
Has the precious and holier-than-thou United Nations forgotten what just went on with Iraq? We have learned that sanctions do not work against tyrannical dictators who wish to destroy the likes of America and Israel. Did the IAEA forget that, even with sanctions, Saddam refused to let them into his country for inspections? Here is a nation whose president has called for the complete annihilation of the Israeli people and publicly supports terrorism, and the U.N. wants to put sanctions on them. What a ludicrously flawed way of solving the problem! You cannot negotiate with terrorists bent on the murder of every "infidel" walking the earth. What is a sanction going to do? If Iran cuts off their oil supply to the world, the sanctions will hurt the rest of the world more than it will hurt Iran. The only rational solution to the problem is military action to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions dead in their tracks. While the world wastes time deliberating whether or not to impose sanctions (oh no, scary sanctions), the madmen who have the plans for these weapons are putting them to use and actually developing these weapons. Military action is required immediately; not in a month, not in a year, right now. If America does not have the decency to do it, then I am sure Israel will, and I will stronglyapplaud their efforts. Call me a warhawk if you must, but we will see what terrible war will result if nothing substantial is done. Mark my words.
~Tribal~
Legalized Murder
Fox News recently published a story. Here is just a little of the outraging news contained within it:
"SAN FRANCISCO -- Two federal appeals courts on opposite sides of the country declared the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Tuesday, saying the measure is vague and lacks an exception for cases in which a woman's health is at stake.
The first ruling came from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hours later, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued a similar decision, affirming a 2004 ruling by a judge who upheld the right to perform a type of late-term abortion even as he described the procedure as 'gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.'"
This is an utterly unacceptable defeat to the prolife movement. Just in case you may have forgotten the evils of partial birth abortion, here is a direct quote from the American Life League's Rock for Life website:
"4. Dilation and Extraction (also known as D & X or Partial-Birth Abortion): Used to kill babies well into the third trimester (as late as 32 weeks old), the abortionist reaches into the mother's womb, grabs the baby's feet with a forceps and pulls the baby out of the mother, except for the head. The abortionist then jams a pair of scissors into the back of the baby's head and spreads the scissors apart to make a hole in the baby's skull. The abortionist removes the scissors and sticks a suction tube into the skull to suck the baby's brain out. The forceps are then used to crush the baby's head and the abortionist pulls the baby's body out the rest of the way."
It doesn't matter if you think life begins at conception or not (even though it indeed does, concluding from most scientific information), the fetus when aborted using D & X has a functioning brain and heart. It can feel pain, and the procedure is clearly murder. How on God's green earth can such an operation be protected by the Constitution of the United States of America? What happened to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness gaurunteed to us in the Declaration of Independencee? Oh wait, now I remember, the courts these days do not enforce the principles our founding fathers cherished, nor do they recognize our nation's Christian heritage. Hopefully our newest addition to the supreme court (yes, Alito got confirmed today) will not twist the Constitution like many other are doing. Only time will tell.
~Tribal~
"SAN FRANCISCO -- Two federal appeals courts on opposite sides of the country declared the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act unconstitutional Tuesday, saying the measure is vague and lacks an exception for cases in which a woman's health is at stake.
The first ruling came from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Hours later, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan issued a similar decision, affirming a 2004 ruling by a judge who upheld the right to perform a type of late-term abortion even as he described the procedure as 'gruesome, brutal, barbaric and uncivilized.'"
This is an utterly unacceptable defeat to the prolife movement. Just in case you may have forgotten the evils of partial birth abortion, here is a direct quote from the American Life League's Rock for Life website:
"4. Dilation and Extraction (also known as D & X or Partial-Birth Abortion): Used to kill babies well into the third trimester (as late as 32 weeks old), the abortionist reaches into the mother's womb, grabs the baby's feet with a forceps and pulls the baby out of the mother, except for the head. The abortionist then jams a pair of scissors into the back of the baby's head and spreads the scissors apart to make a hole in the baby's skull. The abortionist removes the scissors and sticks a suction tube into the skull to suck the baby's brain out. The forceps are then used to crush the baby's head and the abortionist pulls the baby's body out the rest of the way."
It doesn't matter if you think life begins at conception or not (even though it indeed does, concluding from most scientific information), the fetus when aborted using D & X has a functioning brain and heart. It can feel pain, and the procedure is clearly murder. How on God's green earth can such an operation be protected by the Constitution of the United States of America? What happened to the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness gaurunteed to us in the Declaration of Independencee? Oh wait, now I remember, the courts these days do not enforce the principles our founding fathers cherished, nor do they recognize our nation's Christian heritage. Hopefully our newest addition to the supreme court (yes, Alito got confirmed today) will not twist the Constitution like many other are doing. Only time will tell.
~Tribal~
Monday, January 30, 2006
It Might Be Ok to Hate Doing Laundry
I warn all of you looking for a serious commentary on anything, because this is not serious commentary....just the random thought of a college kid. So I'm doing laundry for the first time this semester, which means I've got a few loads in the machines and a few hours of folding ahead of me tonight, and I thought to myself, "crap, I hate doing laundry...laundry is the devil." That made me think. Gee, Satan tempted Eve to eat the fruit, who, consequently, got her hubby Adam to try it, and well, most of you know the rest, and the rest of you, read the first few pages of Genesis and it'll all make perfect sense. So yeah, for the first time in the history of humanity, Man put on clothes cause they realized they were naked and didn't like it....so it's Satan's fault that we wear clothes....and clothes get dirty so clothes need to be cleaned....so it's Satan's fault that clothes get dirty because without his temptations we wouldn't be wearing clothes to get dirty in the first place. So it's Satan's fault we have to do laundry! Crap, laundry really is the devil!!! So um yeah, that's my random thought for the evening....
~AndyJams~
~AndyJams~
Worldviews II
Welcome to our second installment of the worldviews series here at Insense. This article will deal with a worldview that is a particular favorite of mine: premodernism. Premodernism was the dominant view held by people up until about the 18th century. In today's world, it is not so common unfortunately. There are four main points under premodernism. The first one is that the premodern worldview is theistic. Premodernists believe in a personal God with whom one can have a close relationship. As a result, the followers of this particular worldview tend to be Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.
The second point under premodernism is that God is the basic foundation for all truth, morality, and meaning. Each of the three religions mentioned above all have very similar ethical codes which were derived from their respective "holy books." Each of these books (the Bible for Christians, the Torah for Jews, and the Q'uran for Muslims) were supposedly inspired by God or a prophet of Him. As a result, everything contained within them is viewed as perfect and infallible by each member of each respective religion. The writings in these books therefore were viewed to be the highest authority as they had come from God.
The third point is that everything should be viewed in relation to God. More contemporary philosophies (even within the Christian church) teach that God has His own little bubble on the multi-circled Venn diagram of life, but premodernism teaches that God's bubble is bigger than all the rest and, in fact, should encompass every other sphere of life. In today's world, this is viewed as a very risky thing, for reasons that will be explained when dealing with modernism. Premodernists believe that everything in life should be about God and revolve around God -- which is precisely where it should be.
The final point that premodernism believes is that all art and music should be created for the glory of God. Before the 18th century, this belief actually was carried out for the most part. Most classical music composers wrote music soley for churches or for the magnification of God. Since everything in life should revolve around God, it only makes sense to make and dedicate all art and music to God's glory. This seems to be a more preferable use of talent in comparison to making art and music to glorify oneself. It would also keep lyrics cleaner, and there would be no talk of "American Idiots," gangstas doin' drugs, or promiscuous sexual relationships. There would be no need for music censorship. Sadly enough, a day may be fast approaching when God glorifying music itself may be censored for the offensive messages of peace, love, and moral decency.
If I had to give this worldview a grade, I would without a doubt give it an A+. I would also venture to say that the others here at Insense would agree with me. One cannot be a true follower of God and be a scientific modernist or a subjective postmodernist. One can be an existentialist, however, and we will get into that delightful worldview a bit later. The only really major critique that one can bring against the premodern worldview is the existence of God. Obviously if you do not believe in a supreme being, then it would be quite difficult to accept the beliefs of the premodern worldview. The premodern worldview is definentaly a solid one to hold. Next time, we will discuss the worldview of modernism. Be sure to check back often throughout the coming month for more updates in this series
~Tribal~
The second point under premodernism is that God is the basic foundation for all truth, morality, and meaning. Each of the three religions mentioned above all have very similar ethical codes which were derived from their respective "holy books." Each of these books (the Bible for Christians, the Torah for Jews, and the Q'uran for Muslims) were supposedly inspired by God or a prophet of Him. As a result, everything contained within them is viewed as perfect and infallible by each member of each respective religion. The writings in these books therefore were viewed to be the highest authority as they had come from God.
The third point is that everything should be viewed in relation to God. More contemporary philosophies (even within the Christian church) teach that God has His own little bubble on the multi-circled Venn diagram of life, but premodernism teaches that God's bubble is bigger than all the rest and, in fact, should encompass every other sphere of life. In today's world, this is viewed as a very risky thing, for reasons that will be explained when dealing with modernism. Premodernists believe that everything in life should be about God and revolve around God -- which is precisely where it should be.
The final point that premodernism believes is that all art and music should be created for the glory of God. Before the 18th century, this belief actually was carried out for the most part. Most classical music composers wrote music soley for churches or for the magnification of God. Since everything in life should revolve around God, it only makes sense to make and dedicate all art and music to God's glory. This seems to be a more preferable use of talent in comparison to making art and music to glorify oneself. It would also keep lyrics cleaner, and there would be no talk of "American Idiots," gangstas doin' drugs, or promiscuous sexual relationships. There would be no need for music censorship. Sadly enough, a day may be fast approaching when God glorifying music itself may be censored for the offensive messages of peace, love, and moral decency.
If I had to give this worldview a grade, I would without a doubt give it an A+. I would also venture to say that the others here at Insense would agree with me. One cannot be a true follower of God and be a scientific modernist or a subjective postmodernist. One can be an existentialist, however, and we will get into that delightful worldview a bit later. The only really major critique that one can bring against the premodern worldview is the existence of God. Obviously if you do not believe in a supreme being, then it would be quite difficult to accept the beliefs of the premodern worldview. The premodern worldview is definentaly a solid one to hold. Next time, we will discuss the worldview of modernism. Be sure to check back often throughout the coming month for more updates in this series
~Tribal~
Complexity of Life
Viewpoint has recently posted the following regarding the complexity of life:
"Isn't it amazing what blind, unguided, purposeless forces can accomplish when they put their mind to it? Here's just one example of the astounding abilities of random mutation and natural selection to create marvels of complex engineering."
Very comical but very true. How can anyone with a trace of a brain cell believe that humans, in all their complexity, were accidentally created by an explosion? On top of that, how could something this orderly and systematic evolve from a single celled organism? Why do we even listen to scientists these days? After all, they came from monkeys, and what does a monkey know about biology?
~Tribal~
*Edit: Make sure you click on some of the individual blocks on the chart to take in the full scope of reality.
"Isn't it amazing what blind, unguided, purposeless forces can accomplish when they put their mind to it? Here's just one example of the astounding abilities of random mutation and natural selection to create marvels of complex engineering."
Very comical but very true. How can anyone with a trace of a brain cell believe that humans, in all their complexity, were accidentally created by an explosion? On top of that, how could something this orderly and systematic evolve from a single celled organism? Why do we even listen to scientists these days? After all, they came from monkeys, and what does a monkey know about biology?
~Tribal~
*Edit: Make sure you click on some of the individual blocks on the chart to take in the full scope of reality.
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/30/06
Today's EFD will deal with a common designer. Many scientists in today's world maintain that similarities between organisms are proof of a common ancestor. However, is it not likely as well that these similarities could show efficient design by a common designer? This is clearly an example of the atheistic trends in science today. It is assumed that the naturalists are the correct ones and the creationists have to give observable proof to back their claims. One will notice, however, that no one requires the naturalist to back up his speculation. Tomorrow we will discuss vestigial organs. Be sure to check back.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Worldviews I
I wish to begin a series about worldviews. This will consist of approximately five parts spread over an undefined amount of time. It will entail the beliefs of the four main worldviews (premodern, modern, postmodern, and existential), as well as contradictions and problems pertaining to them. To get started, you must first understand what a worldview is, what it tries to answer, and how it can be "rated" so to speak. A worldview is kind of like a set of glasses through which one views the world. Whether they will admit it or not, everybody has one, because we all have opinions of the people and events that make up this world. More technically, a worldview is a set of assumptions, held either consciously or unconsciously, that help to make sense of the world in our experiences and that help us to direct the way we live our lives.
Worldviews generally try to answer the following four questions, and the way you answer them is your faith commitment:
1.) What is the origin and nature of the world and the universe we live in?
2.) What is the nature, task, and purpose of human beings?
3.) What are the obstacles that keep people from finding fulfillment?
4.) How is it possible to overcome these hindrances to fulfillment?
There are three keys to evaluating a worldview. The first of these is plausibility. The fundamental beliefs of a worldview need to be rational in order for the worldview to properly function. The second is comprehensiveness. A worldview needs to adequately address all aspects of life, not merely one or two at the expense of others. Whatever a worldview leaves out of its scope will ultimately be its downfall and obviously its biggest critique. Success is the last key to evaluating a worldview. When evaluating a worldview in regards to success, ask this basic question: Does the worldview make life flourish or does it destroy life? The worldview needs to be something that is livable for an individual, because it dictates everything about the world to the holder of the view itself. For instance, a Nazi worldview is not successful -- it destroys life. Likewise with a terrorist worldview. Sometime this week I hope to get into the first worldview to be discussed here (and also my favorite): premodernism. Until then, think about your own worldview and how it stacks up.
~Tribal~
Worldviews generally try to answer the following four questions, and the way you answer them is your faith commitment:
1.) What is the origin and nature of the world and the universe we live in?
2.) What is the nature, task, and purpose of human beings?
3.) What are the obstacles that keep people from finding fulfillment?
4.) How is it possible to overcome these hindrances to fulfillment?
There are three keys to evaluating a worldview. The first of these is plausibility. The fundamental beliefs of a worldview need to be rational in order for the worldview to properly function. The second is comprehensiveness. A worldview needs to adequately address all aspects of life, not merely one or two at the expense of others. Whatever a worldview leaves out of its scope will ultimately be its downfall and obviously its biggest critique. Success is the last key to evaluating a worldview. When evaluating a worldview in regards to success, ask this basic question: Does the worldview make life flourish or does it destroy life? The worldview needs to be something that is livable for an individual, because it dictates everything about the world to the holder of the view itself. For instance, a Nazi worldview is not successful -- it destroys life. Likewise with a terrorist worldview. Sometime this week I hope to get into the first worldview to be discussed here (and also my favorite): premodernism. Until then, think about your own worldview and how it stacks up.
~Tribal~
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/29/06
Today's EFD is about information. All isolated systems contain specific amounts of imformation. This information has never been observed to significantly increase its own number through soley natural processes. In fact, natural processes, without exception, damage or completely destroy information systems. Only outside intelligence can create new information.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/28/06
The problem with evolution that I will point out and expound upon today (with some help from In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D.) deals with codes. We need a definition here to get ourselves started. A code is defined by dictionary.com as "a systematically arranged and comprehensive collection of laws." All of the information necessary for life (reproduction, regular functions, etc.) is contained within an organism's genetic code. Now, this is interesting, because a code is "systematically arranged" and "comprehensive." The genetic code controls every aspect of life on every level, so it has to be very specific and orderly. If something is systematically arranged, there is a purpose for everything present within it -- just like within genetic code. Is it possible that random chance and gradual natural selection could produce such complexity within human life? Absolutely not. Genetic code is even accompanied by elaborate transmission, translation, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease. Accidents do not produce highly complex and systematic life forms. It has never been observed. It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creationism. God marked His signature on everything He created, but shallow and simple minded scientists are blinded by their own philosophical folly.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
"The Problem of Pain"
Many atheists in today's world like to use a certain philosophical theory to try and disprove God. This theory I am speaking of embodies itself in three different forms. The first of these is this: If God exists and God is all good, why does evil exist? I will not explain this because a certain young man who you may be familiar with answered this already. Read my previous post entitled "Does Evil Exist?" to learn about this flawed school of thought and about how the young man was able to counter it.
The second form of the theory states, "If God is all loving, why does He send people to hell?" This train of thought is a big misunderstanding of Christianity and the Holy Scriptures. God sends no human being to hell; they essentially send themselves. Hell was a place prepared for the eternal punishment and captivity of Lucifer and his fallen angels. God did not intend for His earthly creations to have to endure it. However, when man fell in the Garden of Eden, it created a chasm between the holiness and righteousness of God and the sin and depravity of mankind. Even then, God did not disown His creation. If one committed sin, a blood offering was needed to atone for it and restore communion to the Father. If man, in his arrogance, refused to do this, then and only then would he go to hell if he died. It is not of God's doing but of man's blindness. God reached out His hand to offer a way to eternal life, but if man rejected it and spat in God's face, it is of the man's own doing. As predicted through prophecy, God the Father later sent His Son Jesus (100% God, 100% man) to permanently bridge the gap that sin had created. Jesus had to be fully God and fully man to bridge that gap, and He had to lay His divinity aside when he inhabited human flesh. Jesus died so that no more blood offerings had to be made. His was the last and final sacrifice to secure man's salvation. However, it is a gift from God. One must accept the gift to make it one's own, and without accepting it, it is worthless to the individual. Again, God does not send people to hell when they die, they go there themselves of their own free choosing. God lovingly held out His hand of forgiveness, but if man rejects it, the blame is upon the failure of the man to secure his own salvation.
The third area of thought within the theory is this: If God is all loving, then why is there pain and suffering in the world? This is, again, a very shallow understanding of the way things work. The counter to this last argument against God's existence is a mix of the last two. Pain is present for two main reasons: pain evolves from a lack of God in one's life, and pain is a choice people make. God is all loving and all merciful, but if men do not go to God, it is their own fault that they experience pain. Such things are of the devil, and if one does not submit to God, one is already submitting to the devil.
Together, all three of these fruitless attacks on Christianity derive what is known as the problem of pain. In reality, however, the only problem with it is people's lack of desire to end the pain and suffering. God does not promise His children an easy life, but in the long run things always work out for the better. It's curious that atheists always tend to label the Christians as the foolish ones, but in reality, the atheists are the naive and shallow minded thinkers.
~Tribal~
The second form of the theory states, "If God is all loving, why does He send people to hell?" This train of thought is a big misunderstanding of Christianity and the Holy Scriptures. God sends no human being to hell; they essentially send themselves. Hell was a place prepared for the eternal punishment and captivity of Lucifer and his fallen angels. God did not intend for His earthly creations to have to endure it. However, when man fell in the Garden of Eden, it created a chasm between the holiness and righteousness of God and the sin and depravity of mankind. Even then, God did not disown His creation. If one committed sin, a blood offering was needed to atone for it and restore communion to the Father. If man, in his arrogance, refused to do this, then and only then would he go to hell if he died. It is not of God's doing but of man's blindness. God reached out His hand to offer a way to eternal life, but if man rejected it and spat in God's face, it is of the man's own doing. As predicted through prophecy, God the Father later sent His Son Jesus (100% God, 100% man) to permanently bridge the gap that sin had created. Jesus had to be fully God and fully man to bridge that gap, and He had to lay His divinity aside when he inhabited human flesh. Jesus died so that no more blood offerings had to be made. His was the last and final sacrifice to secure man's salvation. However, it is a gift from God. One must accept the gift to make it one's own, and without accepting it, it is worthless to the individual. Again, God does not send people to hell when they die, they go there themselves of their own free choosing. God lovingly held out His hand of forgiveness, but if man rejects it, the blame is upon the failure of the man to secure his own salvation.
The third area of thought within the theory is this: If God is all loving, then why is there pain and suffering in the world? This is, again, a very shallow understanding of the way things work. The counter to this last argument against God's existence is a mix of the last two. Pain is present for two main reasons: pain evolves from a lack of God in one's life, and pain is a choice people make. God is all loving and all merciful, but if men do not go to God, it is their own fault that they experience pain. Such things are of the devil, and if one does not submit to God, one is already submitting to the devil.
Together, all three of these fruitless attacks on Christianity derive what is known as the problem of pain. In reality, however, the only problem with it is people's lack of desire to end the pain and suffering. God does not promise His children an easy life, but in the long run things always work out for the better. It's curious that atheists always tend to label the Christians as the foolish ones, but in reality, the atheists are the naive and shallow minded thinkers.
~Tribal~
Liberals in New Orleans
I have become tired of hearing everyone blame the federal Government for what happened after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans. Apparently it is the federal Government’s fault that people were not evacuated and it’s their fault that adequate food and water never made it to the Superdome for the evacuees. It amazes me though at the amount of people who can take a tragedy the magnitude of Katrina, and turn it around to make it political. The people I would be talking about are our left-wing liberal friends.
While President Bush is accused of not evacuating New Orleans because, as Kanye West claims, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Has anyone actually taken the time to view how the local and state Governments royally screwed up? Let’s just start with the Mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin. Upon the evacuation of the City of New Orleans, Mayor Nagin placed a call out for fleets of Greyhound tour busses to drive to the city and pick up the people that could not get themselves out. A fleet of Greyhounds that size could never be assembled in time, but the Mayor happened to “overlook” the fleet of hundreds of school and public transportation busses already in the city. When questioned about this by Tim Russert (World Net Daily), of NBC’s Meet the Press, Mayor Nagin gave an argument about how drivers for those vehicles could not be found. Now honestly how hard must one think to figure out that there were people who can drive still in New Orleans? Sure, it may not have been text book, perfect “school bus driver” style, but it sure would have saved a bunch more people. Lets stop kidding ourselves the ball was dropped way in the beginning with the local Government, “depending upon our state and federal officials to move them out of harm's way” Those were Mayor Nagin's exact words to Mr. Russert about the situation -- “plop” there went the ball.
Now, I know everyone heard about the horrible conditions of the Superdome, but we never heard about why it took so long for the food, water, blankets, etc. to get to the Superdome. The American Red Cross had truckload after truckload of those supplies sent down to the evacuees, but we never really heard the reasons as to why it took so long for them to get there. The Louisiana state Government held those trucks at the state border for days! They held the trucks full of vital supplies, going to people who needed them badly, at the state line because they did not want the Superdome to become a “magnet point.” I don’t understand this, we will say that President Bush doesn’t care about black people, but yet lets hold food from evacuees because we don’t want the Superdome to become a magnet point. Doesn’t make sense to me.
~ Fiat volvntas tua ~
While President Bush is accused of not evacuating New Orleans because, as Kanye West claims, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Has anyone actually taken the time to view how the local and state Governments royally screwed up? Let’s just start with the Mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin. Upon the evacuation of the City of New Orleans, Mayor Nagin placed a call out for fleets of Greyhound tour busses to drive to the city and pick up the people that could not get themselves out. A fleet of Greyhounds that size could never be assembled in time, but the Mayor happened to “overlook” the fleet of hundreds of school and public transportation busses already in the city. When questioned about this by Tim Russert (World Net Daily), of NBC’s Meet the Press, Mayor Nagin gave an argument about how drivers for those vehicles could not be found. Now honestly how hard must one think to figure out that there were people who can drive still in New Orleans? Sure, it may not have been text book, perfect “school bus driver” style, but it sure would have saved a bunch more people. Lets stop kidding ourselves the ball was dropped way in the beginning with the local Government, “depending upon our state and federal officials to move them out of harm's way” Those were Mayor Nagin's exact words to Mr. Russert about the situation -- “plop” there went the ball.
Now, I know everyone heard about the horrible conditions of the Superdome, but we never heard about why it took so long for the food, water, blankets, etc. to get to the Superdome. The American Red Cross had truckload after truckload of those supplies sent down to the evacuees, but we never really heard the reasons as to why it took so long for them to get there. The Louisiana state Government held those trucks at the state border for days! They held the trucks full of vital supplies, going to people who needed them badly, at the state line because they did not want the Superdome to become a “magnet point.” I don’t understand this, we will say that President Bush doesn’t care about black people, but yet lets hold food from evacuees because we don’t want the Superdome to become a magnet point. Doesn’t make sense to me.
~ Fiat volvntas tua ~
A Call for Prayer
I'm asking all Christians to please pray for our nation, schools, politicians, courts, and scientists. This is something that God has placed in my heart in response to a very suddenly and devistating realization that in today's world "God" and "Jesus" are dirty words reserved for the simple and foolish. Today's world looks to academia for truth, and academia as on the whole adimately rejects the truths of God. In a world where anything goes, Christians are persicuted for their beliefs, and any idea in any way related to Christianity is shrugged off with extreme bias. I am afraid for our culture. Please pray fervently for the Holy Spirit to make itself known to our world and for guidance for those in power. I'll describe more in a day or so.
~AndyJams~
~AndyJams~
Friday, January 27, 2006
747 Drag Racing
We here at Insense highly reccomend this humorous video clip. There is nothing offensive, risque, or vulgar in it, and we present it to you with two thumbs way up.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Does Evil Exist?
This came from an email sent to me a while back:
A university professor challenged his students with this question: did God create everything that exists?
A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"
"God created everything?" the professor asked.
"Yes, sir," the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists. According to the principal that our works define who we are, God is evil." The student fell quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more than the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and inquired, "Can I ask you a question, professor?"
"Of course," replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is that? Of course cold exists. Have you ever been cold?" The students too snickered at the young man's question.
The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody and every object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have too little heat." The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does."
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong, sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is, in reality, the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present." Finally, the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love, that exist just as light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.
The young man's name -- Albert Einstein.
~Tribal~
A university professor challenged his students with this question: did God create everything that exists?
A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"
"God created everything?" the professor asked.
"Yes, sir," the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists. According to the principal that our works define who we are, God is evil." The student fell quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more than the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and inquired, "Can I ask you a question, professor?"
"Of course," replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is that? Of course cold exists. Have you ever been cold?" The students too snickered at the young man's question.
The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Everybody and every object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have too little heat." The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does."
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong, sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is, in reality, the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present." Finally, the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love, that exist just as light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.
The young man's name -- Albert Einstein.
~Tribal~
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/27/06
Today's EFD is about speech. As discussed previously, speech and language are unique to humans alone. We as a species have a "prewired" brain for learning and conveying abstract ideas through the physical body. Humans can produce a wide range of sounds. In fact, it is such an advanced capability that few animals can produce any sounds remotely similar to those of humans. Due to the human larynx being rather low in the neck, a long air column lies above the vocal chords. This feature is a necessity to vocalizing vowel sounds. Apes lack this distinguishing characteristic, and consequently, they are not capable of producing vowel sounds. In addition, the back of the human tongue extends deep into the back of the neck, and it can modulate airflow to produce consonant sounds. Apes have flat horizontal tongues that are incapable of making consonant sounds. Even if a species of monkey could evolve the physical requirements needed for speech, it would be in vain without a "prewired" brain for learning language skills. Speech is undeniably and uniquely human, and just as with language, could not have evolved.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/26/06
Today's exposed flaw in Darwin's evolutionary theory is about language. Because I'm very tired right now from working on a project, I am merely going to post an excerpt from the book to start this with:
"...studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) suggest that language is learned only from other humans. Apparently, humans do not automatically speak. If this is so, the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved."
This is an interesting point, and it delivers a very hard hitting, fatal blow to the illconstructed armor of materialism that Darwin created. Evolutionists like to respond by saying that language had to evolve because other animals can communicate. The fact that other animals communicate is undeniable, but this level of communication is not defined by oral speech or written language. Over countless years, professional trainers have tried to teach apes to understand certain words, as a dog can, and some of these apes even understand written symbols. However, no such thing has been observed in the wild. It is also true that when a trained ape dies, so does the ability to understand speech. Offspring that the monkey produced after the point it learned such traits are not gifted with the same traits. It takes the efforts of another trainer to teach another monkey. There is absolutely no evidence to support the hypothesis that language evolved, and in fact there is a copious amount of evidence to prove that it did not do so.
In addition to the experiment with feral children, there is more proof that language did not evolve. If Darwin was correct and language did evolve over time, that obviously has to mean that the earliest languages were the simplest, just like the animals that supposedly spoke it. Consequentially, as time went on, languages should have grown to be more complex in nature. Ironically, though, the exact opposite can be observed. The most ancient languages (Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.) are the ones that are more complex in regards to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, and verb form. As Walt Brown writes, "The best evidence indicates that languages devolve..." Most linguists even reject the idea that simple language evolves into more complex language. Check back tomorrow for a continuation of this topic, only tomorrow we will focus more on the subtopic of speech.
~Tribal~
"...studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) suggest that language is learned only from other humans. Apparently, humans do not automatically speak. If this is so, the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved."
This is an interesting point, and it delivers a very hard hitting, fatal blow to the illconstructed armor of materialism that Darwin created. Evolutionists like to respond by saying that language had to evolve because other animals can communicate. The fact that other animals communicate is undeniable, but this level of communication is not defined by oral speech or written language. Over countless years, professional trainers have tried to teach apes to understand certain words, as a dog can, and some of these apes even understand written symbols. However, no such thing has been observed in the wild. It is also true that when a trained ape dies, so does the ability to understand speech. Offspring that the monkey produced after the point it learned such traits are not gifted with the same traits. It takes the efforts of another trainer to teach another monkey. There is absolutely no evidence to support the hypothesis that language evolved, and in fact there is a copious amount of evidence to prove that it did not do so.
In addition to the experiment with feral children, there is more proof that language did not evolve. If Darwin was correct and language did evolve over time, that obviously has to mean that the earliest languages were the simplest, just like the animals that supposedly spoke it. Consequentially, as time went on, languages should have grown to be more complex in nature. Ironically, though, the exact opposite can be observed. The most ancient languages (Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.) are the ones that are more complex in regards to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, and verb form. As Walt Brown writes, "The best evidence indicates that languages devolve..." Most linguists even reject the idea that simple language evolves into more complex language. Check back tomorrow for a continuation of this topic, only tomorrow we will focus more on the subtopic of speech.
~Tribal~
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/25/06
Today's Evolutionary Flaw of the Day regards Extraterrestrial Life. If one were to believe the big bang theory and evolution and all that jazz, one would expect that at least simple microbes and the like would have been found on other planets. Mars even at one time had water because of its immense ice cap. However, in all of the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and to Mars, not even a simple, single celled organism has been observed. While it is true that this argument only deals with expeditions to two solar bodies, is it not likely that if circumstances were right to produce the exact specifications needed to support life on earth that the two closest solar bodies would at least be able to support microbes? It's just so coincidental that our world is perfectly suited for our existence to believe a random explosion created it all. Check back tomorrow for an interesting look into language and how it contradicts evolution.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/24/06
Today's Flaw is very philosophical in nature but holds just as much of an argument as everything else posted to date. Today's EFD is about Altruism. Throughout the course of human history, there have been numerous occasions of a human (or sometimes even an animal) risking its very life to save that of another. Such tales inspire great stories of love and war and turn many into heroes. The problem that evolution has with altruism, however, is that it has no place in the evolutionary scheme of things. In light of natural selection, the selfless virtue of altruism should have been wiped out ages ago. Such "risky" behavior tends to prevent the altruistic individual from passing on its genes for altruism. If evolution is correct, selfish behavior would have eliminated unselfish behavior because the number of unselfish organisms would have slowly decreased over time. For example, say there were two species of dog. We'll call them dog species x and dog species y. For this illustration, let's say that dog species x was altruistic and would risk its life to save other dogs from predators, and that dog species y was completely selfish and would think of no such thing. As time went on and members of dog species x died to defend other dogs (including those of dog species y), the number of dog species x would decline. Those who gave their lives to save others would not be able to pass on the genes that make one altruistic. As a result, dog species x would gradually die out because dead dogs of species x are unable to pass on their genes. Meanwhile, dog species y will continue to flourish because they are not the ones being killed by the predators. Their genetic lines will continue to grow in number while those of dog species x die. Eventually, there will be no dog species x left because they will all have died in defending other dogs, including dog species y. Their altruistic genes will never be passed on to any more generations of dogs. Altruism would become extinct, and yet it survives to this day. Altruism contradicts evolution and natural selection.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Viewpoint
An acquaintence of ours has recently made a mention of our blog on his site. I strongly encourage each of you to check out his site often, as it is very insightful in areas of politics, religion, and science. It is usually updated daily and contains interesting tid bits of news, opinions, and analysis.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/23/06
Okay, so this is the first time yet that I have not posted an EFD on the day it was supposed to be posted. My mistake, but I will try to keep up with them in the future. For those of you who are recently joining us, all of my information for this column comes from the book In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. Anyway, today we will discuss Distinct Types. To begin with, I wish to quote part of the book because the way it was written is excellent:
"If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats. Actually, some animals, such as the duckbilled platypus, have organs totally unrelated to their alleged evolutionary ancestors."
The author then continues to point out discrepancies with the platypus and its supposed ancestors. To begin with, it has fur, it is warm blooded, and it suckles its young. These are all primary characteristics of a mammal, as anyone can see. However, the platypus lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening, has claws, and has a shoulder girdle. These are all characteristic of reptiles. Like a fish, though, it can detect electrical currents, and like a bird, it has a bill. To get even more specific, it possesses the webbed forefeet of an otter, the flat tail of a beaver, and can inject venom like a pit viper. Where on the evolutionary tree does such an oddity of a creature exist? Surely it holds no logical place in Darwin's theory. Organisms with such varied characteristics are known as mosaics and are certainly an exception to the evolutionary theory. To finish off this EFD, I will again post a quote from the book:
"There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group. Species are observed only going out of existence, never coming into existence."
~Tribal~
"If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats. Actually, some animals, such as the duckbilled platypus, have organs totally unrelated to their alleged evolutionary ancestors."
The author then continues to point out discrepancies with the platypus and its supposed ancestors. To begin with, it has fur, it is warm blooded, and it suckles its young. These are all primary characteristics of a mammal, as anyone can see. However, the platypus lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening, has claws, and has a shoulder girdle. These are all characteristic of reptiles. Like a fish, though, it can detect electrical currents, and like a bird, it has a bill. To get even more specific, it possesses the webbed forefeet of an otter, the flat tail of a beaver, and can inject venom like a pit viper. Where on the evolutionary tree does such an oddity of a creature exist? Surely it holds no logical place in Darwin's theory. Organisms with such varied characteristics are known as mosaics and are certainly an exception to the evolutionary theory. To finish off this EFD, I will again post a quote from the book:
"There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group. Species are observed only going out of existence, never coming into existence."
~Tribal~
Goodbye to "The Book of Daniel"
The American Family Association recently sent me an email regarding the victory over NBC's controversial show The Book of Daniel. The main body of the message was composed of the following:
"NBC's anti-Christian program The Book of Daniel has been cancelled! Your efforts, combined with those of hundreds of thousands of other AFA Online supporters, had an impact. NBC's decision to pull The Book of Daniel shows the power of the pocketbook. NBC didn't want to eat their economic losses. Had NBC not had to eat millions of dollars each time it aired, NBC would have kept The Book of Daniel on the air. Because of your efforts, the sponsors dropped the program. NBC then decided it didn't want to continue the fight. Even an impassioned plea by Daniel's producer Jack Kenny could not match your participation. 'Ordinarily, I would never ask anyone to do this, but the AFA (American Family Association) and bullies like them are hard at work to try and prevent you from seeing these beautiful shows, and that is censorship pure and simple. And that is both un-Christian and un-American,' Kenny wrote. His attitude is typical in today's society. Non-Christians telling Christians what is Christian. People like Kenny don't want people like you to have a voice. They want to deny you the right to get involved. You are supposed to sit back and take the trash. And when you do speak up they call you names. This shows us that we don't have to simply sit back and take the trash, but we can get involved and fight back with our pocketbooks. I want to thank the 678,394 individuals who sent emails to NBC and the thousands who called and emailed their local affiliates. Thanks for caring enough to get involved!"
For those of you who do not know what this show was about, it was a sitcom that gave the American public a warped and perverted view of Christianity. It was simply immoral and untruthful, but now, thank God, the people that have stood up to it have made a difference. I think this should be a rallying call to the rest of the Christian church to stand up for the important social and political issues that need to be reformed. Abortion has killed 48 million people and counting, and embryonic stem cell research is fast approaching that mark. It has been proven that a handful of individuals, with God's blessing, can overcome any obstacle as long as they have faith. If everyone unites and focuses on what makes the church the same rather than what divides us, we can accomplish goals like this, and I believe we must.
~Tribal~
"NBC's anti-Christian program The Book of Daniel has been cancelled! Your efforts, combined with those of hundreds of thousands of other AFA Online supporters, had an impact. NBC's decision to pull The Book of Daniel shows the power of the pocketbook. NBC didn't want to eat their economic losses. Had NBC not had to eat millions of dollars each time it aired, NBC would have kept The Book of Daniel on the air. Because of your efforts, the sponsors dropped the program. NBC then decided it didn't want to continue the fight. Even an impassioned plea by Daniel's producer Jack Kenny could not match your participation. 'Ordinarily, I would never ask anyone to do this, but the AFA (American Family Association) and bullies like them are hard at work to try and prevent you from seeing these beautiful shows, and that is censorship pure and simple. And that is both un-Christian and un-American,' Kenny wrote. His attitude is typical in today's society. Non-Christians telling Christians what is Christian. People like Kenny don't want people like you to have a voice. They want to deny you the right to get involved. You are supposed to sit back and take the trash. And when you do speak up they call you names. This shows us that we don't have to simply sit back and take the trash, but we can get involved and fight back with our pocketbooks. I want to thank the 678,394 individuals who sent emails to NBC and the thousands who called and emailed their local affiliates. Thanks for caring enough to get involved!"
For those of you who do not know what this show was about, it was a sitcom that gave the American public a warped and perverted view of Christianity. It was simply immoral and untruthful, but now, thank God, the people that have stood up to it have made a difference. I think this should be a rallying call to the rest of the Christian church to stand up for the important social and political issues that need to be reformed. Abortion has killed 48 million people and counting, and embryonic stem cell research is fast approaching that mark. It has been proven that a handful of individuals, with God's blessing, can overcome any obstacle as long as they have faith. If everyone unites and focuses on what makes the church the same rather than what divides us, we can accomplish goals like this, and I believe we must.
~Tribal~
Monday, January 23, 2006
Lights in the Darkness
Being on the P.O.D. promotions team and e-mail list, I recently received an email about the release of their new album Testify tomorrow. Part of the email contained a quote from the band about the name of their album. The host of the show asked them "...So what are we testifying to with this album?" Sonny, the band's singer, replied with the following: "Fourteen years P.O.D. has been around. We been saying the same thing since we first started: that there is a God out there that loves you. We have that faith, and I believe that keeps us strong, and even though we been in this business and industry you see so many fakes and phonies, and one of the lyrics on our album says if you don't stand for something, then you don't stand for nothing. We have been the same way for 14 years, no changing no gimmicks." Here is one of the most up front bands in the history of Christian music talking openly about their faith in one of the biggest centers for moral depravity in the world: center stage of MTV studios. MTV promotes sexual promiscuity, foul language, objectification of women, and abortion. I guess this post can be taken as a supplement to my previous one discussing music, because it definentaly takes a strong faith to stand up for God and what you know is right when you know that the majority of the people you are speaking to think you are a hypocritical, narrow minded "church boy."
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/22/06
Today's EFD deals with the questionability of evolution in light of highly complex molecules and organisms. Many molecules necessary for the development of the human body (DNA, RNA, proteins) are so complex that it is impossible for them to have evolved from single celled life. Once again, as well, this development of complexity has never been actually observed, rendering it "unscientific" as things of the supernatural are supposed to be. The human eye, ear, and brain are so highly detailed and function in ways so specifically that there is absolutely no reason to believe that mutations or natural processes could ever produce these organs. The adult human brain itself contains over one hundred thousand billion electrical connections (that is a 10 with 14 zeroes behind it), more than all the electrical connections in all the electrical appliances in the world combined. The heart is another divine engineering miracle. It is a ten-ounce pump approximately the size of a fist that will continue to beat many times a minute for about 75 years with absolutely no maintenance or lubrication. How could all this have been brought about without an intelligent designer?
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/21/06
Okay, so according to evolution, as generations upon generations are created, an organism is supposed to become more complex and variable. Over the course of 100 years, however, there was an experiment dealing with fruit flies. Three thousand consecutive generations of fruit flies were bred to determine if over that large span of time there would result any genetic changes. You must keep in mind that fruit flies produce offspring at a much higher rate than humans, so just because the experiment only lasted 100 years and complete evolution from monkey to man supposedly took many times longer than that, that does not render the experiment invalid. If this experiment would have been carried out using humans, the amount of time it would take to reach three thousand generations would drastically increase. Anyway, the results of the experiment were not what the evolutionists had hoped for and this is why the carrying out of this experiment was never highly publicized. The results showed that no clear genetic improvement took place, even in spite of unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates. Shocking, isn't it *sarcasm.* Once again, it is proven in a scientific laboratory setting that evolution is an invalid and non-provable theory.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Music and the Ever Changing Times
I have been told many times throughout the course of my life that Christian rock music is "of the devil," "does not glorify God," and I have even been told that it "calls out demons into the person who is listening." O-kay. Theologically speaking, if something or someone brings others to Christ, then what does that say about those people (oh, let's call them "Christian rock bands" for the fun of it) and their spiritual standing? It obviously means that those "Christian rock bands" are filled with the Holy Spirit of God, because the lost cannot teach the lost how to be found.
There are many Christians who were first introduced to the concept of salvation through the music of such rock bands as P.O.D., 12 Stones, Project 86, Blindside, Pillar, etc. The "official" fanclub of P.O.D. has dozens of stories and testimonies of people whose lives have been changed through the music of this amazing band. You will have to click on "warriors" on the top of the main page and then "warrior testimonies" to view this page (note: the "tribal" that you may see moderating this P.O.D. site is not me). This is just a tiny sampling of the lives that have been led to Christ through P.O.D. How can a group of people making a positive difference in the world for God be "of the devil?" Such actions certainly glorify God, and if the music carries the message of Jesus, then how can demons coexist and be brought forth through the music? Many who know me personally know why this issue is such a big deal for me, and I have never very openly publicly admitted this before, but I doubt that I would have as strong of a faith as I currently have if it were not for P.O.D. I was a Christian before I knew of P.O.D., but it was the music of Payable on Death that kept me strong in my belief at points through my life. Everytime somebody criticizes a Christian band, P.O.D. especially, I tend to take that very personally because I know what their music has done in my life and the lives of others. It is also interesting to note that the people who tend to bash bands like P.O.D. the most are those who know nothing about them and their faith. People just focus on things like their tattoos, long hair, and dreadlocks. They also obsessively focus on the style of music rather than the issues that really matter.
Up until this point in this post I have been on the defensive side of things, but now I wish to go a little more on the offense. To begin with, things such as tattoos, long hair, and dreadlocks are, for the most part, not an issue with God. The Bible says that God does not judge by appearance, and rightfully so because it is matters of the soul that are important. This earthly body will burn up when the world passes away, it is only the soul that will endure. Many modern pictures of Jesus depict Him having at least shoulder length hair...so is Jesus going against the Bible? In addition, the main reason people focus on P.O.D. for how they look is because people tend to be discriminatory towards people who are viewed to be "less" than themselves; they are viewed as just "raggamuffin punks off the street." May I remind you, however, that there are plenty of swindlers, liars, cheats, adulterers, and murderers who wear suits, however, no one views a man in a suit as any of the options listed above. What one wears and how one looks in no way should affect how one judges them spiritually. The biggest "appearance issue" people have with P.O.D., however, is their tattoos. They use a verse from the Bible that states "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves" (Leviticus 19:28) while conveniently ignoring the verse that comes immediately before that which forbids the shaving off of sideburns and the trimming of beards. So these clean shaven, holier than thou preachers and theologians criticize those for doing something "banned" in one verse while doing what is "banned" in the verse just previous. There is a word that starts with an h to describe this behavior, but I will leave it to the reader to make his or her own judgments. It is also interesting to note that the same verse talks about cutting yourself for the dead. It is debated in some circles as to whether the tattoo commandment is in reference to "of the dead" as well, but I will not comment on that here.
Anyway, we must remember what it is that was written in the book of Galations when it says that Christ freed us from the curse of the law. Hebrew law was part of the old covenant between God and the Israelites. There is, however, a new covenant, and I will expound upon testament absolutes in another post. The number one, numero uno reason as to why P.O.D. is bashed, however, is because of their style of music. Often times, the people who look down on Christian rock are avid fans of church hymns, choruses, and the like. They think their music is the only "true form of worship" and anything else is a ticket to hell. May I remind them that hymns, and the like, were more controversial when they were introduced than rock music when it was introduced into the church. Because unlike rock, classic church hymns were merely common drinking tunes and bar songs with new Christian lyrics. Yet people still believe that this music is the only music acceptable for worship. May I also remind them that hymns did not exist in the church of the apostles. The music they had was far different from what is in churches now, or what was in churches for the last hundred years. I am sure that they saw new music coming into the church as evil too. It is a never ending cycle of parents viewing their children's music as evil. People once thought Elvis was too raunchy and risque. Look where we have come since the days of Elvis. This is why we need positive influences in the world of music. No form of music is more "morally acceptable" to God than another, as long as the lyrics are not vulgar or offensive to His nature. Christians need to wake up and realize that if they spent as much time fighting the world as they spent fighting each other, they would be surprised by how God would use them.
~Tribal~
There are many Christians who were first introduced to the concept of salvation through the music of such rock bands as P.O.D., 12 Stones, Project 86, Blindside, Pillar, etc. The "official" fanclub of P.O.D. has dozens of stories and testimonies of people whose lives have been changed through the music of this amazing band. You will have to click on "warriors" on the top of the main page and then "warrior testimonies" to view this page (note: the "tribal" that you may see moderating this P.O.D. site is not me). This is just a tiny sampling of the lives that have been led to Christ through P.O.D. How can a group of people making a positive difference in the world for God be "of the devil?" Such actions certainly glorify God, and if the music carries the message of Jesus, then how can demons coexist and be brought forth through the music? Many who know me personally know why this issue is such a big deal for me, and I have never very openly publicly admitted this before, but I doubt that I would have as strong of a faith as I currently have if it were not for P.O.D. I was a Christian before I knew of P.O.D., but it was the music of Payable on Death that kept me strong in my belief at points through my life. Everytime somebody criticizes a Christian band, P.O.D. especially, I tend to take that very personally because I know what their music has done in my life and the lives of others. It is also interesting to note that the people who tend to bash bands like P.O.D. the most are those who know nothing about them and their faith. People just focus on things like their tattoos, long hair, and dreadlocks. They also obsessively focus on the style of music rather than the issues that really matter.
Up until this point in this post I have been on the defensive side of things, but now I wish to go a little more on the offense. To begin with, things such as tattoos, long hair, and dreadlocks are, for the most part, not an issue with God. The Bible says that God does not judge by appearance, and rightfully so because it is matters of the soul that are important. This earthly body will burn up when the world passes away, it is only the soul that will endure. Many modern pictures of Jesus depict Him having at least shoulder length hair...so is Jesus going against the Bible? In addition, the main reason people focus on P.O.D. for how they look is because people tend to be discriminatory towards people who are viewed to be "less" than themselves; they are viewed as just "raggamuffin punks off the street." May I remind you, however, that there are plenty of swindlers, liars, cheats, adulterers, and murderers who wear suits, however, no one views a man in a suit as any of the options listed above. What one wears and how one looks in no way should affect how one judges them spiritually. The biggest "appearance issue" people have with P.O.D., however, is their tattoos. They use a verse from the Bible that states "Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves" (Leviticus 19:28) while conveniently ignoring the verse that comes immediately before that which forbids the shaving off of sideburns and the trimming of beards. So these clean shaven, holier than thou preachers and theologians criticize those for doing something "banned" in one verse while doing what is "banned" in the verse just previous. There is a word that starts with an h to describe this behavior, but I will leave it to the reader to make his or her own judgments. It is also interesting to note that the same verse talks about cutting yourself for the dead. It is debated in some circles as to whether the tattoo commandment is in reference to "of the dead" as well, but I will not comment on that here.
Anyway, we must remember what it is that was written in the book of Galations when it says that Christ freed us from the curse of the law. Hebrew law was part of the old covenant between God and the Israelites. There is, however, a new covenant, and I will expound upon testament absolutes in another post. The number one, numero uno reason as to why P.O.D. is bashed, however, is because of their style of music. Often times, the people who look down on Christian rock are avid fans of church hymns, choruses, and the like. They think their music is the only "true form of worship" and anything else is a ticket to hell. May I remind them that hymns, and the like, were more controversial when they were introduced than rock music when it was introduced into the church. Because unlike rock, classic church hymns were merely common drinking tunes and bar songs with new Christian lyrics. Yet people still believe that this music is the only music acceptable for worship. May I also remind them that hymns did not exist in the church of the apostles. The music they had was far different from what is in churches now, or what was in churches for the last hundred years. I am sure that they saw new music coming into the church as evil too. It is a never ending cycle of parents viewing their children's music as evil. People once thought Elvis was too raunchy and risque. Look where we have come since the days of Elvis. This is why we need positive influences in the world of music. No form of music is more "morally acceptable" to God than another, as long as the lyrics are not vulgar or offensive to His nature. Christians need to wake up and realize that if they spent as much time fighting the world as they spent fighting each other, they would be surprised by how God would use them.
~Tribal~
Friday, January 20, 2006
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/20/06
Ok, so for this EFD on mutations I am going to do a little bit of cheating and copy the exact quote from the book In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. because it is short and sweet: "Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution. Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors." So to basically sum this one up, mutations are the only ways that science currently knows of to produce evolutionary results. However, in almost every case, mutations serve no purpose and can kill the organism to which a mutation has taken place to. So in a nutshell, when mutations occur they usually tend to be a step backwards on the imaginary "evolutionary ladder." Check back tomorrow for results of fruit fly experiments.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Same God?
People often say that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship God; the same one that is told of in the Bible, Torah, and Qu'rahn. With a little theological commentary on the issue, I hope to be able to illustrate to you mainly the fact that the true God of Christianity is indeed not the same one worshipped by Judaism and Islam. I will not in this entry attempt to explain the differences between the god of the Jews and the god of the Muslims, I will only explain their respective differences in regards to Christianity. To begin, I would like to examine the doctrinal statement of the Trinity. This is a Christian doctrine that I believe is essential to salvation. The Bible says that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and no man cometh unto the Father but through Him. The doctrine of the trinity basically states that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit are all one God, but yet at the same time three distinct beings. They are one, but three. I will not get into the issue of defending belief in the trinity in this article, but surely I will in a future composition. Modern day "theists" tend to disregard the Trinity because it is something they do not understand. I expect nothing less from such a post-modern and narrow minded viewpoint. Just as an ant does not understand the ways and attributes of man, man cannot understand the ways and attributes of God. Do you really want someone to be God who has the intelligence level of the average human being? I would be frightened of the thought, personally. Well to get back on topic, the doctrine of the trinity is critical to salvation and the Christian faith. God is not just God the Father, He is the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Jews and Muslims alike both believe Jesus was only a teacher; just an ordinary man with no supernatural or divine attributes. Therefore, they obviously disregard the doctrine of the trinity. If one does not believe that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also God in addition to the Father, then they are not worshipping God. While it may be argued as to whether or not they are worshipping one third of God when they praise the Father, I do not believe they do, because, keep in mind that God is one complete being at the same time. Check back often as I will research and post a topic about the issue of the trinity and its biblical evidence.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/19/06
As discussed previously, genes cannot be created in an organism. They merely rearrange themselves in passing from generation to generation. This, again, is the basis for today's discussion on Natural Selection. Natural selection cannot produce new genes. This has been established in previous EFD's. As a result, natural selection only does what its name implies: select. All natural selection does is select which genes of an organism get passed onto its young. It is important to note that natural selection actually reduces the number of variations in a species. A common example evolutionists use to back their theories is that over time, resistances to certain pesticides and antibiotics "evolve" in certain species. However, it is more likely in light of the scientific facts that this happens soley because a once lost capability of a species was reestablished, making it appear like the organism evolved. Natural selection does indeed occur (however perhaps it should be called divine selection) but nothing evolves and, in fact, some biological diversity is lost in the process. Darwin based his theory in part on the array of finches he observed while on the Galapagos islands. One will note, however, that this is microevolution not macroevolution. Microevolution is the result of natural (divine) selection and only creates mutations within a species. Think of it as kind of a lateral or side to side change in the progression of complexity. This is actually observable, but it is not the evolution that supposedly turned monkeys into men. That is what is known as macroevolution, for which no observable proof has ever been recorded. If macroevolution were possible, that would be a forward or positive change in the progression of complexity. However as this daily column will hopefully establish, that is not possible. In closing, I would like to leave you with the fact that natural (divine) selection can sometimes explain survival of the fittest, but it can in no way explain the origin of the fittest. Natural selection hinders and prevents major and positive evolutionary changes. Check back tomorrow to learn about mutations.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Some Problems With The Liberal View on Iraq
There is a professor of History at a college I have attended, who being a self admitted left-wing liberal, has decided to impose her views on the current War on Terror during a class about ancient western civilization.
1.) On the first day of class we were informed that the war in Iraq is just like the Vietnam War, and if this country would have looked in the "rear-view mirror of History" we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. Now, right away this argument throws up red flags just to its validity. If you wish to compare the two wars, Vietnam and Iraq, you may wish to compare the casualty rate maybe... As we enter the 4th year of the War in Iraq, we can look back on the last 3 years. In these 3 years the United States has lost 2,180 brave men and women serving their country (www.icasualties.org). But if we look back on the Vietnam War, in 3 years the United States lost 33,622 brave men and woman (http://25thaviation.org/id275.htm). Please understand that I in no way am trying to lessen the great sacrifice made by those in Vietnam, I am truly thankful for those brave people who fought and gave the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. However, anyone can clearly see that there is a difference in the KIA rate between the two wars.
2.) This next argument, however, is one of my personal favorites... The United States went into Iraq for oil. I'll make this short, if we wanted oil we would have kept Kuwait when we kicked Saddam out in '91. Kuwait has a whole lot more oil that Iraq and we wouldn't have had a fight at all, but we are a nation that stands for Freedom, we liberated Kuwait, job done. Also, you never hear any of the libs talking about the oil reserves in our own country that could make us independent of foreign oil, but that's for another time...
3.) Are people really so blind and ignorant as to forget what a horribly bad man Saddam Hussein is? Did we not observe the uncovering of mass graves? The stockpiling of weapons in schools and hospitals? The killing of his own people with chemical weapons?
It is unfortunate that this must come up in an academic setting. People teach things through lens of their worldview, if the thinking is this off in this one area, than it affects the rest. I encourage more students to stand up, ask the hard questions, challenge the professors or teachers. We need to start thinking for ourselves, forming our own opinions. Lets seek the truth.
~Fiat volvntas tua~
1.) On the first day of class we were informed that the war in Iraq is just like the Vietnam War, and if this country would have looked in the "rear-view mirror of History" we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. Now, right away this argument throws up red flags just to its validity. If you wish to compare the two wars, Vietnam and Iraq, you may wish to compare the casualty rate maybe... As we enter the 4th year of the War in Iraq, we can look back on the last 3 years. In these 3 years the United States has lost 2,180 brave men and women serving their country (www.icasualties.org). But if we look back on the Vietnam War, in 3 years the United States lost 33,622 brave men and woman (http://25thaviation.org/id275.htm). Please understand that I in no way am trying to lessen the great sacrifice made by those in Vietnam, I am truly thankful for those brave people who fought and gave the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. However, anyone can clearly see that there is a difference in the KIA rate between the two wars.
2.) This next argument, however, is one of my personal favorites... The United States went into Iraq for oil. I'll make this short, if we wanted oil we would have kept Kuwait when we kicked Saddam out in '91. Kuwait has a whole lot more oil that Iraq and we wouldn't have had a fight at all, but we are a nation that stands for Freedom, we liberated Kuwait, job done. Also, you never hear any of the libs talking about the oil reserves in our own country that could make us independent of foreign oil, but that's for another time...
3.) Are people really so blind and ignorant as to forget what a horribly bad man Saddam Hussein is? Did we not observe the uncovering of mass graves? The stockpiling of weapons in schools and hospitals? The killing of his own people with chemical weapons?
It is unfortunate that this must come up in an academic setting. People teach things through lens of their worldview, if the thinking is this off in this one area, than it affects the rest. I encourage more students to stand up, ask the hard questions, challenge the professors or teachers. We need to start thinking for ourselves, forming our own opinions. Lets seek the truth.
~Fiat volvntas tua~
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/18/06
Today's EFD is about bounded variation. As discussed in yesterday's EFD, Mendel's laws give a theoretical explanation as to why variations are limited. There is, however, an experimental explanation as well, and this is known as bounded variation. If evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and the most mutations, both positive and negative. Natural selection would obviously then select the most beneficial changes in an organism, allowing them to survive, reproduce, and pass on their favorable genes. Therefore, organisms that supposedly have evolved the most should have the most beneficial traits that allow their species to progress the furthest. The most notable examples of these traits would be short reproduction cycles and numerous offspring. Natural selection would favor these characteristics because they are two of the biggest factors in "survival of the fittest." Not in following with this, however, is the fact that it seems the exact opposite of what should have happened is what really happened. Highly complex organisms such as humans and other mammals have an incredibly longer reproduction cycle and they produce fewer offspring at a time than the most simple single celled organisms. Check back tomorrow for comments on natural selection.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/17/06
Today's flaw pertaining to the twisted and fantasy like world of evolution deals with Mendel's Laws. To quote from the book: "Mendel's laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations observed in living things." What Mendel stumbled across was the fact that it is possible for genetic material to be reshuffled from generation to generation, resulting in a variety of "breeds" as it were. This can be exemplified with such illustrations as different breeds of dogs; there are great danes, german shepherds, poodles, etc. Mendel also found, however, that genetic material cannot be created from generation to generation. As a result there is a limit to the amount of variation that can occur. Say you have five different colored pens in a row. You can make a number of different combinations using those pens, but in the end you will still have only those five pens; they will just be laying in a different order on the table. Likewise, our progenitors needed to have the same genetic material we do because genes can only be rearranged, not created. The concept is very similar to yesterday's EFD concerning acquired characteristics. Tomorrow we will deal with the topic of Bounded Variations, which will also help further explain today's.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Results of Gradual Moral Depravity
Fox News just published a story that contains the following:
The Supreme Court on Tuesday let stand Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law, opening the door to many more such laws across the nation for ending the lives of the terminally ill.
In a 6-3 vote, justices ruled that a federal drug law could not be used to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribed overdoses intended to facilitate the deaths of terminally ill patients. The Bush administration in 2001 sought to go after Oregon doctors who invoked the law, saying that induced suicide was not a "legitimate medical purpose."
You can read the rest of the story at the above link. This is a disturbing case and is plainly a result of the Terri Schiavo incident. Many, including many Christians, fail to recognize the severity of this issue. They figure that a person should be able to die if he or she wants to in such a situation. It's important to make clear that this is not talking about merely "pulling the plug" or removing life support, this literally legalizes a doctor's ability to administer lethal medication to a patient if that patient is terminally ill and wishes to die. Many still think that such an action is acceptable. They use catch phrases such as "well would you want to live like that?" and "it's better for him/her to die than live in misery like this." That does not change the fact that you are killing an innocent human being. To use a popular saying from the anti-capitol punishment crowd, "they're trying to play God." They think there is no hope for the patient to get better and they refuse to recognize the healing ability God can provide as well. The most disturbing thing to come out of this though is the furtherance of euthanasia. This opens the door to many evils that are already present in other nations. Where will this school of thinking lead us down the road? One day will it be acceptable to kill anyone who is not a "productive member of society?" The day that comes about is fast approaching and people need to be aware because the warm wool is being dragged slowly over their eyes. Evil things are always brought about in steps. It does not take just one day for society to accept the killing of the elderly and the mentally ill, it is a process that evolves over time and has dangerous potential to unravel the already frayed moral fibers of the world. This is a scenario to be watched carefully and closely. People must know of the dangers.
~Tribal~
The Supreme Court on Tuesday let stand Oregon's physician-assisted suicide law, opening the door to many more such laws across the nation for ending the lives of the terminally ill.
In a 6-3 vote, justices ruled that a federal drug law could not be used to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribed overdoses intended to facilitate the deaths of terminally ill patients. The Bush administration in 2001 sought to go after Oregon doctors who invoked the law, saying that induced suicide was not a "legitimate medical purpose."
You can read the rest of the story at the above link. This is a disturbing case and is plainly a result of the Terri Schiavo incident. Many, including many Christians, fail to recognize the severity of this issue. They figure that a person should be able to die if he or she wants to in such a situation. It's important to make clear that this is not talking about merely "pulling the plug" or removing life support, this literally legalizes a doctor's ability to administer lethal medication to a patient if that patient is terminally ill and wishes to die. Many still think that such an action is acceptable. They use catch phrases such as "well would you want to live like that?" and "it's better for him/her to die than live in misery like this." That does not change the fact that you are killing an innocent human being. To use a popular saying from the anti-capitol punishment crowd, "they're trying to play God." They think there is no hope for the patient to get better and they refuse to recognize the healing ability God can provide as well. The most disturbing thing to come out of this though is the furtherance of euthanasia. This opens the door to many evils that are already present in other nations. Where will this school of thinking lead us down the road? One day will it be acceptable to kill anyone who is not a "productive member of society?" The day that comes about is fast approaching and people need to be aware because the warm wool is being dragged slowly over their eyes. Evil things are always brought about in steps. It does not take just one day for society to accept the killing of the elderly and the mentally ill, it is a process that evolves over time and has dangerous potential to unravel the already frayed moral fibers of the world. This is a scenario to be watched carefully and closely. People must know of the dangers.
~Tribal~
The Trouble with Today's Scientists
One of my greatest concerns in today's world is the general bias of science that says, "if you don't agree with the mainstream, then you are obviously wrong," and the eagerness of the population at large to accept what mainstream science tells them without question or second thought. First let me say that I am somewhere vaguely between an "old earth" and "young earth" creationist, leaning more towards young earth. I am also a scientist (something of a paradox in today's world I realize) and as a result I tend to look at everything from a very "I want observable proof to back up your theory" attitude. I had a pretty heated debate with some friends in band at a basketball game on a recent Saturday afternoon about my beliefs as a creationist. The discussion was a microcosm of today's world in that there were four distinct types of people: "I agree with you" "I can't believe you're one of those people" "I'm stayin out of this!" "I disagree....but I want to hear what you have to say." Two of these fit with what a scientist should be, one does not belong studying science, and the fourth is a mindless sheep. I'll give you few guesses which are which. I know you're thinking that this is probably harsh, and that I'm obviously biased towards the creationist viewpoint, so of course I say those who agree with me are proper scientists (and I have to give credit to the other guy who wanted to hear what I had to say), and of course I'd call those who disagree with me mindless sheep. But wait!!! That's not it at all.
Alright, so let's start with the simple one. "I'm stayin out of this!" should be stayin out of it (and by it I mean science), because anyone who is afraid of a little disagreement or controversy, and who doesn't want to actively seek all possible solutions to a problem does not belong in science. Go watch TV or turn on some music or something.
So what's the difference between 'I can't believe you're one of those people' and 'I agree with you'?" you might ask as well you should. Seems I'm just being biased right? I think the guy who agrees with me is right and the guy who disagrees with me is a stupid-head....but wait! There are two guys who disagree with me! One's a scientist, the other obviously evolved from a primate named Lucy (I give you permission to laugh here...a little comedy for ya). Here comes the vital difference between science as a whole as it is, and science as it should be.
First off, let's deal with my fellow creationist, scientist number 1. He agrees with me, but that doesn't make him a scientist. I say he's scientist material because he didn't throw his own biases and assumptions into it. He stated fact. He's seen the evidence, he's drawn his conclusions, and his conclusion is that God made everything in a literal way, both a theologically and scientifically valid idea.
Alright, so now let's take a look at scientist number 2: "I disagree....but I want to hear what you have to say." He recognizes that science is merely the replacing of wrong ideas with ideas that are less wrong, that everyone thought Copernicus was a loony when he said the Earth orbited around the sun, that Kepler was off his rocker when he supported him, and that when deBroglie said that physical matter (like say for example a toaster) not only acts as a particle, but as a wave, it meant diddly squat. General relativity flies in the face of the classical view of the physical world held for centuries, and yet it fits. Quantum mechanics on the face of it is pish posh, and caused a major paradigm shift in our view of our reality, but it fits. As long as people have cared to ask the question "How?" the answer has been constantly changing, and somehow it always seems to be completely absurd to mainstream science. But I digress.
In the past few decades, God has become a dirty word to the scientific community. Why? Good question; a question of faith. For some unknown reason, "scientists" of today think that just because something has to do with God, it's scientifically worthless. This is the difference between Lucy and scientist number 2. Lucy assumes that because creationism has as its source of inspiration a literal translation (by varying degrees, depending on your stance as old earth or young earth) of the Bible, that no one should even bother taking a second glance at it. "These are crazy people! Stay away from um!" That is why Lucy is no scientist by even the loosest sense of the profession. Lucy doesn't even bother to stop and think, "well, gee, this actually has scientific merit and deserves some research."
But wait! Isn’t that what scientists do? They stop and think! They see something and they want to know how! So sorry Lucy, you should go watch some TV or listen to some music, or go play outside, because you are ruining science for the world. Scientist number 2 on the other hand is doing a great job. He stopped to look at the facts, see the other side of the coin, climb to the top of the tree to see what was around. He did as a scientist should do: he ignored his biases and looked at the thing objectively. The magic of it is, come the end of our conversation, he saw where I was coming from. He still disagrees with me, but he accepted the fact that, yeah, these creationists aren’t all crazy like tree frogs. In fact, they deserve some sort of respect for facing up against the wall of bias that has been built around science.
So what do I say to those of you who are admittedly not scientists? First off, no shame there. What I challenge you to do is challenge everything science tells you. Don’t just accept because some smart guy with thick glasses and zero social skills tells you to. Think. Analyze. Question! That’s the only way advances in science happen. So let’s get advancing!
~AndyJams~
Alright, so let's start with the simple one. "I'm stayin out of this!" should be stayin out of it (and by it I mean science), because anyone who is afraid of a little disagreement or controversy, and who doesn't want to actively seek all possible solutions to a problem does not belong in science. Go watch TV or turn on some music or something.
So what's the difference between 'I can't believe you're one of those people' and 'I agree with you'?" you might ask as well you should. Seems I'm just being biased right? I think the guy who agrees with me is right and the guy who disagrees with me is a stupid-head....but wait! There are two guys who disagree with me! One's a scientist, the other obviously evolved from a primate named Lucy (I give you permission to laugh here...a little comedy for ya). Here comes the vital difference between science as a whole as it is, and science as it should be.
First off, let's deal with my fellow creationist, scientist number 1. He agrees with me, but that doesn't make him a scientist. I say he's scientist material because he didn't throw his own biases and assumptions into it. He stated fact. He's seen the evidence, he's drawn his conclusions, and his conclusion is that God made everything in a literal way, both a theologically and scientifically valid idea.
Alright, so now let's take a look at scientist number 2: "I disagree....but I want to hear what you have to say." He recognizes that science is merely the replacing of wrong ideas with ideas that are less wrong, that everyone thought Copernicus was a loony when he said the Earth orbited around the sun, that Kepler was off his rocker when he supported him, and that when deBroglie said that physical matter (like say for example a toaster) not only acts as a particle, but as a wave, it meant diddly squat. General relativity flies in the face of the classical view of the physical world held for centuries, and yet it fits. Quantum mechanics on the face of it is pish posh, and caused a major paradigm shift in our view of our reality, but it fits. As long as people have cared to ask the question "How?" the answer has been constantly changing, and somehow it always seems to be completely absurd to mainstream science. But I digress.
In the past few decades, God has become a dirty word to the scientific community. Why? Good question; a question of faith. For some unknown reason, "scientists" of today think that just because something has to do with God, it's scientifically worthless. This is the difference between Lucy and scientist number 2. Lucy assumes that because creationism has as its source of inspiration a literal translation (by varying degrees, depending on your stance as old earth or young earth) of the Bible, that no one should even bother taking a second glance at it. "These are crazy people! Stay away from um!" That is why Lucy is no scientist by even the loosest sense of the profession. Lucy doesn't even bother to stop and think, "well, gee, this actually has scientific merit and deserves some research."
But wait! Isn’t that what scientists do? They stop and think! They see something and they want to know how! So sorry Lucy, you should go watch some TV or listen to some music, or go play outside, because you are ruining science for the world. Scientist number 2 on the other hand is doing a great job. He stopped to look at the facts, see the other side of the coin, climb to the top of the tree to see what was around. He did as a scientist should do: he ignored his biases and looked at the thing objectively. The magic of it is, come the end of our conversation, he saw where I was coming from. He still disagrees with me, but he accepted the fact that, yeah, these creationists aren’t all crazy like tree frogs. In fact, they deserve some sort of respect for facing up against the wall of bias that has been built around science.
So what do I say to those of you who are admittedly not scientists? First off, no shame there. What I challenge you to do is challenge everything science tells you. Don’t just accept because some smart guy with thick glasses and zero social skills tells you to. Think. Analyze. Question! That’s the only way advances in science happen. So let’s get advancing!
~AndyJams~
Monday, January 16, 2006
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/16/06
Today's EFD deals in the subject realm of acquired characteristics. Evolution states that beings evolved into more advanced organisms and passed along certain acquired characteristics. These characteristics may include the forming of gills in fish to allow them to breathe in water or the lengthening of a giraffe's neck to reach leaves on taller trees. However, as with spontaneous generation (see EFD 01/15/06), this part of evolution has never been accurately proven in a laboratory environment. Giraffe's did not get their long necks because their progenitors had a need to stretch to higher branches. In the same way, a man who lifts weights will not necesarily pass along his large muscles to his children. While it is true that certain hostile environments can "switch on" or activate genes already present, the environment cannot produce a gene within an organism that was not present to begin with. The gene has to be already included within the being for its results to be observed. Therefore, the early ancestors of man had to have all of the genetic traits that man has today. In fact, if all life came from a single celled organism, then that single organism would have had to contain all of the genetic material for every living organism that ever existed on the face of the earth. Pretty amazing when in context of the intertwined belief that the first life was produced from a puddle of chemicals and water.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Evolutionary Flaw of the Day 01/15/06
Each day I hope to be able to post one article regarding evolution and its many flaws. It will start relatively simple and grow more complex as time goes on and as you (the reader) grow in understanding. It is important to know what you believe and why you believe it. We here at Insense believe evolution is a mistaken theory to try and force God out of the world. God cannot be forced. Most of the information used for this column will come from a book called In the Beginning by Walt Brown. He is a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering and has dedicated a large portion of his life to evolutionary studies. He is a pleasure to hear in person if the chance ever arises. If information posted in this hopefully daily article is not from this book it will be cited. Now, onto the Evolutionary Flaw of the Day.
1.) The Law of Biogenisis states that spontaneous generation (living matter coming from nonliving matter) has never been observed and is not possible. How, then, can the evolutionary theory somehow be an exception to this long established scientific rule? If something is not observable or reproducible in a laboratory environment, then according to critics of creationism, it is not true science. The very nature of evolution and the big bang theory violates a law that backers of the two naturalistic theories very vigorously support in an attempt to disprove God. Such double standards are common among atheists and evolutionists, though they themselves refuse to acknowledge their presence. Since spontaneous generation cannot be observed it destroys the whole basis of evolution and places it in the realm of the philosophy of science, where theories such as ID and creationism dwell. However, ID was banned from science classrooms because of its "holes" and "lack of proof." Evolution remains the center of the curriculum despite its blatant flaws as well. Another astonishing double standard. Check back often for more Evolutionary Flaws of the Day.
~Tribal~
1.) The Law of Biogenisis states that spontaneous generation (living matter coming from nonliving matter) has never been observed and is not possible. How, then, can the evolutionary theory somehow be an exception to this long established scientific rule? If something is not observable or reproducible in a laboratory environment, then according to critics of creationism, it is not true science. The very nature of evolution and the big bang theory violates a law that backers of the two naturalistic theories very vigorously support in an attempt to disprove God. Such double standards are common among atheists and evolutionists, though they themselves refuse to acknowledge their presence. Since spontaneous generation cannot be observed it destroys the whole basis of evolution and places it in the realm of the philosophy of science, where theories such as ID and creationism dwell. However, ID was banned from science classrooms because of its "holes" and "lack of proof." Evolution remains the center of the curriculum despite its blatant flaws as well. Another astonishing double standard. Check back often for more Evolutionary Flaws of the Day.
~Tribal~
Theological Lessons from the Children's Reading Section
The great Christian apologetic C.S. Lewis wrote many books during the span of his lifetime. We here at Insense highly recommend all of them, even a certain series that is supposed by many to have been written for children. Of course I am talking about the beloved Chronicles of Narnia. The Chronicles entail a number of journeys and adventures through the fantasy realm known as Narnia. The main characters in every book are indeed all children, and therefore appeal very greatly to a younger audience. All of the books, however, all contain strong allegorical and metaphorical allusions to Christianity and the Bible, well in keeping with the author and his other works. This latter fact makes the series an exciting read for even more mature readers of adult age. It is surprising the number of referances to a deeper meaning one can find included into the books. One that particularly stuck out to me came from the fourth book in the series, Prince Caspian. It was made by the youngest of the children, Lucy, after the party she was traveling with was attacked by a bear. She raised the issue that it would have been horrible if the bear was actually a friendly Old Narnian on their side rather than a bear bent on having a tasty human morsel for lunch. The dwarf who ended up disposing of the bear with a well placed arrow made the comment that it was almost certainly a real "dumb" bear because there were almost no true and noble Old Narnians left alive. C.S. Lewis, and Lucy, saw a very prophetic thing here that she made known through her comment:
"Wouldn't it be dreadful if some day, in our own world, at home, men started going wild inside, like the animals here, and still looked like men, so that you'd never know which were which?"
Unfortunately enough, if Lucy (or Lewis) were alive today they would be heartbroken as to what they would see. People today in our world act no better than animals sometimes. Fornication and adultery are rampant among high schools, colleges, and disturbingly even work places. Murder is more frequent, and now it even takes the form of abortion and euthanasia. Islamic fundamentalists destroy as many lives as they can because "God commanded them to." The world is truly a sad place and C.S. Lewis was able to cleverly insert this all into one single line from a children's book. People today do act no better than animals sometimes, actually most of the time, and it will not get better until Christ returns and takes his rightful place.
~Tribal~
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Welcome to Insense
Welcome to Insense. Through this blog, we (the future writers and myself) wish to convey to you (the gracious reader) our viewpoints on many of today's leading issues, both political and religious. We all come from a very conservative stance and look at the world with a mostly premodern worldview -- one that embraces God as the source of everything. We hope and pray to be a beacon of truth in a world that is dying from sin and corruption. We encourage you to check back often as we will try to update with new articles as often as our schedules will allow.
~Tribal~
~Tribal~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)