Check out this video of Balintawak arnis training from the '70s. Any of it look familiar to you?
You can tell the teacher is the pudgy one (much like me) and the student is the one with the semi-afro looking hair. The teacher has better balance and evades when necessary while the student is all over the place. If I take video of you now (after we refresh our memory and review what we've learned so far) and then take video of you a year from now, assuming you train consistently, you will be pleasantly surprised to see the change in how you move and in what you do.
I'm looking forward to it.
And for those who want to see the Balintawak arnis I learned, here it is. This is only one aspect of Balintawak training. It's actually a very self-defense focused martial art, as demonstrated in the old video. The old masters didn't teach any of it as sport. They taught with the idea that someone was trying to kill you with a knife or a machete and you had to deal with it quickly.
December 30, 2008
December 10, 2008
In our veins
Given: men fight. Doesn't matter what kind of fight, be it intellectual or physical, there is a willingness in all men to do battle. Among the physical fighters, there are four kinds (and they aren't mutually exclusive): one is the brawler, who was most likely abused as a child and hasn't gotten over his daddy or mommy issues. The second is the one dimensional fighter, who only knows fighting and really never developed any other skill, or if he did, it doesn't pay for the bills and so he may fight for a living. The third is the trained fighter, who learned a fighting art, may professionally fight for a living, and is also well-versed in other skills. Then there's the fighter who comes from a warrior culture where fighting isn't just something they do - it's in their blood, it's part of who they are. Warrior culture isn't simple to define, but there are a number of characteristics:
1) The people group inhabit a strategic location that's been invaded and fought over for generations that a readiness for war has become part of their cultural makeup.
2) They have well-developed cultural fighting arts.
3) They are known for their tenacity in war.
In Filipino culture, all three parameters were satisfied in the past. Throughout their history, no matter how often they were beaten down, Filipinos always fought back. There were no less than 50 revolts from various tribes or groups against the Spanish during their 300 year domination over the archipelago. The last time Filipinos showed their warrior spirit was during World War II. With help from the Americans, the Filipinos fought hard to expel the Japanese and liberate prisoners of war. Much of that warrior spirit disappeared after World War II. These days, Filipinos are known for their other side: their hospitality, their fun-loving, peaceful nature. And they are also known for other skills like singing and dancing. The Muslim insurgencies in the southern Philippines are more about finances or simple terrorism, rather than a reflection of the warrior culture.
The only place the warrior culture lives on is in the martial arts community. After World War II, many of the surviving masters brought their knowledge to America. These days, the Filipino martial arts thrive, generally lumped under the names kali, escrima, or arnis. They were popularized by the Canete family, Bakbakan International, Dan Inosanto, and many others who have preserved the traditions of various family styles. Through these people and schools, the warrior culture is undergoing a resurgence. But instead of the unfocused brutality of the past, the new generation of the warrior culture will have a better perspective, a culture that won't perpetuate violence. This is the generation of the peaceful warrior, who will use martial skills for the benefit and the protection of others, not just the protection of the immediate group.
1) The people group inhabit a strategic location that's been invaded and fought over for generations that a readiness for war has become part of their cultural makeup.
2) They have well-developed cultural fighting arts.
3) They are known for their tenacity in war.
In Filipino culture, all three parameters were satisfied in the past. Throughout their history, no matter how often they were beaten down, Filipinos always fought back. There were no less than 50 revolts from various tribes or groups against the Spanish during their 300 year domination over the archipelago. The last time Filipinos showed their warrior spirit was during World War II. With help from the Americans, the Filipinos fought hard to expel the Japanese and liberate prisoners of war. Much of that warrior spirit disappeared after World War II. These days, Filipinos are known for their other side: their hospitality, their fun-loving, peaceful nature. And they are also known for other skills like singing and dancing. The Muslim insurgencies in the southern Philippines are more about finances or simple terrorism, rather than a reflection of the warrior culture.
The only place the warrior culture lives on is in the martial arts community. After World War II, many of the surviving masters brought their knowledge to America. These days, the Filipino martial arts thrive, generally lumped under the names kali, escrima, or arnis. They were popularized by the Canete family, Bakbakan International, Dan Inosanto, and many others who have preserved the traditions of various family styles. Through these people and schools, the warrior culture is undergoing a resurgence. But instead of the unfocused brutality of the past, the new generation of the warrior culture will have a better perspective, a culture that won't perpetuate violence. This is the generation of the peaceful warrior, who will use martial skills for the benefit and the protection of others, not just the protection of the immediate group.
November 27, 2008
Tribal Heritage
The History channel has an ongoing series called Gangland. After watching a few episodes, I was reminded how people are still very tribal in nature no matter how civilized the society. There's a running theme through these shows, a tendency for the disillusioned to identify with a group and, with that acceptance, the relinquishing of individualism in order to conform to that immediate group's culture, to be part of a family. In their need to conform to that family structure, the members will bypass their already fractured moral development to honor the group's simple moral code - survival and strength.
November 25, 2008
Is it any surprise?
Obama reneged on his tax cut promises? Shocking. And not many in the media are complaining. Not many people know about it either. If they do, they simply disregard it because change is more important. Change change change. Nothing but words. Talk about the Barack hypnotic effect. We'll see how this plays out, but things like this are expected. There will be a whole lot more like this in the next few years. Maybe in the next few months?
November 24, 2008
Zero on Zawahiri
I heard that someone responded to Al-Zawahiri's racist attacks against Obama? This person said Al-Qaeda have lost any moral authority to say anything after the recent racist epithet against the President-Elect. Wow, an American actually acknowledged that Al-Qaeda had any moral authority before this? They're a terrorist group! They have no moral authority or political credibility! If they insult Obama or Bush or any American, then so what? The only time anyone should listen to them is if they make death threats and they seem to like following through with those!
What I'd like to say to that so-called terrorist expert: Don't Americanize Al-Qaeda! Don't even acknowledge them by responding to their insults!
What I'd like to say to that so-called terrorist expert: Don't Americanize Al-Qaeda! Don't even acknowledge them by responding to their insults!
November 18, 2008
November 13, 2008
The Brave Catherine Vogt
Photo by Nuccio DiNuzzo, The Chicago Tribune
From the Chicago Tribune, "Tolerance Fails T-Shirt Test" by John Kass, as pointed out by Michelle Malkin.
November 12, 2008
Intelligence Quotient
"I will bring this war to an end in 2009, so don't be confused." - Sen. Barack Obama responding to Billary Clinton's comments, March 2008I wouldn't be surprised if Obama starts to change his anti-war tone in the next few months. After meeting with the CIA, the military, the DOD, and Bush, I can only imagine him getting hit with what's truly happening in the Middle East. At least he'll learn what the President knows and why Bush had to do what he had to do. During his term as Senator and during his campaign, Obama visited many countries, including those in the Middle East, but I would love to see the look on his face once he learns what's going on beneath the surface.
November 07, 2008
Electoral Craziness
My wife and I were talking about how the Electoral College worked. I needed to refresh my memory, since both of us were talking about something we haven't studied since 2000 and I was pretty sure we were both wrong on certain things.
So, here's a brief explanation:
No, seriously:
So, here's a brief explanation:
No, seriously:
November 06, 2008
Too bad!
Darn, too bad McCain didn't win the election because it would've helped to weed out those who are ungrateful to be an American. If only the "exodus" idea in this article were true, it would've helped to solidify the number of real Americans in this country, and those who think they're too educated and progressive can go to their desired refuge (or cage). I prefer my freedoms, thank you very much.
Just because Obama won doesn't mean I should leave the US. I believe this is the most unique nation on Earth and I'm not about to hand it over to leaders who like to govern like the rest of the world's leaders. We can still change this country for the better after his term ends. One of my co-workers said, "It can't get any worse than what it is now." I beg to differ - this country has the potential to be brought to its knees with someone like Obama at the helm. The beauty of America is in its core ideals of liberty based on Judeo-Christian principles. If we keep to this core, America can get back to its feet after 2012. Most likely it will take a little more than four years to undo his damage, but there will come a day when government's tentacles will retract and we can get back to living like free Americans again.
I hope the voluntary weeding will begin by then as well.
Just because Obama won doesn't mean I should leave the US. I believe this is the most unique nation on Earth and I'm not about to hand it over to leaders who like to govern like the rest of the world's leaders. We can still change this country for the better after his term ends. One of my co-workers said, "It can't get any worse than what it is now." I beg to differ - this country has the potential to be brought to its knees with someone like Obama at the helm. The beauty of America is in its core ideals of liberty based on Judeo-Christian principles. If we keep to this core, America can get back to its feet after 2012. Most likely it will take a little more than four years to undo his damage, but there will come a day when government's tentacles will retract and we can get back to living like free Americans again.
I hope the voluntary weeding will begin by then as well.
November 05, 2008
I Submit
Oh well...Within the next four years, many people will develop a nasty case of buyer's remorse. Obama's campaign had quite a successful marketing strategy. Riding on a Bush-bashing media wave, the tone was set for their winning sales approach. They emphasized the imagined deficiency of the customer's life in a Bush administration. Using an already biased media, they capitalized on the "change" they could offer and branded Obama as the agent of change. It didn't matter what that change was, as long as it didn't have anything to do with Bush. No specifics on the promises, just promises, just words said from the podium to fill that imagined need. Also, because our society has been moving towards government dependency and entitlement, any promise Obama made was more palatable to the general population.
Obama's marketing team also took advantage of his packaging, that he would be the first Black President, that he is more intelligent and articulate than Bush, and that he's young. They've also priced him well: tax cuts for the middle and lower class, tax hike for the rich, and relief programs for the poor. As the candidate with the most money spent on a campaign, it's no wonder that he would win.
I'm disappointed in McCain's marketing strategy. Then again, I really can't blame him. There were way too many factors against him. His campaign wasn't smart enough to deal with the media's bias and the culture's already ingrained antipathy towards Bush. Then again, Bush's public relations team did not do a good job at all in defending him well these past eight years. Instead, they allowed the liberal media to walk all over them. Bush took the high road, but at a great price. Most people don't take the time to research politics - they just watch or read what's readily available. Of course, now everyone will have to pay the price and those who elected Obama will realize it sooner or later.
As the new Commander-in-Chief, I have a duty to submit to Obama's authority. I won't agree with him, but he will be my President. I'm hoping that his progressive views would allow him to be more malleable over the course of his term. If so, it is imperative that Christians and conservatives rise up and make a huge effort in letting him know that we've not left the building. We're now more emboldened than ever to bring actual change to our nation, our society, and our culture.
It will only be four years. I can only hope the damage won't be too extensive.
November 04, 2008
First Responder
My wife's brother was the first to respond to the letter we sent out. His response is the comment in the "Important Election Reminder" entry. This is my response:
Excellent response, Jesse! Thank you for contributing! I appreciate your honesty and your willingness to discuss. Know that in my response, I have no animosity towards you or anything against you. This is merely an open discussion where we will allow our views to be known and done with utmost respect for each other. I mean, how often do we talk about more in-depth issues anyway? I love good discussions and I hope you do too. I find them challenging and exciting and will either solidify or change our perspectives.
First, I'd like to say that I too believe that no political candidate is the solution to the ills of society, nor are they supposed to be depended on to provide the means to create a better world. Yes, God is the one who places whoever He wants on the political stage. No matter how much we vote, it's God who has the final say. And, like you said, "as Christians we should be involved in everyday life through conversations that challenge our thinking, through helping those that need help, and through talking to our elected leaders about issues we feel are important." But as Christians, we have a duty to be part of the society we live in, to be salt and light in the world, even in matters of political duty. We're going to have to disagree on this election's level of importance. Yes, the world will go on and things are cyclical, but the decisions that will be made by Obama will have consequences that are unacceptable to me. (Warning: this one's a little long.)
Let's talk specifics: Between 1999 to 2003, Obama voted "present" or "no" for the bans on partial-birth abortions, born-alive protection and related issues, which is nothing more than political strategy. A "no" vote wouldn't be politically expedient, so most of the time he voted "present." The bills banning PBA provided for the life of the mother and for the health of the mother, contrary to Obama's beliefs. PBA actually increases the likelihood for a woman's health to deteriorate. To ban the procedure altogether would be better for the woman and the child. Medically speaking, there is no need for PBA. Women who have had it did not have health- or life-threatening causes, but they elected to have the procedure. Those with non-elective reasons cited depression as their "health-related" cause. The only threat was emotional! They simply didn't want to take on the responsibilities that go with the baby. He may say that PBA is wrong, but it has not and will not ever come out in his policy decisions. The reason why he didn't support the ban was because he believes in a woman's right for reproductive choice. He didn't look into the medical issues involved and so made the decision in ignorance. If he truly knew about the medical issues with the convictions that he had and still decided against banning PBA, then he did it out of political maneuvering and is simply disingenuous. I do give him credit for at least allowing the possibility that abortion laws may change, but he also promised to pass a Freedom of Choice Act, which will only continue to increase the abortion rate in this country. So he's either lying or just saying things for the sake of political expedience.
And of course, abortion is only the symptom, but it is not rooted in poverty or even lack of education - it is rooted in cultural acceptance through effective marketing. Planned Parenthood has been very active with this since the 1940s and others have followed suit under the banner of "women's rights." Margaret Sanger even wrote "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Yeah, you can find that in publicly accessible archives. (Birth-control advocates try to minimize the meaning of what she wrote in that letter, but in context, Sanger was still talking about limiting the population of the poor.) Christians are already caring for those who have to deal with the abortion question. And there are Christians who go through legal means as well, who want to curb or even overturn Roe vs. Wade. A whole lot more is going on than what the media has presented.
"We've had a pro-life president for the last 8 years and the number of abortions has not decreased one bit."
I'm going to have to disagree with that statement. Roe vs.Wade was such a powerful decision that no president can decrease the consequences of that ruling. At least G Dubya did his best to restrict abortion, starting with the 2003 Partial-birth abortion ban. He gladly signed it into law, among other things he tried to do concerning abortion. In fact, I'm in the middle of writing a response to the Burnside article you sent. I'm not sure where you get your information, but I'm relieved to know you took that piece with a grain of salt because Mr. Miller sounded like he didn't do too much research as reflected in his answers. My article will be posted soon.
Concerning the poor, Jesus said we'll have the poor with us always. In context he spoke of his upcoming crucifixion, but I'm sure he was also talking about one plain truth: there will always be poor people, both spiritually and economically, no matter what time period or culture. And the government is not responsible for them, we are. Jesus exemplified this by helping the poor as an individual without the need for government intervention. And he didn't approach local government to force the rich young ruler to give. Paul even instructed wealthy individuals to give directly to the poor. He didn't say to give to government so they in turn can give to the poor. We already have some government programs to provide for the poor. But no matter how many programs are made to alleviate poverty, they will not get rid of the problem. Individuals and private industry have historically been the most successful at alleviating poverty, not government. It's good that Obama is going to follow through with Bush's faith-based initiative of rewarding those who fight poverty. Government should work with the private sector to deal with poverty and motivate them to do so. But it is not good if Obama thinks his Robin Hood economic policies will improve the situation. The faith-based initiative to fight poverty is already a given for McCain.
Quickly, on taxes: 70% of income tax money already come from those making $150,000 or more, which is only about 10% of the population. And always be wary when politicians promise more of your own money. The government programs he proposes may help the poor, but guess where all that money is coming from? Government programs only increase taxes and it doesn't help everyone in the long run. It's a temporary salve, if it's even needed, and must be replaced by private sector activities or else it increases the power of government.
On war: War is horrible. But, that's the government's job, not ours. They wield the sword and God gave them the power to do so. (There's the issue of the US being a radically different country than any other country in history, but that's another issue.) We can protest the war and I know for darn sure Christians were split in many ways because of it. There wasn't a monolithic stance from the evangelicals, I can assure you of that. I support it because it's a just war and there have been significant developments since its inception. The media made it out to be another Vietnam when it clearly isn't. (That's also another issue.) Annually, nearly 1 million babies in the US are killed in abortion since 1973 compared with about nearly 700,000 killed total from both sides in the Afghanistan/Iraq wars since 2001. Both are horrible, but the rate of the former is absolutely unacceptable. At least in Afghanistan and Iraq, the death toll decreased dramatically in the past two years. I can't say the same about abortion.
"Citizenlink does not have a corner on truth."
I agree, Citizenlink doesn't have a corner on truth, but they do have a lot of facts which reflect truth. And we only provided those resources to make it easier on the email recipient. I use lots of resources from both Christian and secular, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. After doing the research, my vote, even though I'm reluctant, goes to McCain because Obama's history and promises do not reflect my values. McCain isn't much of a choice either because he only recently grew a spine when it was clear he was going to be the Republican Presidential candidate. Before, he wanted to please everyone with the facade of "unity" and "reaching across the aisle" which is synonymous with another phrase - "selling out." Between the two, though, I believe McCain will make the decisions with the consequences that I can handle.
Obviously you're voting for Obama, but I'm just asking you to continue to look a little deeper into the issues than what you've read so far, even after Nov. 4.
Excellent response, Jesse! Thank you for contributing! I appreciate your honesty and your willingness to discuss. Know that in my response, I have no animosity towards you or anything against you. This is merely an open discussion where we will allow our views to be known and done with utmost respect for each other. I mean, how often do we talk about more in-depth issues anyway? I love good discussions and I hope you do too. I find them challenging and exciting and will either solidify or change our perspectives.
First, I'd like to say that I too believe that no political candidate is the solution to the ills of society, nor are they supposed to be depended on to provide the means to create a better world. Yes, God is the one who places whoever He wants on the political stage. No matter how much we vote, it's God who has the final say. And, like you said, "as Christians we should be involved in everyday life through conversations that challenge our thinking, through helping those that need help, and through talking to our elected leaders about issues we feel are important." But as Christians, we have a duty to be part of the society we live in, to be salt and light in the world, even in matters of political duty. We're going to have to disagree on this election's level of importance. Yes, the world will go on and things are cyclical, but the decisions that will be made by Obama will have consequences that are unacceptable to me. (Warning: this one's a little long.)
Let's talk specifics: Between 1999 to 2003, Obama voted "present" or "no" for the bans on partial-birth abortions, born-alive protection and related issues, which is nothing more than political strategy. A "no" vote wouldn't be politically expedient, so most of the time he voted "present." The bills banning PBA provided for the life of the mother and for the health of the mother, contrary to Obama's beliefs. PBA actually increases the likelihood for a woman's health to deteriorate. To ban the procedure altogether would be better for the woman and the child. Medically speaking, there is no need for PBA. Women who have had it did not have health- or life-threatening causes, but they elected to have the procedure. Those with non-elective reasons cited depression as their "health-related" cause. The only threat was emotional! They simply didn't want to take on the responsibilities that go with the baby. He may say that PBA is wrong, but it has not and will not ever come out in his policy decisions. The reason why he didn't support the ban was because he believes in a woman's right for reproductive choice. He didn't look into the medical issues involved and so made the decision in ignorance. If he truly knew about the medical issues with the convictions that he had and still decided against banning PBA, then he did it out of political maneuvering and is simply disingenuous. I do give him credit for at least allowing the possibility that abortion laws may change, but he also promised to pass a Freedom of Choice Act, which will only continue to increase the abortion rate in this country. So he's either lying or just saying things for the sake of political expedience.
And of course, abortion is only the symptom, but it is not rooted in poverty or even lack of education - it is rooted in cultural acceptance through effective marketing. Planned Parenthood has been very active with this since the 1940s and others have followed suit under the banner of "women's rights." Margaret Sanger even wrote "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Yeah, you can find that in publicly accessible archives. (Birth-control advocates try to minimize the meaning of what she wrote in that letter, but in context, Sanger was still talking about limiting the population of the poor.) Christians are already caring for those who have to deal with the abortion question. And there are Christians who go through legal means as well, who want to curb or even overturn Roe vs. Wade. A whole lot more is going on than what the media has presented.
"We've had a pro-life president for the last 8 years and the number of abortions has not decreased one bit."
I'm going to have to disagree with that statement. Roe vs.Wade was such a powerful decision that no president can decrease the consequences of that ruling. At least G Dubya did his best to restrict abortion, starting with the 2003 Partial-birth abortion ban. He gladly signed it into law, among other things he tried to do concerning abortion. In fact, I'm in the middle of writing a response to the Burnside article you sent. I'm not sure where you get your information, but I'm relieved to know you took that piece with a grain of salt because Mr. Miller sounded like he didn't do too much research as reflected in his answers. My article will be posted soon.
Concerning the poor, Jesus said we'll have the poor with us always. In context he spoke of his upcoming crucifixion, but I'm sure he was also talking about one plain truth: there will always be poor people, both spiritually and economically, no matter what time period or culture. And the government is not responsible for them, we are. Jesus exemplified this by helping the poor as an individual without the need for government intervention. And he didn't approach local government to force the rich young ruler to give. Paul even instructed wealthy individuals to give directly to the poor. He didn't say to give to government so they in turn can give to the poor. We already have some government programs to provide for the poor. But no matter how many programs are made to alleviate poverty, they will not get rid of the problem. Individuals and private industry have historically been the most successful at alleviating poverty, not government. It's good that Obama is going to follow through with Bush's faith-based initiative of rewarding those who fight poverty. Government should work with the private sector to deal with poverty and motivate them to do so. But it is not good if Obama thinks his Robin Hood economic policies will improve the situation. The faith-based initiative to fight poverty is already a given for McCain.
Quickly, on taxes: 70% of income tax money already come from those making $150,000 or more, which is only about 10% of the population. And always be wary when politicians promise more of your own money. The government programs he proposes may help the poor, but guess where all that money is coming from? Government programs only increase taxes and it doesn't help everyone in the long run. It's a temporary salve, if it's even needed, and must be replaced by private sector activities or else it increases the power of government.
On war: War is horrible. But, that's the government's job, not ours. They wield the sword and God gave them the power to do so. (There's the issue of the US being a radically different country than any other country in history, but that's another issue.) We can protest the war and I know for darn sure Christians were split in many ways because of it. There wasn't a monolithic stance from the evangelicals, I can assure you of that. I support it because it's a just war and there have been significant developments since its inception. The media made it out to be another Vietnam when it clearly isn't. (That's also another issue.) Annually, nearly 1 million babies in the US are killed in abortion since 1973 compared with about nearly 700,000 killed total from both sides in the Afghanistan/Iraq wars since 2001. Both are horrible, but the rate of the former is absolutely unacceptable. At least in Afghanistan and Iraq, the death toll decreased dramatically in the past two years. I can't say the same about abortion.
"Citizenlink does not have a corner on truth."
I agree, Citizenlink doesn't have a corner on truth, but they do have a lot of facts which reflect truth. And we only provided those resources to make it easier on the email recipient. I use lots of resources from both Christian and secular, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. After doing the research, my vote, even though I'm reluctant, goes to McCain because Obama's history and promises do not reflect my values. McCain isn't much of a choice either because he only recently grew a spine when it was clear he was going to be the Republican Presidential candidate. Before, he wanted to please everyone with the facade of "unity" and "reaching across the aisle" which is synonymous with another phrase - "selling out." Between the two, though, I believe McCain will make the decisions with the consequences that I can handle.
Obviously you're voting for Obama, but I'm just asking you to continue to look a little deeper into the issues than what you've read so far, even after Nov. 4.
November 03, 2008
545
This is a nice quick summary of the true responsibilities of politicians. This is not meant to be a poli-sci research paper, so specifics of how things are done are not mentioned or explained in detail. The article is also old, most likely from the mid to late '80s, but the principles are legitimate and the examples can be replaced with present politicians and issues. In the end, the blame really rests on the voters who didn't do the necessary research into their political representative and who didn't quite get how this country works.
The 545 People Responsible For All Of America's Woes
by Charley Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.
No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.
A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY
Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.
O'Neill (Pelosi) is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.
REPLACE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon (Iraq), it's because they want them in Lebanon (Iraq).
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.
(This article was taken from the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper)
The 545 People Responsible For All Of America's Woes
by Charley Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.
No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.
A CONFIDENCE CONSPIRACY
Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of Tip O'Neill, who stood up and criticized Ronald Reagan for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes.
O'Neill (Pelosi) is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow Democrats, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto.
REPLACE SCOUNDRELS
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Lebanon (Iraq), it's because they want them in Lebanon (Iraq).
There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.
(This article was taken from the Orlando Sentinel Star newspaper)
November 02, 2008
Important Election Reminder
My wife decided to write an election reminder for the people in our lives. I thought it was also a good way to introduce my blog, rather than just doing a general invite like I originally wanted.
Hello all,
Election day is almost here, and we want to take this opportunity to share with you our beliefs regarding this election. As we all know, so many issues of great importance are facing our country right now. For us, the most important issue is preserving life at all stages. Because we believe in this so strongly, we are requesting that you cast your ballot for the candidate that is most closely pro-life, John McCain.
In America, we legally kill about one million babies per year. While we have great compassion for those facing a difficult situation, the one who is innocent should not be forced to make the ultimate sacrifice by losing their life before they were even able to speak. There are so many resources and alternatives available to a woman besides abortion that should be promoted instead. While there are many very important issues at stake, such as taxes, international issues and healthcare, how the next President's policies affect our personal finances, international relations, etc are secondary issues compared with the abortion issue.
The following resources explain in more depth why we have made this choice. We understand that not everyone may agree with us, and we respect everyone's opinion. The only thing we ask is that you take a few minutes to read the articles and watch the videos and inform yourself before voting. Every vote counts, and we are privileged in this country to live in freedom and to have the right to vote.
Thank you and God Bless!
Article: Obama's Abortion Extremism by Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000008450.cfm
Video: Vote Your Values (4 mins) http://www.citizenlink.org/videofeatures/A000008556.cfm
Website: General election information and more http://www.citizenlink.org/
If you'd like, please forward these resources to others!
Hello all,
Election day is almost here, and we want to take this opportunity to share with you our beliefs regarding this election. As we all know, so many issues of great importance are facing our country right now. For us, the most important issue is preserving life at all stages. Because we believe in this so strongly, we are requesting that you cast your ballot for the candidate that is most closely pro-life, John McCain.
In America, we legally kill about one million babies per year. While we have great compassion for those facing a difficult situation, the one who is innocent should not be forced to make the ultimate sacrifice by losing their life before they were even able to speak. There are so many resources and alternatives available to a woman besides abortion that should be promoted instead. While there are many very important issues at stake, such as taxes, international issues and healthcare, how the next President's policies affect our personal finances, international relations, etc are secondary issues compared with the abortion issue.
The following resources explain in more depth why we have made this choice. We understand that not everyone may agree with us, and we respect everyone's opinion. The only thing we ask is that you take a few minutes to read the articles and watch the videos and inform yourself before voting. Every vote counts, and we are privileged in this country to live in freedom and to have the right to vote.
Thank you and God Bless!
Article: Obama's Abortion Extremism by Robert George, Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University http://www.citizenlink.org/
Video: Vote Your Values (4 mins) http://www.citizenlink.org/
Website: General election information and more http://www.citizenlink.org/
If you'd like, please forward these resources to others!
Invitation and Instructions
I planned to send this to a number of people through email, but my wife decided to write an election reminder email and we thought it was best to put a link to my blog from there instead:
Hello there!
You are cordially invited to my blog, the 12th Letter. I thought I'd give a formal invitation to more people on my address list, so if you received a link to my blog already from a previous message, then I thank you for being patient with me.
I'm inviting you because I don't get to talk with many of you and I would like to hear your thoughts on certain issues. Of course, if you would rather not comment publicly, I wouldn't mind getting private comments through email. I discuss many topics in my articles, but the majority of them concern politics, philosophy, religion, science, and martial arts.
I'm inviting you because I don't get to talk with many of you and I would like to hear your thoughts on certain issues. Of course, if you would rather not comment publicly, I wouldn't mind getting private comments through email. I discuss many topics in my articles, but the majority of them concern politics, philosophy, religion, science, and martial arts.
I want this blog to have a civil atmosphere, so please respond respectfully to other commentators. You can definitely make your position known, especially since I write about the more incendiary topics. Yes, I have very opinionated articles, but like any editorial or op-ed, it's supposed to stimulate thought and discussion. I'm fully aware that there are some of you I invited who do not have the same belief system I do or you may have the same belief system but have different nuances to it. I'm applying the principle "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" and know that this is all about reasoned discussion among the people in my life, which is something I enjoy and I hope you will too.
If you want to make a comment, click on the title of the blog article. The next page will show the article by itself with a comment box on the bottom.
1) Post your comment in the comment box.
2) Click on the "Select Profile" drop-down arrow, and select "Name/URL," write your name, and click "Continue."
3) Click on "Post Comment" then you'll have to pass a simple anti-spamming check window: Enter the word verification password they provide and click on "Finish."
If your comment is long and you don't want to lose it, my suggestion is to write it on Word or Notepad first then copy and paste into the comment box. The simplest way to post a comment is to email it to me and tell me that you want it posted in response to a particular article.
1) Post your comment in the comment box.
2) Click on the "Select Profile" drop-down arrow, and select "Name/URL," write your name, and click "Continue."
3) Click on "Post Comment" then you'll have to pass a simple anti-spamming check window: Enter the word verification password they provide and click on "Finish."
If your comment is long and you don't want to lose it, my suggestion is to write it on Word or Notepad first then copy and paste into the comment box. The simplest way to post a comment is to email it to me and tell me that you want it posted in response to a particular article.
And if you want to receive updates in email form, just respond with a reply and I'll keep you on the list. Or, if you want to do a feed or a subscription, there are different RSS feeds on the sidebar and Atom is at the very bottom of the blogpage.
Hope to hear from you!
Hope to hear from you!
October 31, 2008
Read my friggin' lips
Since the Presidential race is all about the economy now, might as well make a comparison between the two proposed tax plans. To be fair, I'll provide two links, one from a more conservative site and another from a more liberal site.
Do you prefer an uncontrollable, growth-oriented economy or do you prefer a controlled and secure, slow-moving economy? Do you prefer government's hands off the money (or as little as it should) or do you prefer government to control the money?
Research fast! You only have 4 days left!
Do you prefer an uncontrollable, growth-oriented economy or do you prefer a controlled and secure, slow-moving economy? Do you prefer government's hands off the money (or as little as it should) or do you prefer government to control the money?
Research fast! You only have 4 days left!
October 27, 2008
A Supersession discussion on CNBC?
Ann Coulter discussed theological issues on TV that isn't easily understood by the masses. I don't want to make an indictment on people's intelligence, but not too many are educated in theology with its different terminology and its definitions. In an interview with Donny Deutsch on CNBC, she did not do well in defending the Biblical position on the Jewish-Christian relationship. She sounded so ill-informed about Christianity and it was clear to me that she was also influenced by more liberal theologians. I'm a fan of Coulter so to hear her fumble like this is disappointing. Here are some parts:(Emphases by Foxnews.com. Parentheses mine.)
COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they —
DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?
COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?
DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?
(And that is one example of how NOT to invite someone to church!)...
COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.
DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or —
COULTER: Yeah.
(I admire people who are direct and I'm glad she answered succinctly, but she should have been more specific. She should have said, "No, we don't throw Judaism away, Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it. And besides, Judaism and Jewishness is cultural and does not have anything to do with how a person becomes a Christian."
...
DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you? COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners — DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued — when you say something absurd like that, there's no — COULTER: What's absurd? DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself — COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.
...
COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.
DEUTSCH: You said — your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.
COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.
DEUTSCH: But that's what you said — don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic —
COULTER: No!
DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?
COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.
DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK —
COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean (Jerry) Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.
(Ugh, once again she should have made the distinction between Judaism as being a culture and Christianity as being a decision regardless of culture. No, I'm not a perfected Jew. I have the inheritance of Abraham, the promise of Jesus, given to both the Jews and Gentiles, but the majority of Christians are Gentiles, not Jews. Fulfilled in Christ, yes, but Jewish, no. Jews who believe in Christ, now those are the fulfilled Jews. And following the Law isn't what God asks from anyone in order to get into heaven. As far as I can tell, Falwell wouldn't make the boneheaded error of saying that Jew or Gentile would go to heaven by following the Law. I'm sure he was a better theologian than that. If Coulter was so upfront about her Christianity, she should have said that it is only through faith in Jesus, His atoning sacrifice and victorious resurrection, that God sees as acceptable, nothing else. She seriously needs better training.)
...
As Christians, we have a message that is already a stumblingblock to the Jews. We have to communicate it well enough so that we don't give them a reason to reject our message. What we do, who we are, our attitude, our behavior, our bad misunderstanding of Biblical principles should take a backseat. If they are to reject at all, they should reject only Jesus Christ, not Jesus plus newbie Christian with a bad attitude. The Christian should be loving and truthful, that's it. Coulter did not represent Christ nor the Christian perspective well in the interview. We've all made the mistake of not representing Christ well, I know I have on several occasions. But because she's a public figure, she bears a greater responsibility for her words. I can only hope she makes up for it in some way in the future.
October 24, 2008
Sneaky Usurpations
"Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last."
- Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964
I'll let Ronald "The Great Communicator" answer the question on Healthcare. This was done in 1961, supported by the American Medical Association.
A few quotes from the recording:
"Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program..."
"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project..."
"All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay. And pretty soon your son won't decide, when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do."
A few of his specific examples were old school, but the principles are still sound. Now compare those principles with the healthcare plans of McCain and Obama and see whose is less sneaky. Research quickly! There're only 11 days left.
- Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964
I'll let Ronald "The Great Communicator" answer the question on Healthcare. This was done in 1961, supported by the American Medical Association.
A few quotes from the recording:
"Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program..."
"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project..."
"All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay. And pretty soon your son won't decide, when he's in school, where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do."
A few of his specific examples were old school, but the principles are still sound. Now compare those principles with the healthcare plans of McCain and Obama and see whose is less sneaky. Research quickly! There're only 11 days left.
PMABM Newsletter #9
Weigh in on this:
Fight Club for Geeks
The video is just below the article.
Some things to think about: Where do you draw the line between realistic training and animalistic brawling? Is there a line? How do you train for reality as safely as possible without taking away the "reality"? And it's good to train with improvised weapons, but is there a line to that as well, as in, when does it get just plain silly? Magazines are understandable, but toilet seats? Baking pans? Keyboards even?
Compare their group to the Dog Brothers. Here's the video from PMABM Newsletter #2. Which group do you prefer? Is one better than the other? What are some aspects that both share? This is a little harder: what are their differences? And is this truly reality training? When two (or more) fighters face each other for planned, ritualistic combat, does it prepare them for the surprise attack, which is what happens in real-life? Is it possible to blend the two in some kind of training exercise? Will self-defense training and sport training always be on two totally different worlds? Can you even consider their training as sport? And as I already stated: is it even self-defense?
Here are more videos from the Silicon Valley fight club.
Fight Club for Geeks
The video is just below the article.
Some things to think about: Where do you draw the line between realistic training and animalistic brawling? Is there a line? How do you train for reality as safely as possible without taking away the "reality"? And it's good to train with improvised weapons, but is there a line to that as well, as in, when does it get just plain silly? Magazines are understandable, but toilet seats? Baking pans? Keyboards even?
Compare their group to the Dog Brothers. Here's the video from PMABM Newsletter #2. Which group do you prefer? Is one better than the other? What are some aspects that both share? This is a little harder: what are their differences? And is this truly reality training? When two (or more) fighters face each other for planned, ritualistic combat, does it prepare them for the surprise attack, which is what happens in real-life? Is it possible to blend the two in some kind of training exercise? Will self-defense training and sport training always be on two totally different worlds? Can you even consider their training as sport? And as I already stated: is it even self-defense?
Here are more videos from the Silicon Valley fight club.
October 23, 2008
12 Days till the Election!
This takes some time to watch, but I'll list it all down. Also, comments in parentheses by kathy of Conservative Thoughts.
On the twelfth day of Christmas, the liberals gave to me:
* Twelve senators failing (12 Democrats up for re-election in 2008)
* Eleven percent approval (Lowest rating ever)
* Ten paychecks burning (Because of Democrat record tax hike)
* Ninety thousand freezing (Amount of money found in Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-La.) freezer)
* No more secret ballots (Big Labor payback for union bosses)
* $700 billion in new spending (Paid for with the largest tax hike in history)
* Six troop funding cuts (Playing political theater with the safety and security of our nation and our troops)
* Hillary’s Woodstock Museum! (What better way to spend a million dollars?)
* Four bucks a gallon (Not a single energy bill passed to help lower gas prices)
* Al Franken ranting (Angry Hollywood liberal)
* Two liberal Udalls (Mark in Colorado and Tom in New Mexico)
* And a tax hike for every family! (Thanks Democrats)
I'll have a few of my own 12 Days as well.
October 22, 2008
And in the darkness, bind them
I have now crowned The History channel as the new Discredit the Bible channel. Earlier this week I saw a documentary on the Lost Books of the Bible. The main book in question was the Testament of Solomon. In it, the narrator referred to the account of Jesus casting out a demon from a man.A few scholars interviewed attested that, while in the middle of an exorcism, Jesus said, "One greater than Solomon is now here," talking about himself. The narrator asked, "Why did Jesus say this while in the middle of an excorcism?" Both scholar and theologian then began to answer the question. They believed that Jesus was referencing the Testament of Solomon, a rejected book of the Bible. Even though the Testament was a Christian era book, its story was accepted in Jewish culture in Jesus' time. The Testament told the story of King Solomon when he fashioned a spiritually empowered ring and forced Beelzebub and his demons to build the Temple in Jerusalem. In the documentary, there was this cheesy scene with a Middle-eastern looking king commanding these demons with a bright ring on his finger. One of the scholars recited the Elvish poem from Lord of the Rings, so that it sounded like the Testament story was some proto-Tolkien Jewish myth. Scholar and narrator proceeded to say that Jesus was referring to this story about Solomon and that Jesus himself believed it to be true. "So why was it taken out of the Bible?" they asked. At that point, I turned off the TV because it was just that dumb.
I read the passage in question found in Matthew12:22 - 42 and Luke 11:14 -32 and I chuckled. There was a whole documentary, including a book, that was based on a misreading of Scripture? I guess that's typical of what the world has to offer. In the passage, Jesus exorcised a demon and the Pharisees condemned him for it, saying Jesus was using Beelzebub to cast out demons. Guess what? The Pharisees were the ones who believed the Testament of Solomon was true, not Jesus! Jesus responds with the "house divided against itself cannot stand" answer. And even after Jesus performs the exorcism miracle and gives an intellectual answer, they had the audacity to ask him to perform more miracles for them. It's at that point when Jesus spoke of Solomon (and Jonah), but in context he was talking about the Pharisees' lack of belief that he was the prophesied Messiah. He said "the queen of Sheba herself will condemn this generation for not believing." But he said this in the same conversation after the exorcism, so when Jesus said that he was "greater than Solomon," he was most likely playing on the Pharisees' stronger belief in cultural folklore than in the Messianic prophecies found in the Tanakh.
October 21, 2008
Nobody *Messes* with John McCain!
Hi, I'm Hayden Panettiere and I'm hot enough to say anything and have dumb-schmucks believe me. In all my 19 years on this Earth, I know all that there is to know about American politics. My home-schooling has trained me for the intellectual rigors of commenting on the Presidential race. I'm well-versed in international politics also, having fought those evil Japanese fishermen and their dolphin hunting. I was even awarded by those wonderful animal freaks from PETA.
Now that we've established my credibility, I'd like to say that I will only vote for a Presidential candidate who will treat his position as on-the-job training, so he could develop to his full potential. I hope you would vote for a man who has a questionable U.S. citizenship status because that only means he'll do well in international relations. I mean, I would be very diplomatic with foreign world leaders as well who want to destroy whole countries! I'd pander to their needs any day!
I want a leader who allows me to suck on the teats of government as it carries me from the cradle to the grave. Since I am a citizen, it is my right to be told by the government what I can or can't do and I want my new President to afford me more of those rights. Change is what we truly need in this country. Over time, I can only hope that this change would take as much money from me as possible so that there will be no more rich people and everyone will be middle-class. As citizens, we should be entitled to the best that the rich have to offer and give it to anyone making less than $50,000, including dead-beat dads who don't like to work because they get too much unemployment.
I know my choice for President will do his best to change America. And we will be there to unite with him as he runs it into the ground!
October 10, 2008
A Nice Proposal
Here's a common-sense approach to taking care of this whole bail-out debacle.
I don't usually like posting e-mail forwards, especially when the math is wrong, but I thought this was quite an interesting proposal for the bail-out. I wish it was this much. Hey, if the gov is going socialist, why not go for broke (like every other socialist country)? Really, if the entire $700 billion was used, it would come out to about $5,900 per fed tax payer. May not be half a mil, but it's better than a grand that a certain Presidential candidate is proposing:
A Better Bail-out Plan
by Troy LaMana
I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a 'We Deserve It Dividend'. To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bon-a-fide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00...
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your
family?...
(Or $3,000 to $6,000 out of the $700 billion if the math was done correctly. Or, assuming they give to those who pay their taxes, which is about 59% of the entire population, then it would be about $5,900 for a single person, $11,800 for married.)
Interesting thought, but I know it wouldn't happen.
I don't usually like posting e-mail forwards, especially when the math is wrong, but I thought this was quite an interesting proposal for the bail-out. I wish it was this much. Hey, if the gov is going socialist, why not go for broke (like every other socialist country)? Really, if the entire $700 billion was used, it would come out to about $5,900 per fed tax payer. May not be half a mil, but it's better than a grand that a certain Presidential candidate is proposing:
A Better Bail-out Plan
by Troy LaMana
I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a 'We Deserve It Dividend'. To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bon-a-fide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00...
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your
family?...
(Or $3,000 to $6,000 out of the $700 billion if the math was done correctly. Or, assuming they give to those who pay their taxes, which is about 59% of the entire population, then it would be about $5,900 for a single person, $11,800 for married.)
Interesting thought, but I know it wouldn't happen.
October 02, 2008
King and Crisis
Who caused this mortgage mess?
People like to play the blame game, especially in a crisis. I'm not into playing blame games, I'm into investigating the truth. Several factors come into effect in incidents like these. No one side, no one person, is the cause. To think that any one person (or Administration in many people's minds) caused this mess is to betray petty, narrow-minded thinking. There were a number of significant nudges and pushes that inevitably brought down the house.
Someone recently noted that "the single biggest piece of legislation that has led to the financial collapse we're seeing now is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. It was rushed onto Bush's desk a few days after the Supreme Court appointed that clown to the Oval office." Once again, petty, narrow-minded thinking. The person who said this has such hatred for Bush that he can't even see past his psychosis. A little fact check goes a long way in not sounding like a wild-eyed liberal doofus: President Clinton was the one who signed CFMA 2000 into law, not Bush. And even then, CFMA 2000 was merely icing, not the cause of the problem. We can go all the way back to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, but that was only the nudge. We'll have to find something recent and more directly connected to the crisis.
An article by Steven A. Holmes from September 1999 entitled "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending" mentioned several key ideas to the origins of this crisis. The New York Times is not the most conservative newspaper, so for it to have mentioned a Democrat party connection to the mess is at least being truthful and fair to the issue.
Some of the more interesting parts (emphases mine):
"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits...
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry...
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants."
So, really, the question is: What caused this mortgage mess? The cause was the culture of the time, an overcorrection if you will, of people's behavior, otherwise known as political correctness. Because of the strong desire for racial equality, especially after Rodney King and the L.A. riots, there seemed to be this nationwide need to be respectful to your fellow man. Racial discrimination is evil and being disrespectful to others is never good, but the response going the opposite direction was so extreme that the nation fell off the other side of the horse. Too much kumbaya, not enough common sense. In ignorance, government followed suit and equated risky lending with racial equality. Note to government: It's good to work on racial equality, bad to be stupid with money. Too little too late, unfortunately.
Now about the bailout: Do I agree with it? No. Is it necessary? Maybe. I absolutely hate it when government meddles with private sector business, even quasi-private like the FMs. But both parties took the chance nearly ten years ago and now we're all paying for it. As McCain said, this is only a tourniquet. Who would've known that government wasn't sure what would happen if it pointed a loaded gun at its foot then pulled the trigger. We'll see if Adam Smith's principles work even with massive government intervention like this. Can the invisible hand of a free market be led by the folly of statesmen? Ready to roll-over, Mr. Smith?
I guess it's time to sit back and see how another invisible hand will guide this process along.
People like to play the blame game, especially in a crisis. I'm not into playing blame games, I'm into investigating the truth. Several factors come into effect in incidents like these. No one side, no one person, is the cause. To think that any one person (or Administration in many people's minds) caused this mess is to betray petty, narrow-minded thinking. There were a number of significant nudges and pushes that inevitably brought down the house.
Someone recently noted that "the single biggest piece of legislation that has led to the financial collapse we're seeing now is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. It was rushed onto Bush's desk a few days after the Supreme Court appointed that clown to the Oval office." Once again, petty, narrow-minded thinking. The person who said this has such hatred for Bush that he can't even see past his psychosis. A little fact check goes a long way in not sounding like a wild-eyed liberal doofus: President Clinton was the one who signed CFMA 2000 into law, not Bush. And even then, CFMA 2000 was merely icing, not the cause of the problem. We can go all the way back to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, but that was only the nudge. We'll have to find something recent and more directly connected to the crisis.
An article by Steven A. Holmes from September 1999 entitled "Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending" mentioned several key ideas to the origins of this crisis. The New York Times is not the most conservative newspaper, so for it to have mentioned a Democrat party connection to the mess is at least being truthful and fair to the issue.
Some of the more interesting parts (emphases mine):
"In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits...
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry...
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants."
(Side note: the economic boom of the 1990s was the result of Reaganomics. Politics 101 - Each Presidential administration receives the blessings or the curses of a previous administration's actions. The Clinton admin boom years were merely the result of Reagan admin's actions.)
So, really, the question is: What caused this mortgage mess? The cause was the culture of the time, an overcorrection if you will, of people's behavior, otherwise known as political correctness. Because of the strong desire for racial equality, especially after Rodney King and the L.A. riots, there seemed to be this nationwide need to be respectful to your fellow man. Racial discrimination is evil and being disrespectful to others is never good, but the response going the opposite direction was so extreme that the nation fell off the other side of the horse. Too much kumbaya, not enough common sense. In ignorance, government followed suit and equated risky lending with racial equality. Note to government: It's good to work on racial equality, bad to be stupid with money. Too little too late, unfortunately.
Now about the bailout: Do I agree with it? No. Is it necessary? Maybe. I absolutely hate it when government meddles with private sector business, even quasi-private like the FMs. But both parties took the chance nearly ten years ago and now we're all paying for it. As McCain said, this is only a tourniquet. Who would've known that government wasn't sure what would happen if it pointed a loaded gun at its foot then pulled the trigger. We'll see if Adam Smith's principles work even with massive government intervention like this. Can the invisible hand of a free market be led by the folly of statesmen? Ready to roll-over, Mr. Smith?
I guess it's time to sit back and see how another invisible hand will guide this process along.
October 01, 2008
Palin for President!
At first, I thought, What? An Alaskan governor? A virtual unknown? John really blew it this time! And who's he trying to pick up, Hillary voters? That will definitely make me not want to vote this time around. I was disappointed enough that McCain was chosen as the GOP pick, I lost hope when I heard the announcement for his VP pick. I even told my wife how disappointed I was in how this was all turning out. Just before Palin got up for her acceptance speech, I was really skeptical and was ready to critique every line. A brunette Hillary the way McCain is a wannabe Democrat, wonderful!
After a ho-hum introduction about her life, she started to give a number of zingers against Obama. That got my attention! And then she kept going! This is definitely not Hillary! Instead of criticizing her, I found myself cheering her on! Not only that, but I started to see why McCain chose her. Hm, open-mouth-insert-foot time. Talk about a good first impression! I've always been for people who do what's right and go against the world's culture, or in this case, who go against power-hungry, money-grubbing politicians. I'm glad she didn't make many promises. What I got from her speech was an attitude of defiance against the status quo, who would take back America from those who think that greater government involvement is the answer.
Forget McCain! I'm voting for Palin.
Now with my new found energy for the election, I've been following it more closely. What got me was when Katie Couric interviewed Palin a few days ago. Couric asked Palin which Supreme Court decisions she disagreed with besides Roe vs. Wade. Palin began to work her way through an answer, but she started to fumble and then regained her composure by focusing on those decisions that supported the power of the States rather than the Federal government. She didn't bring up an example, which I can understand. Who keeps a list of Supreme Court decisions in their mind anyway? And even then, the only one I could think of off the top of my head was Brown vs. Board of Education, and that's one I agree with! (Given a little time, I recalled a couple more, but I was hazy on what they specifically talked about.) When I looked at Couric's face, I knew she wanted to make a fool out of Palin. This was most likely Couric's way to get back at Republicans after the whole Biden fiasco when he said that people saw Roosevelt on TV during the Great Depression. Now that was an actual mistake on his part, he volunteered to look like an idiot! Couric simply had it in for Palin and got her back. Cheap shot!
If I was in Palin's position, I would've responded like this:
"Hm, at this moment, I can't recall any, although I do remember studying many cases in high school and college. I've been busy as a mother and as a governor, I haven't had time to refresh my memory. Since I'm not one to play trivia games especially in interviews, I'll just have to get back to you on those. What I do know is that I disagreed with those decisions, like Roe vs. Wade, that gave more power to the Federal government and took away the power of the States and the people, a clear violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments..."
I can only hope Palin keeps up that tough yet classy attitude.
September 16, 2008
What I felt like saying
I've stopped debating with the evolutionist because he was not the challenge that he made himself out to be. Also, I don't have much time to do email debates at this point in my life. I didn't send my response because it seemed too obnoxious and I didn't want to lower myself to his level. But sometimes it's fun to get down and dirty. This blog will be the only place I will put this response.
The evolutionist:
Here is a quick write up on fossil formation. I think it goes a long way on explaining the shortage of certain types of life in the fossil record.
http://www.scienceviews.com/dinosaurs/fossilformation.html
The evolutionist:
Here is a quick write up on fossil formation. I think it goes a long way on explaining the shortage of certain types of life in the fossil record.
http://www.scienceviews.com/
What I wanted to send, but thought was best not to:
I used to read this kind of information when I was nine years old! If you were serious about this link, then you've just betrayed your lack of scientific training. This is not the kind of information that you'd give to serious, science-oriented adults. Yes, it's easy to fool children with the idea that decomposing bodies in the water are buried over a period of time and then become fossilized. If you didn't catch it earlier, there is no shortage of fossils, just a shortage of fossils that support evolutionary theory.
I've come to the conclusion that you don't seem to read too well, that you don't catch context and details. You assume too much or at worst, twist things irrationally. To debaters, that's usually a sign of desperation. At this point, I won't continue on the grounds that you are plugging your ears and saying lalala, intellectually speaking that is, and I also have to lay off from this discussion indefinitely because of my busy schedule. I'm not conceding, of course. Believe me, I enjoy this stuff. I just find it frustrating to seriously discuss matters, not because you stump me. Far from it. I find that you are uninformed of the issues and intricacies involved in this debate and I'm not one to teach the basics to my opponent. You've proven to me that you're a neophyte and, sadly, one that's totally indoctrinated by an emaciated public education system.
Once again, I have nothing against you. I'll play games with you, I just won't discuss serious scientific issues with you.
August 23, 2008
Let's get ready to rumble! (Part 4)
The evolutionist:
If you want specific replys to some of the issues raised here, we will need to break it up some. But I will try to address the items below. Intelligent design and creationism are one in the same. The same people are involved in the same organizations. The only difference is that some of them shy away from saying God when they reference an 'intelligent designer'. Find me one of these 'scientists' who would be comfortable with the the 'intelligent designer' being called Allah, and I will believe you. In fact, I think I would be much closer to believing that you believe in 'intelligent design' if we agreed from on use the term Allah whenever we reference the 'intelligent designer'.
I have re-read every e-mail you have sent me, and there was no link to anything, so I don't know what you mean when you say I have not looked into 'the resource' you suggested. Unless you want me to read entire book you mentioned. Which I have not done. As to the two websites. The Discovery Institute and AllAboutGod. And guess what, two of the three links you sent me lead right back there. The third one was PBS. Which was very useful (I read all three). It exactly coincides with what I was saying about punctuated evolution, and how it is perfectly compatible with Darwin's thought, and with current evolutionary thought. Thank you, I hope Peter read it too.
I am confused at your conclusion since this article clearly reinforces my original statement. In fact, it says that speciation can occur in a matter of tens of thousands of years, which thought anyway but didn't want to freak you out with that suggestion. The 1 million years was enough to get you foaming at the mouth. I will get back to you on how fossils are formed. I need to find some good articles on the subject, because my memory of stuff I have read before isn't specific enough to tell you right where to go. Although I think it would be as easy for you to find as me. I am just going to go to some scientific organzation websites and some science journals and see what turns up from a general search.
Imperfect fossil record. Let me get this right, you will only accept evolution when we have a 'perfect' fossil record? That is what you require? Because if you can accept only perfect historical evidence, than we might have all kinds of problems here with the bible. There are many, many transitional forms of fossils. I will find some articles about that too.
Please don't pull up the same Darwin quote that Pete did. That only makes it so obvious that the objections come from the same small self-referencial community. Again, that quote is a rhetorical question that he answers in the book. For confimation, please refer to the same article you just sent me on punctuated evolution.
Me:
Thank you for your response, it was slightly more courteous and I appreciate it. I was almost finished writing my response when I began to read some of your exchanges with the others from this past week. I think I may be repeating some things. Hope you all don't mind. Warning: this one's long:
G. Simpson's phrase "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind" is not merely one man's thought, but the very basis for your naturalist materialistic presupposition. I'm in the middle of writing a comment to your "Viewpoints" response to Pete which should help us get down to the root issue.
The Discovery Institute and AllAboutGod. That's funny, I don't normally use those two websites when I debate. I didn't know about AllaboutGod until I started following this thread. I simply wanted to show you there are scientists who believe in Intelligent Design. But it's understandable that DI pops up: it's because they're the lead organization of this movement. And if you're still not convinced there are credible scientists who believe in ID, here's an official list (and I doubt all are creationist Christians):
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Sorry to use DI's website, but just wanted to show you that there is an actual growing list and there are many more scientists being added as we speak. Even from the Muslim world. Here are a couple of Muslim scientists who believe in Intelligent Design:
Dr. Iqbal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzaffar_Iqbal - unfortunately, you may see his name on the dissenters list on DI, a site you don't like. But you wanted ID from the Islamic world, so here's one. More will be added soon by the way.
Dr. Torla Hassan http://research.iiu.edu.my/cluster/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=27 and I'm sure most of the professors at that Islamic school are ID supporters/creationists. As a default, Muslims are creationists.
Intelligent design and creationism are one in the same. The same people are involved in the same organizations.
Now you're simply being obstinate. It seems you're not very careful with what you read. In your stubborness and haste to defend evolution, you get a little sloppy. Once again, you make it obvious you don't see the differences between ID and Creationism. Please read more about these differences. To start you off, I'll give you a website, not related to DI or AllaboutGod, just to be fair to you:
The definitions are to the middle of the page to the right under the title Who's What? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm
Let me make this as simple as possible: just because some websites have links to DI and use each other's information, does not make them the same entity. And also, it seems you haven't read into the biography of at least one of those two ID scientists. Dr. Sternberg is an evolutionist who believes there was an intelligent first cause, and that's it. I didn't check to see if he is a Christian or even a creationist, you can help me with that if you want. But I know he is open to the idea that Nous began all things. As far as I can tell, that's not all too Christian, because there's more to God than just the Great Mind. Dr. Sternberg is a fellow with ISCID and a signatory for DI's dissent from random-chance evolution but is not affiliated with creationists and still considers himself an old Earth biological evolutionist. From your statements, you have programmed yourself to believe ID is a cover for creationism or at least that it's a variant called neo-creationism. It may have been started by a Christian, but it is definitely not Christian. Many people are confused about it because there are so many different ways to go about intelligent design. A Hindu can be an ID supporter as easily as a Christian. Or, agnostics like Darwin and Berlinski. And just because a PA court defined ID as a progeny of creationism, doesn't mean it's true. Just shows state courts aren't the most reliable places to define movements of scientific thought. If you can't make sense of it yet, please accept it for now. As we continue to dialogue, I hope it will click for you. Let's continue with more important points.
Constantly varying speciation is true below the order level, that's observable, a reason why most creationists will say microevolution is science-based theory, since Darwin was mostly talking about his observation of change in species. I can't agree on what he couldn't observe or find in the fossil record of a major phylum shift, which was more of a guess on his part. But then again, the term "species" (and sometimes genus and family) isn't even agreed on among evolutionists. I hate using wikipedia, but this sums it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
And here's another from the American Scientist:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2005/7/attacks-on-taxonomy
Please make sure to carefully read the links I send because you seem to be missing out on certain details which doesn't help your argument. I'm even willing to place the excerpt in this message if that will help. I just wanted you to read it in context.
It exactly coincides with what I was saying about punctuated evolution, and how it is perfectly compatible with Darwin's thought, and with current evolutionary thought.
Well, yeah, no kidding it's not going to be drastically different from evolution because punc eq is still evolution! I was pointing out the differences of emphasis from Darwin to today, which you didn't catch. Remember, the link I gave you about punc eq was only a short summary, not the complete explanation. Punc Eq is a change or improvement from Darwin's assertion, "of slow and gradual modification, through variation and natural selection. New species have appeared very slowly, one after another, both on the land and in the waters." It's the assertion "slow gradual change" vs. "rapid burst" that you missed. You may have missed this part: "In many cases, scientists have been unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin himself was shaken by their absence. His conclusion was that the fossil record has lacked these transitional stages, because it was so incomplete (aka imperfect, Darwin's term). That is certainly true in many cases, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are small (this sentence is an assumption and a cop out that Darwin made, although he was hoping for more evidence). But in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation (emphasis mine), which they called "punctuated equilibrium." That is, species are generally stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is "punctuated" by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species and that leaves few fossils behind."
And 150 years later, there is still a lack of a fossil record. Unlike most evolutionists, Gould at least questions the theory when it's challenged by the evidence, which is why he and Eldredge presented punc eq. One of the many disadvantages to their theory is that higher percentages of deleterious mutations occur within a smaller population. (For reference please see M. E. Soulé, et al, "No Need to Isolate Genetics," Science, Vol. 282 (1998), p. 1658, who points out the grad/punc difference by saying "No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Some of Soule's ideas runs counter to other evolutionists, though, and that's a whole other issue I'm not about to get into.)
More from other scientists: Todd's article "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Casual Relationship," American Zoologist, vol. 26, no. 4, 1980, p. 757
"All three subdivisions of bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?"
From Wesson's Beyond Natural Selection (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991) p. 45.
"The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."
I'm sorry to disappoint you on the Darwin quote, it was from a chapter in OotS. I must have missed Pete's email on that. I'll give you another one if you'd like:
"If then, there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have no right to expect to find in our geological formations, an infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which on my theory assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life. We ought only to look for a few links, some more closely, some more distantly related to each other; and these links, let them be ever so close, if found in different stages of the same formation, would, by most palaeontologists, be ranked as distinct species. But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life, the best preserved geological section presented, had not the difficulty of our not discovering innumerable transitional links between the species which appeared at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory." (emphases mine)
Your comment about his statement being a rhetorical question is not accurate. In OotS, you will see that Darwin was being open about the possibility of a lack of evidence to alter his theory, what a good scientist should do. Of course, Darwin tried his best to reason away this lack in the two or so chapters after, and does something very unscientific: because the evidence doesn't clearly support his theory, he says the evidence must not be correct or is imperfect. He makes the mistake that evolutionists today tend to do - they place theory above observation (or wait indefinitely for the right evidence to come along, which may not. "But evolution must be true" and the circular reasoning goes round and round). As G. Simpson said, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything...or at the very least, they are not science." And that's one of many reasons why I don't believe in evolution - it is not science but a worldview.
Here is an even better quote. I made sure not to look at DI, AllaboutGod and my sources for this one, but from the book itself: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." These days, Darwin, who was an agnostic, could be technically labeled as an ID theorist, and some of them are agnostics and atheists.
And I gave you five links last time, not just three. The two links on fossilization are not connected to those dreaded "two websites." You may look for others if you'd like, but you will most likely find similar results. Don't worry, I don't freak out at suggestions, I merely respond with good reasoning.
I have re-read every e-mail you have sent me, and there was no link to anything, so I don't know what you mean when you say I have not looked into 'the resource' you suggested. Unless you want me to read entire book you mentioned. Which I have not done.
I wasn't talking about a link, I was talking about the Journal of Paleontology, which I mentioned in a previous email, but didn't specifically point out which issue. But thank you for being honest about not reading Darwin's book, if that was what you were referring to.
In fact, I think I would be much closer to believing that you believe in 'intelligent design' if we agreed from on use the term Allah whenever we reference the 'intelligent designer'.
Harty har! Cute phrase. But if you're serious, then you assume too much. I'm a creationist. ID is a different entity. No, the term God will suffice. If you knew the differences, the nuances, and the connotations, you'll understand.
In summary:
1) ID is different from Creationism.
2) There are legitimate and credentialed scientists in all three camps with their own journals.
3) Darwinism is still without good transition forms between phyla.
If you want specific replys to some of the issues raised here, we will need to break it up some. But I will try to address the items below. Intelligent design and creationism are one in the same. The same people are involved in the same organizations. The only difference is that some of them shy away from saying God when they reference an 'intelligent designer'. Find me one of these 'scientists' who would be comfortable with the the 'intelligent designer' being called Allah, and I will believe you. In fact, I think I would be much closer to believing that you believe in 'intelligent design' if we agreed from on use the term Allah whenever we reference the 'intelligent designer'.
I have re-read every e-mail you have sent me, and there was no link to anything, so I don't know what you mean when you say I have not looked into 'the resource' you suggested. Unless you want me to read entire book you mentioned. Which I have not done. As to the two websites. The Discovery Institute and AllAboutGod. And guess what, two of the three links you sent me lead right back there. The third one was PBS. Which was very useful (I read all three). It exactly coincides with what I was saying about punctuated evolution, and how it is perfectly compatible with Darwin's thought, and with current evolutionary thought. Thank you, I hope Peter read it too.
I am confused at your conclusion since this article clearly reinforces my original statement. In fact, it says that speciation can occur in a matter of tens of thousands of years, which thought anyway but didn't want to freak you out with that suggestion. The 1 million years was enough to get you foaming at the mouth. I will get back to you on how fossils are formed. I need to find some good articles on the subject, because my memory of stuff I have read before isn't specific enough to tell you right where to go. Although I think it would be as easy for you to find as me. I am just going to go to some scientific organzation websites and some science journals and see what turns up from a general search.
Imperfect fossil record. Let me get this right, you will only accept evolution when we have a 'perfect' fossil record? That is what you require? Because if you can accept only perfect historical evidence, than we might have all kinds of problems here with the bible. There are many, many transitional forms of fossils. I will find some articles about that too.
Please don't pull up the same Darwin quote that Pete did. That only makes it so obvious that the objections come from the same small self-referencial community. Again, that quote is a rhetorical question that he answers in the book. For confimation, please refer to the same article you just sent me on punctuated evolution.
Me:
Thank you for your response, it was slightly more courteous and I appreciate it. I was almost finished writing my response when I began to read some of your exchanges with the others from this past week. I think I may be repeating some things. Hope you all don't mind. Warning: this one's long:
G. Simpson's phrase "Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind" is not merely one man's thought, but the very basis for your naturalist materialistic presupposition. I'm in the middle of writing a comment to your "Viewpoints" response to Pete which should help us get down to the root issue.
The Discovery Institute and AllAboutGod. That's funny, I don't normally use those two websites when I debate. I didn't know about AllaboutGod until I started following this thread. I simply wanted to show you there are scientists who believe in Intelligent Design. But it's understandable that DI pops up: it's because they're the lead organization of this movement. And if you're still not convinced there are credible scientists who believe in ID, here's an official list (and I doubt all are creationist Christians):
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Sorry to use DI's website, but just wanted to show you that there is an actual growing list and there are many more scientists being added as we speak. Even from the Muslim world. Here are a couple of Muslim scientists who believe in Intelligent Design:
Dr. Iqbal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzaffar_Iqbal - unfortunately, you may see his name on the dissenters list on DI, a site you don't like. But you wanted ID from the Islamic world, so here's one. More will be added soon by the way.
Dr. Torla Hassan http://research.iiu.edu.my/cluster/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=27 and I'm sure most of the professors at that Islamic school are ID supporters/creationists. As a default, Muslims are creationists.
Intelligent design and creationism are one in the same. The same people are involved in the same organizations.
Now you're simply being obstinate. It seems you're not very careful with what you read. In your stubborness and haste to defend evolution, you get a little sloppy. Once again, you make it obvious you don't see the differences between ID and Creationism. Please read more about these differences. To start you off, I'll give you a website, not related to DI or AllaboutGod, just to be fair to you:
The definitions are to the middle of the page to the right under the title Who's What? http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm
Let me make this as simple as possible: just because some websites have links to DI and use each other's information, does not make them the same entity. And also, it seems you haven't read into the biography of at least one of those two ID scientists. Dr. Sternberg is an evolutionist who believes there was an intelligent first cause, and that's it. I didn't check to see if he is a Christian or even a creationist, you can help me with that if you want. But I know he is open to the idea that Nous began all things. As far as I can tell, that's not all too Christian, because there's more to God than just the Great Mind. Dr. Sternberg is a fellow with ISCID and a signatory for DI's dissent from random-chance evolution but is not affiliated with creationists and still considers himself an old Earth biological evolutionist. From your statements, you have programmed yourself to believe ID is a cover for creationism or at least that it's a variant called neo-creationism. It may have been started by a Christian, but it is definitely not Christian. Many people are confused about it because there are so many different ways to go about intelligent design. A Hindu can be an ID supporter as easily as a Christian. Or, agnostics like Darwin and Berlinski. And just because a PA court defined ID as a progeny of creationism, doesn't mean it's true. Just shows state courts aren't the most reliable places to define movements of scientific thought. If you can't make sense of it yet, please accept it for now. As we continue to dialogue, I hope it will click for you. Let's continue with more important points.
Constantly varying speciation is true below the order level, that's observable, a reason why most creationists will say microevolution is science-based theory, since Darwin was mostly talking about his observation of change in species. I can't agree on what he couldn't observe or find in the fossil record of a major phylum shift, which was more of a guess on his part. But then again, the term "species" (and sometimes genus and family) isn't even agreed on among evolutionists. I hate using wikipedia, but this sums it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
And here's another from the American Scientist:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2005/7/attacks-on-taxonomy
Please make sure to carefully read the links I send because you seem to be missing out on certain details which doesn't help your argument. I'm even willing to place the excerpt in this message if that will help. I just wanted you to read it in context.
It exactly coincides with what I was saying about punctuated evolution, and how it is perfectly compatible with Darwin's thought, and with current evolutionary thought.
Well, yeah, no kidding it's not going to be drastically different from evolution because punc eq is still evolution! I was pointing out the differences of emphasis from Darwin to today, which you didn't catch. Remember, the link I gave you about punc eq was only a short summary, not the complete explanation. Punc Eq is a change or improvement from Darwin's assertion, "of slow and gradual modification, through variation and natural selection. New species have appeared very slowly, one after another, both on the land and in the waters." It's the assertion "slow gradual change" vs. "rapid burst" that you missed. You may have missed this part: "In many cases, scientists have been unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin himself was shaken by their absence. His conclusion was that the fossil record has lacked these transitional stages, because it was so incomplete (aka imperfect, Darwin's term). That is certainly true in many cases, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are small (this sentence is an assumption and a cop out that Darwin made, although he was hoping for more evidence). But in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation (emphasis mine), which they called "punctuated equilibrium." That is, species are generally stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is "punctuated" by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species and that leaves few fossils behind."
And 150 years later, there is still a lack of a fossil record. Unlike most evolutionists, Gould at least questions the theory when it's challenged by the evidence, which is why he and Eldredge presented punc eq. One of the many disadvantages to their theory is that higher percentages of deleterious mutations occur within a smaller population. (For reference please see M. E. Soulé, et al, "No Need to Isolate Genetics," Science, Vol. 282 (1998), p. 1658, who points out the grad/punc difference by saying "No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Some of Soule's ideas runs counter to other evolutionists, though, and that's a whole other issue I'm not about to get into.)
More from other scientists: Todd's article "Evolution of the Lung and the Origin of Bony Fishes: A Casual Relationship," American Zoologist, vol. 26, no. 4, 1980, p. 757
"All three subdivisions of bony fishes first appear in the fossil record at approximately the same time. They are already widely divergent morphologically, and are heavily armored. How did they originate? What allowed them to diverge so widely? How did they all come to have heavy armor? And why is there no trace of earlier, intermediate forms?"
From Wesson's Beyond Natural Selection (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991) p. 45.
"The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."
I'm sorry to disappoint you on the Darwin quote, it was from a chapter in OotS. I must have missed Pete's email on that. I'll give you another one if you'd like:
"If then, there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have no right to expect to find in our geological formations, an infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which on my theory assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life. We ought only to look for a few links, some more closely, some more distantly related to each other; and these links, let them be ever so close, if found in different stages of the same formation, would, by most palaeontologists, be ranked as distinct species. But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life, the best preserved geological section presented, had not the difficulty of our not discovering innumerable transitional links between the species which appeared at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory." (emphases mine)
Your comment about his statement being a rhetorical question is not accurate. In OotS, you will see that Darwin was being open about the possibility of a lack of evidence to alter his theory, what a good scientist should do. Of course, Darwin tried his best to reason away this lack in the two or so chapters after, and does something very unscientific: because the evidence doesn't clearly support his theory, he says the evidence must not be correct or is imperfect. He makes the mistake that evolutionists today tend to do - they place theory above observation (or wait indefinitely for the right evidence to come along, which may not. "But evolution must be true" and the circular reasoning goes round and round). As G. Simpson said, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not really about anything...or at the very least, they are not science." And that's one of many reasons why I don't believe in evolution - it is not science but a worldview.
Here is an even better quote. I made sure not to look at DI, AllaboutGod and my sources for this one, but from the book itself: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." These days, Darwin, who was an agnostic, could be technically labeled as an ID theorist, and some of them are agnostics and atheists.
And I gave you five links last time, not just three. The two links on fossilization are not connected to those dreaded "two websites." You may look for others if you'd like, but you will most likely find similar results. Don't worry, I don't freak out at suggestions, I merely respond with good reasoning.
I have re-read every e-mail you have sent me, and there was no link to anything, so I don't know what you mean when you say I have not looked into 'the resource' you suggested. Unless you want me to read entire book you mentioned. Which I have not done.
I wasn't talking about a link, I was talking about the Journal of Paleontology, which I mentioned in a previous email, but didn't specifically point out which issue. But thank you for being honest about not reading Darwin's book, if that was what you were referring to.
In fact, I think I would be much closer to believing that you believe in 'intelligent design' if we agreed from on use the term Allah whenever we reference the 'intelligent designer'.
Harty har! Cute phrase. But if you're serious, then you assume too much. I'm a creationist. ID is a different entity. No, the term God will suffice. If you knew the differences, the nuances, and the connotations, you'll understand.
In summary:
1) ID is different from Creationism.
2) There are legitimate and credentialed scientists in all three camps with their own journals.
3) Darwinism is still without good transition forms between phyla.
Let's get ready to rumble! (Part 3)
The evolutionist:
The whole business about fossilization.Flora and fauna occur at radically different densities and of radically different types in different age rocks. Exactly as predicted in the evolutionary model. The part you left out about your evalution was the nature of the rock itself. Some types of rock are formed through creative destruction. It is broken up, remelted, puverized or otherwise completely reformed through geological processes. Other rock layers, formed through other processes, then presearved in its original state through shear luck, are presented to us intact. Sometimes we are lucky enough to have the right condition for fossilization to have occured millions of years ago when they were formed. These layers are indeed dense with life, while others, those that come to us through a destructive process, contain no traces. Just as would be predicted. I do not agree with the scenario you laid out before for fossilization, because it does not take into account this geological process.
Me:
Finally, I get the chance to do this again. Whoa, didn't realize you guys kept going, but here's my response to what Erich wrote last week. Hope you don't mind:
Geomorphism is good and fine, it's observable and can be tested (with the exception of age, which both camps differ). As I stated, though: How did the fossils get there? Not, how was it "preserved through the eons," but how did it get fossilized in the first place. There are so many fossils that were caused by permineralization and compression that "shear luck" can't really account for it. Besides, the "radically different" sentence about rocks is a given for both models (once again, with the exception of age). Geomorphism is a given. Please account for how the remains got there and instantiate your claims. And don't say that dinosaurs buried their dead!
And here's an excerpt from Raup's 'Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology' (and just in case you think this is from Creationist literature this is from Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History: Chicago IL, January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.22-29, pp.24-25)
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."
I'll include this train of thought in the next email.
The whole business about fossilization.Flora and fauna occur at radically different densities and of radically different types in different age rocks. Exactly as predicted in the evolutionary model. The part you left out about your evalution was the nature of the rock itself. Some types of rock are formed through creative destruction. It is broken up, remelted, puverized or otherwise completely reformed through geological processes. Other rock layers, formed through other processes, then presearved in its original state through shear luck, are presented to us intact. Sometimes we are lucky enough to have the right condition for fossilization to have occured millions of years ago when they were formed. These layers are indeed dense with life, while others, those that come to us through a destructive process, contain no traces. Just as would be predicted. I do not agree with the scenario you laid out before for fossilization, because it does not take into account this geological process.
Me:
Finally, I get the chance to do this again. Whoa, didn't realize you guys kept going, but here's my response to what Erich wrote last week. Hope you don't mind:
Geomorphism is good and fine, it's observable and can be tested (with the exception of age, which both camps differ). As I stated, though: How did the fossils get there? Not, how was it "preserved through the eons," but how did it get fossilized in the first place. There are so many fossils that were caused by permineralization and compression that "shear luck" can't really account for it. Besides, the "radically different" sentence about rocks is a given for both models (once again, with the exception of age). Geomorphism is a given. Please account for how the remains got there and instantiate your claims. And don't say that dinosaurs buried their dead!
And here's an excerpt from Raup's 'Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology' (and just in case you think this is from Creationist literature this is from Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History: Chicago IL, January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.22-29, pp.24-25)
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."
I'll include this train of thought in the next email.
August 19, 2008
Define discipline
About a week ago, I heard a complaint made by a student from another school about my martial arts school. He said that our school is not the place to learn discipline and that it's best to go to his school instead. I'm not one to jump at every complaint made about me, especially if it's not legitimate. I'll take it into account, but I don't let those things bother me. But just in case my students need an idea of how to respond to people who make those comments, this entry gives an answer. Apparently, whoever made the complaint wasn't practicing discipline with his words:
My school does not teach traditional martial arts so it will not have the same formalities. Bowing and lining up in rank order is a fine practice. It's a good visual aid to a form of discipline, but it is not the discipline itself. One major philosophy in our school is practicality, so you will not see these forms like you see in traditional schools. Instead, there is more of an emphasis on personal responsibility. The teacher motivates the students to take initiative for their martial arts training and have the students pursue their own personal goals while maintaining the attitude of mutual respect. Both the teacher and the student work together to reach those goals and concurrently learn how to work with others to reach their goals.
Through the martial arts, students learn to abide by a code of conduct based on respect for the teacher, fellow students, and the art form. This is done through consistent direct communication of what is expected of them, which is all good and fine. But from my experience and observation, when the sensei or coach tells students what to do, and they do it, it's only discipline for that particular activity. The student did not necessarily transfer that discipline to other areas of life. The hope of "do what you're told" is that the habit of doing that activity would transfer to other areas, but that isn't always the case. In fact, for the most part, students become dependent on someone to tell them what to do rather than take initiative to do what's needed for them personally.
(There are those who come to resent the more demanding authority, also.)
"Over-reliance on extrinsic motivation leads to learned helplessness and learned dependence. Learned helplessness is a state in which the individual does not believe that she is capable of influencing important outcomes in her life. The more students’ behavior is determined by others’ directions and external inducements, the more the students will lose their sense of self-determination and self-efficacy" (Ylvisikar, Hibbard, and Feeney, Online).
Only few actually learn to internalize those discipline concepts and transfer them to other areas of life. I guide students to what they need to do and from there, they choose to do it. Instead of just telling them what to do, I take the extra step of letting them know how it applies to other life activities and to persistently persuade them to be more intrinsically motivated. They will choose to do what is demanded of them.
A second point to our method of discipline is that our school does not adhere to Confucian-influenced hierarchy. We do teach discipline, just not in the traditional Asian martial arts sense of the word. We respect the instructor because he is willing to give his knowledge and time to train the student and he is the authority in matters of coaching in the martial arts and various parts of life. In Confucian philosophy, the basis for respecting the instructor has more to do with filial piety, or ancestor worship. People are intuitively aware of a spiritual reality and most if not all cultures are naturally inclined to be superstitious. This means that "spirit" to the Confucian is not just the ideals, essence of philosophy, and personality of a dead person, but "spirit" means the soul, the very life-force of the person that continues on after death. Instead of submitting to authority out of simply respecting them because you seek their knowledge and experience, in Confucian-influenced societies, submitting to authority has more to do with respecting those "spirits", thus keeping order in a collective or else incur the wrath of your ancestors and the government. I have endeavored not to include any hint of Eastern spirituality or even hierarchy structure based on Eastern spirituality in my martial arts philosophy.
The best answer, of course, was made by one of my students:
"You've never practiced with us, so how would you know?"
August 15, 2008
Let's get ready to rumble! (Part 2)
The evolutionist:
Intelligent Design is just a stupid cover term for Creationism. There is no scientific 'Intelligent Design' movement. Look into it, and it all leads back to the same two web sites run by non-sicentist Christians organizations pushing literal interpretation of the bible. And they are not "growing". The "many articles" again all lead back to the same place. Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years. In the context of the age of the earth, this a mere blink of the eye. This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.
Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant. Or wait! Maybe the THOUSANDS of scientists that looked at this issue have all missed the explaination you have given below. Yeah, that;s it! That's the ticket! You have a grasp of the requirements for fossilization that TENS OF THOUSANDS of scientists who spend their whole lives studying this issue have not figured out! I strongly suggest you write an article for a real sicence journal (i.e. one that is not published by the same two web sites run by the same non-scientist Cristian organization pushing literal interpretation of the bible). This kind of new insight into the truth is exactly what the science world is always looking for. Except for the Satanists in the scientific world, who will work undercover to squash your ideas to keep their minions in line.
Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right. That would, indeed, require supernatural intervention of the Satanic kind.
Me:
Ah, it seems you've been listening to the National Center for Science Education who are on the defensive these days.
No, ID isn't a cover term. I had hoped you wouldn't say that because it would tell me you aren't knowledgeable of the intricacies involved in this hotly debated issue. If you've ever read anything from them, you'll see that not all are creationists. They have a variety of views and not all even acknowledge the God of the Bible. So unfortunately your statement disappointed me there. And yes, there are scientists in the intelligent design movement, but are just branded by the media as ignorant and vilified by the evolutionary dogmatists, who have a loud voice but no real evidential support. I guess you like to listen to good marketing. (My favorite evolutionary sales pitches are found on the Discovery channel.) It seems you really haven't taken the time to look into the resource I suggested. Don't worry, they're not the "two websites" that you keep harping on. What are those websites anyway? Yes, I use "two websites," but I also use several other websites and sources. Once again you have no backing to your claim that those "two websites" only employ "non-scientists." Your argument is weak. Please take the time to buttress your statements like I do mine.
Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant.
Please explain because you begin with an assertion but fail to give good follow-up reasoning. Your statement is incomplete. I know we're only having email discussions, but you can still provide examples like I did. My reasoning is based on scientific logic and observable phenomena. Yours? Sounds like parroted statements made by the more militant evolutionary dogmatists who, like you, say that evolution is true without good enough support to their statements. I'm also disappointed because you didn't honor me by responding with an example using scientific methodology, no matter how small, or even a good counterargument without resorting to unnecessary diatribe. And if you want credibility, here are a couple of Intelligent Design scientists, not to be confused with "non-scientist Christians" Jonathan Wells http://www.iconsofevolution.com/author/ and Richard Sternberg http://www.richardsternberg.org/biography.php
Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years.
This is another unsubstantiated statement. And yes I'm aware that evolutionists think it could be up to 1 million years, but not too much longer. They don't have the fossil record for it, which is why some even think it's much faster, even down to the tens of thousands of years. I don't usually like using websites like these as a resource, but make sure you look into this quick summary of punctuated equilibrium.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html
Or if you've read anything by Gould you'll recognize this phrase when talking about punctuated equilibrium and the "imperfect fossil record" statement that Darwin had to fall back on in the 19th century: the imperfect record statement "still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly." I know he said that in the 1970s but it's still relevant today. Even though he was coming from an evolutionary standpoint and, in context, wanted to explain punctuated equilibrium, the fact remains, even by evolutionist standards: there are no good transition forms.
This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.
Darwin proposed gradualism and uniformitarianism, well-informed evolutionists these days accept otherwise (although that side is varied and a few try to synthesize). Darwin himself wrote in The Origin of the Species: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." For those who compare the fossil record and Darwin's theory, the record wins and Darwin's theory needs changing. It has been changed and revised since the 19th century by the way.
Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right.
Concerning my fossilization example, here are two sources to counter your not-too-well-cited and albeit, overgeneralized and weak statements: (No, they're not from those "two websites" and bold words are mine.)
From the New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fossil
"Permineralization fossilization - for permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decaying process...Most dinosaur fossils that are found are permineralized."
From UCMP at Berkeley: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleo/fossils/
"There are many conditions that contribute to the formation of fossils. The most common include the possession of hard parts, such as a skeleton or shell, and a rapid burial after death. Besides being tough and hard, the organism must come to rest in a place where it can be buried before it decays or disintegrates. If the organism is not buried deeply and quickly, aerobic bacteria will reduce it to rubble."
I used to go to NYC's Museum of Natural History quite often and they display lots of fossils in a chaotic jumble. You will either accept that there was a massive burial of many different flora and fauna over "several geologic eras" or you will accept that there was only a small and limited amount of fossilized remains. The evidence of course points to the former. And no, not too many evolutionists will accept the simple fact that fossils with complex structures are found in all strata.
Oh, and I have both The Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man in my personal library. I've read both (absolutely dull). Have you? From what I've read of your comments so far, it seems you have not. And it's disappointing that you haven't kept up with the most recent research, in the evolution camp, in the intelligent design camp, and in the creation camp.
And please, try not to get upset. I have nothing against you and I hope you have nothing against me. I'm having fun with this and I'm sure you are, too. I mean, it's highly entertaining to hear you talk of Satan and conspiracy theories, but it doesn't have any bearing on our discussion right now. We'll talk about spiritual issues, too, no doubt about that. But if you think this discussion is a joke and you'd rather not share in serious scientific inquiry, then I would have to bow out, since I can't waste my time. I need you to be a professional, science-minded adult while we discuss.
Intelligent Design is just a stupid cover term for Creationism. There is no scientific 'Intelligent Design' movement. Look into it, and it all leads back to the same two web sites run by non-sicentist Christians organizations pushing literal interpretation of the bible. And they are not "growing". The "many articles" again all lead back to the same place. Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years. In the context of the age of the earth, this a mere blink of the eye. This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.
Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant. Or wait! Maybe the THOUSANDS of scientists that looked at this issue have all missed the explaination you have given below. Yeah, that;s it! That's the ticket! You have a grasp of the requirements for fossilization that TENS OF THOUSANDS of scientists who spend their whole lives studying this issue have not figured out! I strongly suggest you write an article for a real sicence journal (i.e. one that is not published by the same two web sites run by the same non-scientist Cristian organization pushing literal interpretation of the bible). This kind of new insight into the truth is exactly what the science world is always looking for. Except for the Satanists in the scientific world, who will work undercover to squash your ideas to keep their minions in line.
Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right. That would, indeed, require supernatural intervention of the Satanic kind.
Me:
Ah, it seems you've been listening to the National Center for Science Education who are on the defensive these days.
No, ID isn't a cover term. I had hoped you wouldn't say that because it would tell me you aren't knowledgeable of the intricacies involved in this hotly debated issue. If you've ever read anything from them, you'll see that not all are creationists. They have a variety of views and not all even acknowledge the God of the Bible. So unfortunately your statement disappointed me there. And yes, there are scientists in the intelligent design movement, but are just branded by the media as ignorant and vilified by the evolutionary dogmatists, who have a loud voice but no real evidential support. I guess you like to listen to good marketing. (My favorite evolutionary sales pitches are found on the Discovery channel.) It seems you really haven't taken the time to look into the resource I suggested. Don't worry, they're not the "two websites" that you keep harping on. What are those websites anyway? Yes, I use "two websites," but I also use several other websites and sources. Once again you have no backing to your claim that those "two websites" only employ "non-scientists." Your argument is weak. Please take the time to buttress your statements like I do mine.
Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant.
Please explain because you begin with an assertion but fail to give good follow-up reasoning. Your statement is incomplete. I know we're only having email discussions, but you can still provide examples like I did. My reasoning is based on scientific logic and observable phenomena. Yours? Sounds like parroted statements made by the more militant evolutionary dogmatists who, like you, say that evolution is true without good enough support to their statements. I'm also disappointed because you didn't honor me by responding with an example using scientific methodology, no matter how small, or even a good counterargument without resorting to unnecessary diatribe. And if you want credibility, here are a couple of Intelligent Design scientists, not to be confused with "non-scientist Christians" Jonathan Wells http://www.iconsofevolution.com/author/ and Richard Sternberg http://www.richardsternberg.org/biography.php
Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years.
This is another unsubstantiated statement. And yes I'm aware that evolutionists think it could be up to 1 million years, but not too much longer. They don't have the fossil record for it, which is why some even think it's much faster, even down to the tens of thousands of years. I don't usually like using websites like these as a resource, but make sure you look into this quick summary of punctuated equilibrium.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html
Or if you've read anything by Gould you'll recognize this phrase when talking about punctuated equilibrium and the "imperfect fossil record" statement that Darwin had to fall back on in the 19th century: the imperfect record statement "still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly." I know he said that in the 1970s but it's still relevant today. Even though he was coming from an evolutionary standpoint and, in context, wanted to explain punctuated equilibrium, the fact remains, even by evolutionist standards: there are no good transition forms.
This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.
Darwin proposed gradualism and uniformitarianism, well-informed evolutionists these days accept otherwise (although that side is varied and a few try to synthesize). Darwin himself wrote in The Origin of the Species: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." For those who compare the fossil record and Darwin's theory, the record wins and Darwin's theory needs changing. It has been changed and revised since the 19th century by the way.
Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right.
Concerning my fossilization example, here are two sources to counter your not-too-well-cited and albeit, overgeneralized and weak statements: (No, they're not from those "two websites" and bold words are mine.)
From the New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fossil
"Permineralization fossilization - for permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decaying process...Most dinosaur fossils that are found are permineralized."
From UCMP at Berkeley: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleo/fossils/
"There are many conditions that contribute to the formation of fossils. The most common include the possession of hard parts, such as a skeleton or shell, and a rapid burial after death. Besides being tough and hard, the organism must come to rest in a place where it can be buried before it decays or disintegrates. If the organism is not buried deeply and quickly, aerobic bacteria will reduce it to rubble."
I used to go to NYC's Museum of Natural History quite often and they display lots of fossils in a chaotic jumble. You will either accept that there was a massive burial of many different flora and fauna over "several geologic eras" or you will accept that there was only a small and limited amount of fossilized remains. The evidence of course points to the former. And no, not too many evolutionists will accept the simple fact that fossils with complex structures are found in all strata.
Oh, and I have both The Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man in my personal library. I've read both (absolutely dull). Have you? From what I've read of your comments so far, it seems you have not. And it's disappointing that you haven't kept up with the most recent research, in the evolution camp, in the intelligent design camp, and in the creation camp.
And please, try not to get upset. I have nothing against you and I hope you have nothing against me. I'm having fun with this and I'm sure you are, too. I mean, it's highly entertaining to hear you talk of Satan and conspiracy theories, but it doesn't have any bearing on our discussion right now. We'll talk about spiritual issues, too, no doubt about that. But if you think this discussion is a joke and you'd rather not share in serious scientific inquiry, then I would have to bow out, since I can't waste my time. I need you to be a professional, science-minded adult while we discuss.