Posts
This is a continuation of an email debate in the entry "Into the fray." I was in the middle of their conversation when I started to contribute my thoughts and arguments. I'll try my best to include previous emails, but I'm starting at the most recent conversation where the evolutionist was responding to Pete:
I addressed this in the other e-mail. Darwin's theory AS HE PROPOSED IT is valid. It is the working theory of all biology, as he proposed it. Nowhere will you find a repudiation of Darwin's original theory as he proposed it other than amoung the Creationists. Who don't believe it the original or what they imagine to be its modern version. Find me a real article saying that the theory has changed in any significant way from what Darwin said, and I will gladly chuck my 'faith' in what I have just said into the deep blue sea.
There is this one difference. If I find you reams of evidence repudiating the Creationist/Young Earth view, you would not give it up. The entire Scientific community stands against this idea, and you reject it. Tell me again who is clinging with a death grip to their irrational beliefs?
Me:
Hello all!
I guess I have a little time to respond to the most recent exchange. Once again, these are notes I made specifically to Erich's comments:
I addressed this in the other e-mail. Darwin's theory AS HE PROPOSED IT is valid. It is the working theory of all biology, as he proposed it. Nowhere will you find a repudiation of Darwin's original theory as he proposed it other than amoung the Creationists. Who don't believe it the original or what they imagine to be its modern version. Find me a real article saying that the theory has changed in any significant way from what Darwin said, and I will gladly chuck my 'faith' in what I have just said into the deep blue sea.
There is this one difference. If I find you reams of evidence repudiating the Creationist/Young Earth view, you would not give it up. The entire Scientific community stands against this idea, and you reject it. Tell me again who is clinging with a death grip to their irrational beliefs?
Yes, Darwin's theory is still being used today by evolutionist scientists. It is a working theory of those biologists who believe in it and would like to prove it (some researchers) or who are in the taxonomy related areas, not of the entire field of biology. It's in paleontology where evolution is used. For the most part, biologists in the field and in different industries don't deal with how something originated, just how something works at present. Darwin's original theory is now being repudiated among non-creationist scientists. You may have heard of the Intelligent Design movement - they are a growing number of scientists looking deeply into the mechanism of evolution and realizing the dearth in the theory's scientific plausibility. There are many articles showing that the theory has evolved to varying branches. Just look up articles in the Journal of Paleontology; I read those in place of sleeping pills. The most noteworthy is punctuated equilibrium, which is a departure from Darwin's original idea of phyletic gradualism, or slow, gradual change. The reason why this developed is because of a severe lack of transitionary forms in the fossil record. In fact, this development in evolutionary thought of rapid change in animal morphology is merely a step closer to help disprove evolution altogether. And I know there are people who have written reams of articles repudiating the creationist view, starting with Huxley. They simply don't want to accept it mainly because of pride but also of the ramifications if creationism true. They will deny the evidence even if it leads to the creationist or, at least, intelligence model.
Evolution I take on faith as much as I take just about any scientific theory. So if you want to say I have 'faith' in gravity, than yes I have 'faith' in evolution. As to it being "proven", the case is never closed on any scientific theory. That is the whole point of science. So, no, the case is not "proven" for evolution....or for gravity. And yes, information is forever changing and shifting, and damn glad of it. And yes, evolution is a theory to explain the workings of God. But God didn't write the Origin of the Species. So you can call evolution the creation of man, much as gravity is. Gravity existed before Newton identified its workings, mathmatetical underpinnings, and named it, but we have no proof that it existed before Newton, we just assume it.
I have faith that gravity exists because it's verifiable through repeated experimentation, as I mentioned in a previous email. The theory is law. I have faith that electromagnetism exists because it's verifiable through repeated experimentation. The theories proposed, mostly by Faraday, is law. I cannot physically see gravity nor electromagnetic forces, but they exist. But I don't have faith in evolution because it is not verifiable. Much like trying to prove the authenticity of historical papers, you have to use circumstantial evidence and deduction. Dating methods can give you an idea of when it was written, but you can only bring it down to a range and it can be unreliable. At least with historical documents, sometimes the writer mentions something that gives a good hint for the date. With evolution, there's more guesswork than science so the evidence does not prove the theory. What both creationists and evolutionists have to do is make an inference on what happened in the past using the scientific method, which includes observation and experimentation of present day processes to achieve consistent results. I know that's a very basic foundation and was mentioned in previous emails, but it bears repeating.
And evolutionary thought goes back to antiquity in ancient Greece, when a philospher proposed the idea that man came from animals. If anything, he could have been easily influenced by some Asian origins myths of animals becoming humans over a period of time, which are just as ubiquitous as origins myths with a creation theme. And if you're familiar with world myths, they are quite different from the Creation account of the Bible.
Your standard of proof is unreasonable. Evolutionary Theory predicts a certain set of evidence should exist. Evolutionary Theory predicts that certain processes should be in evidence today. Evolutionary Theory predicts that a certain set of parameters must exist and have existed in the past. All three of these conditions are met. There is abundant evidence about the abundance, variety, and transitory features organisims that existed in the past, there is abundant evidence of the workings of the processes in todays world, there is abundant evidence that the set of circumstances that are required exist and existed. I don't understand. WHAT KIND OF "PROOF" ARE YOU DEMANDING?
This is certainly far, far more rigourous than what "proof" you are demanding for the existance of the truth of a literal interpretation of the bible. In fact, it is clear that the events of the bible can only be explained by 'supernatural intervention'. If that is your idea of "proof", than you are right. Evolution cannot produce proof of 'supernatural intervention'. so it does not meet your standard or your concept of just what the Scientific Method is.
So far, you've not given at least one piece of evidence to support the statements in your first paragraph. You'll need to substantiate it with examples. From my understanding of your dialogue with Pete, I think he means specifics and good evidence.
Let's try this example using your statements and a compressed version of the scientific method. For example, from the creationist model: processes evident today - flora and fauna buried quickly are more likely to be fossilized than those left to decompose in the open, flora and fauna have complex structures from tiny bacteria to large animals; prediction - there are billions of fossilized flora and fauna through compaction in a chaotic mess because of a major catastrophe, flora and fauna with complex structures are in all levels of geological strata.
From the evolution model: processes evident today - after a period of time, death and decay of flora and fauna with some burial amounts to a limited number of fossilized remains, flora and fauna are in its completed or nearly completed form (with the assumption that there were previous less complex versions); prediction - a limited number of fossilized flora and fauna captured in pits or buried accidentally, flora and fauna gradually or punctually increasing in complexity with each successive geological strata as per Lyell and Darwin.
Find - billions of fossilized flora and fauna compacted in a chaotic mess, flora and fauna with complex structures in all levels of geological strata.
Conclusion: the evidence leads to a creation/intelligence model. Yes, this is a simplified version, but this kind of comparison reasoning with the available evidence is growing among open-minded scientists and they are causing quite a maelstrom in the scientific community; it's evolutionary dogmatists versus open-minded evidentialists, scientist vs. scientist - a glorious battle!
August 14, 2008
August 08, 2008
Into the fray
Haven't been in a debate in a long time! My friend Jay games with a few people who are evolutionists. For the past month, his gaming friend Pete, a fellow creationist, has been doing well keeping up a good dialogue with the evolutionists. After following their discussions for a couple of weeks, I asked both Jay and Pete if I could contribute. When they said it was ok, I jumped in! It's exciting! It's the same feeling I get when I spar. I just love a good fight! Haven't sparred in a few months, so might as well go at it on an intellectual level. Of course, like sparring, this debate has a purpose - to bring my opponent to the truth. (Regular font is my response, italics is the evolutionist.)
Hello gentlemen!
I've enjoyed your lively discussion so far and would like to contribute as well. Here are some notes I took while catching up on the exchange. And to Erich or anyone else who doesn't hold to the Christian worldview, please understand that I like to be courteous in debate and discussion, and if anything I write sounds rude, I seriously don't intend it to be. These notes are all responses to Megahurtz's comments, all in italics. I have nothing against you, although you did bring some interesting opposing thoughts to the table. I hope I get the chance to dialogue more with all of you:
I read these articles, and also looked up the sources. It's not very convincing. They all appear to come from the Creation Science Institute. Further, the reseach papers referenced in the articles are either taken out of context, impossible to verify, or lead back to the Creation Science Institute. The authors, and for that matter the members of the board of the Creation Science Institute also do not appear to be scientists. Some of them are PhD's, but PhD's in what? The "degree's" of these people all are impossible to trace. Having an advanced degree is all well and good, but one can have a PhD in Underwater Basket Weaving, and I don't know that qualifies you to comment on the dating of fossils. The main thrust of all the articles was debunking Carbon 14 dating. Well, duh. I know about the problems with Carbon 14 dating from just my general reading in science articles. There is also a passage in there that seems to claim that we should discount all the other scientific methods because God put some kind of 'burst of radiation' into the rock at some point or another. Come on, guys, this is akin to believing in Magic. If is BS to change the rules of the physical world just because the facts are inconvenient. And what about ice core samples from the poles, in which a person can COUNT the number of years in snow layers that go back hundreds of thousands of years. Did God just change the rules of snow fall, too? This is just skimming the surface of the problems in the articles you sent here.
I don't know of the Creation Science Institute, never heard of it. I know that the Institute for Creation Research have scientists with PhDs in the hard sciences. If I remember correctly, you can't be a teacher or a writer in their organization without at least a Masters in some hard science. And, no, I'm not one to rely on articles if I can't find their sources. Ice core samples aren't reliable in dating the Earth's age. I've seen a Discovery channel show oversimplifying this "evidence" for Evolution. Snow falls more than once a year, water freezes over more than once a year, and compaction occurs with each passing year, and it's also dependent on which part of the Earth as well. (I'm aware you said Antartica, but some of those factors are still applicable.) Also, WW2 planes have been found under 200 ft of ice in Greenland that, through the evolutionary model and layer counting, should be several thousand years old.
Doesn't your chain of reasoning lead us right back to what Viper said? "The bible says that all who seek God will find Him". Therefore, anyone who hasn't found Him, isn't seeking Him. Therefore, they are Non-God-Seekers. So we can bomb the s*** out of them, or burn them at the stake, whichever is more convenient. If you doubt that this is how this chain of reasoning goes, just read todays news, or look at your history books. There are no shortage of Demgogues who follow this line to the conclusion above, I have no wish to tacidly support them.
Yes, they are non-God-seekers. But you've jumped to a nonsensical conclusion, or simply a violent exclusivist conclusion, which is not of the Bible and not of God. This is why it's important to find the Truth in answering the question: which one is the true God? Hope we already established that God exists, of course. After thinking about it more and working through it, I hope you find that the God of the Bible is the one true God. And after searching the Scriptures you'll find that God is love and the only thing we can do with those who don't want to believe is to shake the dust off our feet and go to the next town, or come back and show God's love through service. God will deal with those who do not believe, I simply show and tell of Jesus.
I'm just following the line of reasoning you laid out. To me, it doesn't matter how that line of reasoning was arrived at, whether through literal reading or metaphorical reading. I'm sorry if I have a tough time believing that the people who have carried out evil in the name of God were all in the metaphorical camp. I strongly suspect they would all think they are taking the bible about as literally as it can be. I suspect that the fanatics of the Inquision would gladly kill me for my views as 'not pure enough'. I don't think they would say, "Huh, I guess you are right, the earth is billions of years old, despite the whole 6 day thing in Genesis. Thanks for pointing that out, Accused Heretic ".
When it comes to "religious fanaticism" it's not so much an issue of literal/metaphorical, but political. The political leaders of the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church used their authority and religious traditions and superstitions over the course of 1,000 years as a means to subjugate people. If some of those leaders of the past actually read their Bibles, they would find that the true kingdom of God is a spiritual one, not of this world. There is a very complex and rich history of church/state relationship and to lump it all as "religion/religious institutions = evil" betrays a lack of understanding, or at least overgeneralization through lack of information. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, it's not the Bible, but sinful people who don't read the Bible and who don't understand the message of Jesus Christ. Justification for the Inquisition is not found in the Bible. As the Bible points out, ex-communication is the harshest way we should deal with heretics.
And if you are a religious fanatic, the next step is - Its perfectly fine to help 'not good' people see the error of their ways, even if that involves a Grand Inquisitor. See? This road leads to categorizing people, which leads to (as in all of history) persecuting people. Remind me to never, ever vote for an Evangelical Christian. And I don't want to be part of a church that advocates this line of reasoning. I don't believe you are a religious fanatic, I just believe your line of reasoning leads to rationalization of religious fanaticism.
There is a difference between the Bible's message and political authority using religion to control people. I suggest you read Chuck Colson's God and Government, one of the best books on church and state relationship through history. Also, there is a tremendous difference between the Bible and the Koran. I've read many parts of the Koran and the overall message is drastically different from what the Bible teaches. One section I like pointing out is Surah 8:12, where Muhammed suggests that the best way to deal with an infidel is to lop off his head. Now that is religious fanaticism taken to a deadly extreme. In fact, if you read more of the Koran, you begin to get the message that it's not extreme or fanatic to kill the infidel - it's expected! How's that for evil! The Bible of course reads otherwise - love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Nowhere in the Bible will you ever see the phrase "Kill infidels wherever you find them, and drive them out wherever they drove you out" in response to persecution. That's Surah 2:191 by the way. So really, the question is: where is the person's foundation? Is it based on the sacrificial love of the one true God? Or is it based on murderous hate from a false god (not just Allah, but also self-centeredness, pride, and power - the triune godhead many people bow to)? That's the issue concerning "fanaticism," what is the root?
As to the Pitdown man thing. Are you saying there have been no frauds in math, chemistry, engineering or computer science? Oh please. Because some people present a fraud in a certain field does not invalidate the whole field. Check your Logic on that one.
When the majority of the "evidence" for gradual change in human evolution are frauds, yes, it invalidates Macroevolution. And since there has never been good evidence for transitional forms between species, then yes, it invalidates the theory. Not the field of biology, just the theory of Evolution. Usually the frauds in the sciences are among the theorists, but 2+2 will always equal 4, the water molecule will always have two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, gear ratio is predictable, and I'm on a usable computer.
This is not sarcasim. These people all had to be trained in the theories of Darwin, or at the very least have to believe that the earth is billions of years old to do their job. Just try to find a Geologist who thinks the world is 10,000 years old. As to Professors, I mean those who are teaching either Life Sciences, Earth Sciences, Astronomy, Astro-Physics......The list goes on. You can certainly do the Geologist job believing in young earth, it's just that it would be your dirty little secret that you wouldn't dare tell anyone. Why? Because the next question from their fellow Geologists would be "Why do you believe that". Now you would be trying to explain the 'flaws' of dating of rock to people who really know what they are talking about. And that's when the laughter would start. Again, if the article you sent could convince anyone who knows what the hell they are talking about, it would. Scientists, by nature, are sceptical, questioning, open-minded people who believe in facts, believe in truth and are perfectly willing to rock the boat to make a name for themselves. Science, perhaps more than any other human pursuit, is built on the supplanting of the old and imperfect with something that fits the facts better. This is why I take the articles you sent with a huge boulder of salt. And frankly, even I saw problems with those articles, I just didn't see any point in bringing that up.I am not trying to question anyone's intelligence. And that seems to be the problem I have encounted before when discussing this with young earth believers. People get all huffy, instead of keeping it on a debate plane.
I've met geologists who believe in Creation. One was my youth leader at church when I was 14, around the time I discovered that Creation is true and Evolution is false. He worked with other geologists who believed in one or the other and they were professional enough to respect each other's views, although the majority were Evolutionists. I met more Creationist geologists in college. Interestingly, I believed in Evolution by faith when I was 8, and then I was shown that Evolution had an incredible lack of evidence, not to mention that it's paltry science, at 14. There are thousands of scientists who believe in Creation and do their jobs well. They are growing especially because scientists these days question Evolution and take a good look into its mechanism and have correctly concluded that it is not science nor is it a good base to their scientific work. They just don't get media coverage. In fact, there were a few hundred Creation scientists at a convention in Pittsburgh this past week presenting even more evidence for a young Earth. I suggest you watch the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and follow the research of a few Intelligent Design scientists interviewed in that film. Not all are Christians or Creationists, by the way. They just go to where the evidence leads, even if it's a 180 from Evolution.
I believe there is a problem with some understandings here.Gravity is a theory. There is no 'proof' that it exists. All there is is a prediction of what should happen in a given experiment that corresponds with what occurs in the world. If I set up an experiment where I drop a ball, and predict that it will fall, and it does - all this does not 'prove' gravity. It only reinforces that my theory is good at predicting events.Now evolution predicts certain outcomes, and that certain evidence should exist. And, indeed, both of these requirements are fulfilled. As you pointed out, 'micro' evolution is easily demostrated. All that is required for 'macro' evolution is a few million years. Since it is impractical for us to set up an experiment that lasts a few million years, we look for evidence that nature has already done this for us. And we have found vast, vast examples of all types, including plenty of transitional species, fulfilling the prediction of what kind of evidence we should find.This, in a nutshell, is why Evolution is on the same footing as Gravity in the scientific world. If someone has a better theory (other than "magic"), than let them have at it. Until that time, all serious scientists will continue to work with the most workable tool around for interpreting the physical evidence that exists and the workings of the biology we see around us......Evolution.
First, gravity is a phenomenon. There is a theory of gravity and through simple repeatable experiments you can demonstrate its existence. By doing so, theory becomes law. Not so with Evolution. And Evolution needs more than just "a million years." It needs good evidence like transitional forms. And there are no transitional forms. The ones Evolutionists use are questionable at best. They are not definitive evidence. Evolution is as highly regarded as it is because of propaganda and marketing, and through a series of events, caused it to be accepted by the elite scientists of the past century (not the majority mind you, but those with power and/or a big mouth). The majority of the great scientists of the past were Creationists like Kepler, Mendel, Carver, and Pasteur. Since they believed the world was created, they concluded that things would work in reasonable and fairly predictable ways. And scientists these days looking into the workings of biology and biochemistry are finding a growing amount of evidence disproving Evolution. A good book for this is Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. That's it for now.
Hello gentlemen!
I've enjoyed your lively discussion so far and would like to contribute as well. Here are some notes I took while catching up on the exchange. And to Erich or anyone else who doesn't hold to the Christian worldview, please understand that I like to be courteous in debate and discussion, and if anything I write sounds rude, I seriously don't intend it to be. These notes are all responses to Megahurtz's comments, all in italics. I have nothing against you, although you did bring some interesting opposing thoughts to the table. I hope I get the chance to dialogue more with all of you:
I read these articles, and also looked up the sources. It's not very convincing. They all appear to come from the Creation Science Institute. Further, the reseach papers referenced in the articles are either taken out of context, impossible to verify, or lead back to the Creation Science Institute. The authors, and for that matter the members of the board of the Creation Science Institute also do not appear to be scientists. Some of them are PhD's, but PhD's in what? The "degree's" of these people all are impossible to trace. Having an advanced degree is all well and good, but one can have a PhD in Underwater Basket Weaving, and I don't know that qualifies you to comment on the dating of fossils. The main thrust of all the articles was debunking Carbon 14 dating. Well, duh. I know about the problems with Carbon 14 dating from just my general reading in science articles. There is also a passage in there that seems to claim that we should discount all the other scientific methods because God put some kind of 'burst of radiation' into the rock at some point or another. Come on, guys, this is akin to believing in Magic. If is BS to change the rules of the physical world just because the facts are inconvenient. And what about ice core samples from the poles, in which a person can COUNT the number of years in snow layers that go back hundreds of thousands of years. Did God just change the rules of snow fall, too? This is just skimming the surface of the problems in the articles you sent here.
I don't know of the Creation Science Institute, never heard of it. I know that the Institute for Creation Research have scientists with PhDs in the hard sciences. If I remember correctly, you can't be a teacher or a writer in their organization without at least a Masters in some hard science. And, no, I'm not one to rely on articles if I can't find their sources. Ice core samples aren't reliable in dating the Earth's age. I've seen a Discovery channel show oversimplifying this "evidence" for Evolution. Snow falls more than once a year, water freezes over more than once a year, and compaction occurs with each passing year, and it's also dependent on which part of the Earth as well. (I'm aware you said Antartica, but some of those factors are still applicable.) Also, WW2 planes have been found under 200 ft of ice in Greenland that, through the evolutionary model and layer counting, should be several thousand years old.
Doesn't your chain of reasoning lead us right back to what Viper said? "The bible says that all who seek God will find Him". Therefore, anyone who hasn't found Him, isn't seeking Him. Therefore, they are Non-God-Seekers. So we can bomb the s*** out of them, or burn them at the stake, whichever is more convenient. If you doubt that this is how this chain of reasoning goes, just read todays news, or look at your history books. There are no shortage of Demgogues who follow this line to the conclusion above, I have no wish to tacidly support them.
Yes, they are non-God-seekers. But you've jumped to a nonsensical conclusion, or simply a violent exclusivist conclusion, which is not of the Bible and not of God. This is why it's important to find the Truth in answering the question: which one is the true God? Hope we already established that God exists, of course. After thinking about it more and working through it, I hope you find that the God of the Bible is the one true God. And after searching the Scriptures you'll find that God is love and the only thing we can do with those who don't want to believe is to shake the dust off our feet and go to the next town, or come back and show God's love through service. God will deal with those who do not believe, I simply show and tell of Jesus.
I'm just following the line of reasoning you laid out. To me, it doesn't matter how that line of reasoning was arrived at, whether through literal reading or metaphorical reading. I'm sorry if I have a tough time believing that the people who have carried out evil in the name of God were all in the metaphorical camp. I strongly suspect they would all think they are taking the bible about as literally as it can be. I suspect that the fanatics of the Inquision would gladly kill me for my views as 'not pure enough'. I don't think they would say, "Huh, I guess you are right, the earth is billions of years old, despite the whole 6 day thing in Genesis. Thanks for pointing that out, Accused Heretic ".
When it comes to "religious fanaticism" it's not so much an issue of literal/metaphorical, but political. The political leaders of the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church used their authority and religious traditions and superstitions over the course of 1,000 years as a means to subjugate people. If some of those leaders of the past actually read their Bibles, they would find that the true kingdom of God is a spiritual one, not of this world. There is a very complex and rich history of church/state relationship and to lump it all as "religion/religious institutions = evil" betrays a lack of understanding, or at least overgeneralization through lack of information. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, it's not the Bible, but sinful people who don't read the Bible and who don't understand the message of Jesus Christ. Justification for the Inquisition is not found in the Bible. As the Bible points out, ex-communication is the harshest way we should deal with heretics.
And if you are a religious fanatic, the next step is - Its perfectly fine to help 'not good' people see the error of their ways, even if that involves a Grand Inquisitor. See? This road leads to categorizing people, which leads to (as in all of history) persecuting people. Remind me to never, ever vote for an Evangelical Christian. And I don't want to be part of a church that advocates this line of reasoning. I don't believe you are a religious fanatic, I just believe your line of reasoning leads to rationalization of religious fanaticism.
There is a difference between the Bible's message and political authority using religion to control people. I suggest you read Chuck Colson's God and Government, one of the best books on church and state relationship through history. Also, there is a tremendous difference between the Bible and the Koran. I've read many parts of the Koran and the overall message is drastically different from what the Bible teaches. One section I like pointing out is Surah 8:12, where Muhammed suggests that the best way to deal with an infidel is to lop off his head. Now that is religious fanaticism taken to a deadly extreme. In fact, if you read more of the Koran, you begin to get the message that it's not extreme or fanatic to kill the infidel - it's expected! How's that for evil! The Bible of course reads otherwise - love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Nowhere in the Bible will you ever see the phrase "Kill infidels wherever you find them, and drive them out wherever they drove you out" in response to persecution. That's Surah 2:191 by the way. So really, the question is: where is the person's foundation? Is it based on the sacrificial love of the one true God? Or is it based on murderous hate from a false god (not just Allah, but also self-centeredness, pride, and power - the triune godhead many people bow to)? That's the issue concerning "fanaticism," what is the root?
As to the Pitdown man thing. Are you saying there have been no frauds in math, chemistry, engineering or computer science? Oh please. Because some people present a fraud in a certain field does not invalidate the whole field. Check your Logic on that one.
When the majority of the "evidence" for gradual change in human evolution are frauds, yes, it invalidates Macroevolution. And since there has never been good evidence for transitional forms between species, then yes, it invalidates the theory. Not the field of biology, just the theory of Evolution. Usually the frauds in the sciences are among the theorists, but 2+2 will always equal 4, the water molecule will always have two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, gear ratio is predictable, and I'm on a usable computer.
This is not sarcasim. These people all had to be trained in the theories of Darwin, or at the very least have to believe that the earth is billions of years old to do their job. Just try to find a Geologist who thinks the world is 10,000 years old. As to Professors, I mean those who are teaching either Life Sciences, Earth Sciences, Astronomy, Astro-Physics......The list goes on. You can certainly do the Geologist job believing in young earth, it's just that it would be your dirty little secret that you wouldn't dare tell anyone. Why? Because the next question from their fellow Geologists would be "Why do you believe that". Now you would be trying to explain the 'flaws' of dating of rock to people who really know what they are talking about. And that's when the laughter would start. Again, if the article you sent could convince anyone who knows what the hell they are talking about, it would. Scientists, by nature, are sceptical, questioning, open-minded people who believe in facts, believe in truth and are perfectly willing to rock the boat to make a name for themselves. Science, perhaps more than any other human pursuit, is built on the supplanting of the old and imperfect with something that fits the facts better. This is why I take the articles you sent with a huge boulder of salt. And frankly, even I saw problems with those articles, I just didn't see any point in bringing that up.I am not trying to question anyone's intelligence. And that seems to be the problem I have encounted before when discussing this with young earth believers. People get all huffy, instead of keeping it on a debate plane.
I've met geologists who believe in Creation. One was my youth leader at church when I was 14, around the time I discovered that Creation is true and Evolution is false. He worked with other geologists who believed in one or the other and they were professional enough to respect each other's views, although the majority were Evolutionists. I met more Creationist geologists in college. Interestingly, I believed in Evolution by faith when I was 8, and then I was shown that Evolution had an incredible lack of evidence, not to mention that it's paltry science, at 14. There are thousands of scientists who believe in Creation and do their jobs well. They are growing especially because scientists these days question Evolution and take a good look into its mechanism and have correctly concluded that it is not science nor is it a good base to their scientific work. They just don't get media coverage. In fact, there were a few hundred Creation scientists at a convention in Pittsburgh this past week presenting even more evidence for a young Earth. I suggest you watch the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed and follow the research of a few Intelligent Design scientists interviewed in that film. Not all are Christians or Creationists, by the way. They just go to where the evidence leads, even if it's a 180 from Evolution.
I believe there is a problem with some understandings here.Gravity is a theory. There is no 'proof' that it exists. All there is is a prediction of what should happen in a given experiment that corresponds with what occurs in the world. If I set up an experiment where I drop a ball, and predict that it will fall, and it does - all this does not 'prove' gravity. It only reinforces that my theory is good at predicting events.Now evolution predicts certain outcomes, and that certain evidence should exist. And, indeed, both of these requirements are fulfilled. As you pointed out, 'micro' evolution is easily demostrated. All that is required for 'macro' evolution is a few million years. Since it is impractical for us to set up an experiment that lasts a few million years, we look for evidence that nature has already done this for us. And we have found vast, vast examples of all types, including plenty of transitional species, fulfilling the prediction of what kind of evidence we should find.This, in a nutshell, is why Evolution is on the same footing as Gravity in the scientific world. If someone has a better theory (other than "magic"), than let them have at it. Until that time, all serious scientists will continue to work with the most workable tool around for interpreting the physical evidence that exists and the workings of the biology we see around us......Evolution.
First, gravity is a phenomenon. There is a theory of gravity and through simple repeatable experiments you can demonstrate its existence. By doing so, theory becomes law. Not so with Evolution. And Evolution needs more than just "a million years." It needs good evidence like transitional forms. And there are no transitional forms. The ones Evolutionists use are questionable at best. They are not definitive evidence. Evolution is as highly regarded as it is because of propaganda and marketing, and through a series of events, caused it to be accepted by the elite scientists of the past century (not the majority mind you, but those with power and/or a big mouth). The majority of the great scientists of the past were Creationists like Kepler, Mendel, Carver, and Pasteur. Since they believed the world was created, they concluded that things would work in reasonable and fairly predictable ways. And scientists these days looking into the workings of biology and biochemistry are finding a growing amount of evidence disproving Evolution. A good book for this is Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. That's it for now.
July 30, 2008
Comment Wars
I was looking through Youtube videos and I lingered at one of an apologist defending the faith. In the comments area, there were a number of people who kept mocking the teacher on the video and also mocked Jesus. There were only a few who tried to defend the teacher and rose up to challenge the mockers. For the most part, the Christians responded with reasoning that the unbelievers definitely did not understand. The more intellectually inclined unbelievers waved them off as ignorant, religious indoctrinated sheep.
Only one or two Christians responded with good step by step reasoning to help the unbelievers, or outsiders, understand. But the mockery continued. I started to make comments of my own. After submitting a few, I soon realized that it's a waste of time debating with mockers and outsiders on Youtube. The verse, "there will be mockers in the last days who will walk after their own lust" rang loudly in my head. I simply stopped making any more comments. It's better to speak with an outsider on a more personal level, anyway.
Only one or two Christians responded with good step by step reasoning to help the unbelievers, or outsiders, understand. But the mockery continued. I started to make comments of my own. After submitting a few, I soon realized that it's a waste of time debating with mockers and outsiders on Youtube. The verse, "there will be mockers in the last days who will walk after their own lust" rang loudly in my head. I simply stopped making any more comments. It's better to speak with an outsider on a more personal level, anyway.
July 15, 2008
PMABM Newsletter #8
Next up in our study of different styles - Tai Chi Chuan. In Chinese, Tai Chi Chuan means "supreme ultimate fist." The progenitors of the style were Taoists who used the idea of opposing forces working in harmony as the philosophical basis for their art. As Taoists, they incorporated the idea of chi, an indefinable energy flow of the universe. The reason they believe it was the supreme is because the movements were the manifestation of yin and yang and the practice was a representation of the universe's workings.
I don't subscribe to the idea of chi and, no, you're not at one with the universe when you practice tai chi chuan. But there is good use of physics and strategy in this approach to martial arts. In our practice of contact flow, I emphasize yielding and rooting. Those ideas come directly from tai chi chuan. In being sensitive to incoming energy in the form of a strike, you give way, yield, and use that energy to counterattack. In the book, Tao te Ching, one phrase sums this up: "The soft and pliable will defeat the hard and strong." Only by consistent practice can you truly come to understand how to be more sensitive, and know when to yield and when to strike.
Watch for what I'm talking about in these vids:
This guy does a different style of tai chi chuan, but the underlying theory is the same. Also, interesting contrast between the solo form and the partner sets:
A few more applications to traditional tai chi chuan moves:
I like the two on one set in this:
I don't subscribe to the idea of chi and, no, you're not at one with the universe when you practice tai chi chuan. But there is good use of physics and strategy in this approach to martial arts. In our practice of contact flow, I emphasize yielding and rooting. Those ideas come directly from tai chi chuan. In being sensitive to incoming energy in the form of a strike, you give way, yield, and use that energy to counterattack. In the book, Tao te Ching, one phrase sums this up: "The soft and pliable will defeat the hard and strong." Only by consistent practice can you truly come to understand how to be more sensitive, and know when to yield and when to strike.
Watch for what I'm talking about in these vids:
This guy does a different style of tai chi chuan, but the underlying theory is the same. Also, interesting contrast between the solo form and the partner sets:
A few more applications to traditional tai chi chuan moves:
I like the two on one set in this:
July 06, 2008
The "D" Word
"Like in The Karate Kid, where Miyagi forces Ralph Macchio to wash his cars and paint his fence and sand his deck. Miyagi gets everything fixed-up, ship-shape, and sparkling like a new penny. Ralph Macchio learns some new moves the only way you ever truly learn anything on this earth: through endless, moronic repetition."
- from the article "Mom's Home" by David Eddie of Mack Daddy AOL Canada Life and Style, July 1, 2008
"More often than not, excuses are simply lies that we tell to ourselves to abate the sharp sting of acknowledging our own shortcomings." - Damian Ross
I've been teaching the youth group kids about spiritual discipline. Discipline in general, with a focus on the spiritual aspect. The reason why the kids don't make it a priority to live a holy life is because they simply haven't disciplined themselves to doing so. Understandable, they're kids, it's rare to find a truly spiritually disciplined teen. Hey, even adults have a tough time trying to discipline themselves. But we're all working on it. And that's why it's always best to start when you're young, when bad habits aren't totally ingrained yet. Much harder for an adult to change habits. And that's where I started off, with bad habits, moral and amoral. Only by God's grace and His strength can bad habits be changed. Yes, there's will-power, but I'd rather depend on God's power - works much better than just weak old me doing the work. And besides, it'll count for eternity if I give it up to God.
To the left of the whiteboard, I wrote "bad habits" and in the middle I wrote "good habits." Between those two phrases, I drew an arrow pointing to the right and underneath I wrote "DISCIPLINE." It takes discipline and a whole lot of work to go from one to the other, and I emphasized God's strength referencing Philippians. Bad habits are both the immoral and amoral but unproductive. Good habits can be both moral and amoral but productive. The discipline will take them out of their comfort zone, which is the only way to get better. From there, to the right of the whiteboard, I wrote "better habits," which are more aligned with spiritual habits. I then extended the arrow of discipline and told them to keep growing and the way to do so is to read God's word, be mindful of their thoughts and actions, and to be around fellow believers as often as possible.
- from the article "Mom's Home" by David Eddie of Mack Daddy AOL Canada Life and Style, July 1, 2008
"More often than not, excuses are simply lies that we tell to ourselves to abate the sharp sting of acknowledging our own shortcomings." - Damian Ross
I've been teaching the youth group kids about spiritual discipline. Discipline in general, with a focus on the spiritual aspect. The reason why the kids don't make it a priority to live a holy life is because they simply haven't disciplined themselves to doing so. Understandable, they're kids, it's rare to find a truly spiritually disciplined teen. Hey, even adults have a tough time trying to discipline themselves. But we're all working on it. And that's why it's always best to start when you're young, when bad habits aren't totally ingrained yet. Much harder for an adult to change habits. And that's where I started off, with bad habits, moral and amoral. Only by God's grace and His strength can bad habits be changed. Yes, there's will-power, but I'd rather depend on God's power - works much better than just weak old me doing the work. And besides, it'll count for eternity if I give it up to God.
To the left of the whiteboard, I wrote "bad habits" and in the middle I wrote "good habits." Between those two phrases, I drew an arrow pointing to the right and underneath I wrote "DISCIPLINE." It takes discipline and a whole lot of work to go from one to the other, and I emphasized God's strength referencing Philippians. Bad habits are both the immoral and amoral but unproductive. Good habits can be both moral and amoral but productive. The discipline will take them out of their comfort zone, which is the only way to get better. From there, to the right of the whiteboard, I wrote "better habits," which are more aligned with spiritual habits. I then extended the arrow of discipline and told them to keep growing and the way to do so is to read God's word, be mindful of their thoughts and actions, and to be around fellow believers as often as possible.
June 27, 2008
The Marketing Genius
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”
“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
"I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying."
"We've been to 57 states... I think one more to go."
"This is the greatest nation in the world, and I'm here to change it."
No, thanks, Barack. Let's not.
My dad is an insurance salesman and I was trained in sales as well, so I can spot a sales pitch from a mile away. Barack is nothing more than a salesman, a clever marketer who is willing to pander to people's needs, real or imagined. But a little research and some soul-searching should lead to the inevitable conclusion that Barack's like a balloon: full of hot air, carries little weight, and with enough time, will deflate, along with his fantasy for hope and change. People who applaud someone promising that government will provide both will have a severe case of buyer's remorse.
“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
"I opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying."
"We've been to 57 states... I think one more to go."
"This is the greatest nation in the world, and I'm here to change it."
No, thanks, Barack. Let's not.
My dad is an insurance salesman and I was trained in sales as well, so I can spot a sales pitch from a mile away. Barack is nothing more than a salesman, a clever marketer who is willing to pander to people's needs, real or imagined. But a little research and some soul-searching should lead to the inevitable conclusion that Barack's like a balloon: full of hot air, carries little weight, and with enough time, will deflate, along with his fantasy for hope and change. People who applaud someone promising that government will provide both will have a severe case of buyer's remorse.
June 18, 2008
Truth Be Told for Black Gold
The oil issue isn't hard to figure out: We need to begin using oil that can be produced from US sources. We can be independent of foreign oil if we simply rely on our resources in ANWR and the continental shelf.
Of course, the liberals, and just plain greedy people, play their little games, impeding our progress. They submit to the whims of radical environmentalists who are already successful with their infiltration of "Going Green," a very socialistic program.
We should continue to develop alternative energy sources, which is generally done by private individuals and industry, but in the meantime, we can still use the oil we have in this country and we have a lot!
Of course, the liberals, and just plain greedy people, play their little games, impeding our progress. They submit to the whims of radical environmentalists who are already successful with their infiltration of "Going Green," a very socialistic program.
We should continue to develop alternative energy sources, which is generally done by private individuals and industry, but in the meantime, we can still use the oil we have in this country and we have a lot!
May 22, 2008
Our responsibility
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
- President Abraham Lincoln
"If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained - we must fight!"
- Patrick Henry
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams
- President Abraham Lincoln
"If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained - we must fight!"
- Patrick Henry
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams
May 16, 2008
The Ignorant Savage
Tony Perkins was on AC 360 on CNN today with gay activist and author Dan Savage. At one point, so-called neutral and objective Cooper asked Perkins about the 1948 CA law that "redefined" marriage. Cooper was referring to the California Supreme Court case Perez vs. Sharp that called into question the anti-miscegenation statutes of that state and inevitably repealed them. For years, even going back to the birth of this nation, laws were passed to prohibit interracial marriage. Perkins began to answer by saying that interracial marriage does not change the definition of marriage and that it is still one man with one woman for life. Savage then barraged Perkins with nonsense questions and comments since most likely he knew Perkins was logically correct. So to prevent Perkins from answering, he and Andy switched the direction of the discussion.
I want to complete what Perkins started: The CA Supreme Court did not redefine marriage by allowing interracial marriage. In fact, they reinforced the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman for life, and that this time, the person's ethnicity is not an issue. It's gay marriage that redefines marriage. It is not one man with one woman for life, it is one sex with the same sex for an undefined length of time. By going away from the "one man with one woman for life" definition, it's not marriage anymore, and that's true for heterosexuals as well.
By allowing marriage to be simply an amorphous "love contract," it denigrates the institution and it will destabilize the basic building block of society, which is the family. It's hard enough to hold a marriage and a family together. Things will only be made worse if outside forces begin to change it. In America, if gay marriage is allowed, the next wave of marriage redefiners will try to make their case in no time, and I think in order these will be: polygamists, then pedophiles, then beastophiles or some other polysexual sickness. It's obvious polygamists will try their best, especially with this whole FLDS fiasco. They seem to be thriving in this country unchecked. Then pedophiles and pedosexuals would follow since NAMBLA and GLA are growing as well. If we don't nip it in the bud, America may truly become Sodom and Gomorrah.
I want to complete what Perkins started: The CA Supreme Court did not redefine marriage by allowing interracial marriage. In fact, they reinforced the idea that marriage is between one man and one woman for life, and that this time, the person's ethnicity is not an issue. It's gay marriage that redefines marriage. It is not one man with one woman for life, it is one sex with the same sex for an undefined length of time. By going away from the "one man with one woman for life" definition, it's not marriage anymore, and that's true for heterosexuals as well.
By allowing marriage to be simply an amorphous "love contract," it denigrates the institution and it will destabilize the basic building block of society, which is the family. It's hard enough to hold a marriage and a family together. Things will only be made worse if outside forces begin to change it. In America, if gay marriage is allowed, the next wave of marriage redefiners will try to make their case in no time, and I think in order these will be: polygamists, then pedophiles, then beastophiles or some other polysexual sickness. It's obvious polygamists will try their best, especially with this whole FLDS fiasco. They seem to be thriving in this country unchecked. Then pedophiles and pedosexuals would follow since NAMBLA and GLA are growing as well. If we don't nip it in the bud, America may truly become Sodom and Gomorrah.
April 30, 2008
Successful Project
The Project Success program ended for the year and I had to submit a summary of my part in it. This is also used to request for additional funds so I can provide my services next year.
"The martial arts program I offered to Project Success had a two-fold purpose: to teach students how to effectively defend themselves and to teach students how to think progressively. They were taught many things that I would teach in my school and, even more so, much of what I taught them was geared for their age group.
"For the first purpose, I did not teach a traditional approach to martial arts by having them memorize technique sequences. Instead, I focused on natural reactive movement that is instinctive and intuitive, enabling them to learn faster. But there is more to self-defense than just fighting back - it is having an awareness of the surrounding environment. To introduce the children to this idea, the first few lessons included a reaction drill to be aware of the slightest touch on their shoulder and to react to it as quickly as possible. I also had them do a real-world evasion exercise, by running from "danger" and to go to a "safe spot" across the gym. I even included an imaginary street for them to look both ways so they can get into the habit of being watchful. I also suggested an out of class exercise to notice what was going on around them and not to allow their minds to wander. At the same time, the children learned how to strike with greater power by utilizing full body momentum.
"To fulfill the second purpose, we recited the progressive affirmation after each class so that the students would learn to think positively and successfully. When I went over the rules for the class in the beginning of the program, thinking positively was an important rule, second only to mutual respect. I gave a practical example: they should not say the word "can't" especially when it comes to learning martial arts. I always emphasized that they can learn, change, and grow, in martial arts and in any other endeavor they choose to do. These are the same phrases I memorized and recited at the end of each class when I trained in karate several years ago:
I will develop myself in a positive manner and avoid anything that would reduce my mental growth or my physical health.
I will develop discipline in order to bring out the best in myself and others.
I will use what I learn constructively and defensively, to help myself and my fellow man, and never to be abusive or offensive.
There were a few sessions where the children and I had a short discussion on the meaning of these phrases as well.
"Over the course of the five months, I taught the children many other aspects of martial arts. There were a few more real-world exercises, like quickly verifying a "friend" from a "foe," getting away from grabs and holds, and even doing a flash card drill with license plate numbers. They learned many strikes as well, using all the available ridges of the body, like edge of the palm, elbows, knees, and kicks.
"We trained as much as we could during that one day out of the week and compressed as much information as possible in those sessions. The students were progressing along and were learning quite well. From what I hear, they enjoyed the program so much that those who will be in the elementary school next year would like to continue training."
"The martial arts program I offered to Project Success had a two-fold purpose: to teach students how to effectively defend themselves and to teach students how to think progressively. They were taught many things that I would teach in my school and, even more so, much of what I taught them was geared for their age group.
"For the first purpose, I did not teach a traditional approach to martial arts by having them memorize technique sequences. Instead, I focused on natural reactive movement that is instinctive and intuitive, enabling them to learn faster. But there is more to self-defense than just fighting back - it is having an awareness of the surrounding environment. To introduce the children to this idea, the first few lessons included a reaction drill to be aware of the slightest touch on their shoulder and to react to it as quickly as possible. I also had them do a real-world evasion exercise, by running from "danger" and to go to a "safe spot" across the gym. I even included an imaginary street for them to look both ways so they can get into the habit of being watchful. I also suggested an out of class exercise to notice what was going on around them and not to allow their minds to wander. At the same time, the children learned how to strike with greater power by utilizing full body momentum.
"To fulfill the second purpose, we recited the progressive affirmation after each class so that the students would learn to think positively and successfully. When I went over the rules for the class in the beginning of the program, thinking positively was an important rule, second only to mutual respect. I gave a practical example: they should not say the word "can't" especially when it comes to learning martial arts. I always emphasized that they can learn, change, and grow, in martial arts and in any other endeavor they choose to do. These are the same phrases I memorized and recited at the end of each class when I trained in karate several years ago:
I will develop myself in a positive manner and avoid anything that would reduce my mental growth or my physical health.
I will develop discipline in order to bring out the best in myself and others.
I will use what I learn constructively and defensively, to help myself and my fellow man, and never to be abusive or offensive.
There were a few sessions where the children and I had a short discussion on the meaning of these phrases as well.
"Over the course of the five months, I taught the children many other aspects of martial arts. There were a few more real-world exercises, like quickly verifying a "friend" from a "foe," getting away from grabs and holds, and even doing a flash card drill with license plate numbers. They learned many strikes as well, using all the available ridges of the body, like edge of the palm, elbows, knees, and kicks.
"We trained as much as we could during that one day out of the week and compressed as much information as possible in those sessions. The students were progressing along and were learning quite well. From what I hear, they enjoyed the program so much that those who will be in the elementary school next year would like to continue training."
April 10, 2008
PMABM Newsletter #7
For this newsletter, we'll look at a video of another style I learned. Yes, it is none other than the very first style I formally learned - Matsubayashi Shorin-Ryu Okinawan Karate. Here's a memorized kumite (sparring) exercise:
Even though I don't teach forms and the only memorized movement sequences I teach are in the earlier levels of training, I don't discount them. We can still learn something from them. They were a valuable training aid to martial artists of old and they were an aid to me in the beginning of my development. I concluded that kata or forms were only one of many ways to transmit martial arts principles and teaching methods expeditiously and concretely.
A few ideas garnered from karate: karate chops ARE effective; kicks should be kept low; don't roundhouse kick; torque when you strike; stepping should be natural; breathe out when you strike; belt rank is not applicable in kumite; make the strike go from point A to point B as efficiently as possible; train the ridges of your body to hit well; train the rest of your body to take hits well.
And here is the founder of the Matsubayashi style, Shoshin Nagamine, in his late 80s doing the first black belt kata or form exercise:
Talking about old guys who can still move, here's a bonus video of Johnny LaCoste in the late 1970s. Johnny was one of the many grandmasters of Filipino Martial Arts. Here he is in a rare video with Dan Inosanto when Dan was just starting to incorporate Filipino Martial Arts in his Jeet Kune Do. I would love to be in my late 80s and still be able to move like these guys did. Watch from 2:50 to about 5:40. And if you want to see a crazy kali solo drill, it's starts at 6:36.
Even though I don't teach forms and the only memorized movement sequences I teach are in the earlier levels of training, I don't discount them. We can still learn something from them. They were a valuable training aid to martial artists of old and they were an aid to me in the beginning of my development. I concluded that kata or forms were only one of many ways to transmit martial arts principles and teaching methods expeditiously and concretely.
A few ideas garnered from karate: karate chops ARE effective; kicks should be kept low; don't roundhouse kick; torque when you strike; stepping should be natural; breathe out when you strike; belt rank is not applicable in kumite; make the strike go from point A to point B as efficiently as possible; train the ridges of your body to hit well; train the rest of your body to take hits well.
And here is the founder of the Matsubayashi style, Shoshin Nagamine, in his late 80s doing the first black belt kata or form exercise:
Talking about old guys who can still move, here's a bonus video of Johnny LaCoste in the late 1970s. Johnny was one of the many grandmasters of Filipino Martial Arts. Here he is in a rare video with Dan Inosanto when Dan was just starting to incorporate Filipino Martial Arts in his Jeet Kune Do. I would love to be in my late 80s and still be able to move like these guys did. Watch from 2:50 to about 5:40. And if you want to see a crazy kali solo drill, it's starts at 6:36.
March 31, 2008
Renaming channels
I now call the Discovery channel "The Discredit the Bible channel." There were so many shows in just the past few weeks that questioned the legitimacy of the Biblical record and only explained the Bible through the naturalistic perspective. It's bad enough they have shows that present Darwinian evolution as a given "scientific" basis which all other sciences spring from. Worse when they present the Bible's events through that perspective. Darwinian evolution is incredibly limiting and scientifically nonsensical when used to explain the present physical world.
Also, I've renamed the History channel "The Revisionist History channel" and the Learning channel "The Leery of What I'm Learning channel."
Also, I've renamed the History channel "The Revisionist History channel" and the Learning channel "The Leery of What I'm Learning channel."
March 19, 2008
Complainers
Five years ago today, I was living in Cincinnati, OH, and working for GE Capital. It was raining on and off that day and it cleared by the time I left to go home. I turned on the TV and all the news channels were reporting that US and Coalition Forces were beginning their first phase in invading and freeing Iraq.
The war was controversial in its outset. Why Iraq? Why not keep it in Afghanistan? There were no reports of Bin Laden being in Iraq. Why waste time, money, and lives going after Hussein, who didn't even plan the 9/11 attacks? Back then, most people relied on Bush's promise to find WMDs. After five years, there doesn't seem to be much to show for all the energy put into the war. And Bush even considered it a mistake. Why keep going? We should pull out now and find the real terrorists! And then impeach Bush.
Arguments like these only show an uninformed and narrow view of the war. Many have already forgotten why we went to war in the first place. What didn't help was the mainstream media constantly focusing on the failures of the war. And many people don't make the time to do a little research to find the truth. The mainstream media already had a built-in antipathy towards Bush, so they try to find anything that would discredit him, even going so far as suppressing the truth.
Here's a reminder from the article "Why We Went to War in Iraq" by David Horowitz (emphases mine):
"...The first – and last – rationale presented for the war by the Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war was not the destruction of WMDs but the removal of Saddam Hussein, or regime change.
"Al Gore and Bill Clinton had themselves called for the removal of Saddam by force when he expelled the UN weapons inspectors in 1998, a clear violation of the Gulf truce. This was the reason Clinton and Gore sent an “Iraqi Liberation Act” to Congress that year; it is why the congressional Democrats voted in October 2002 to authorize the president to use force to remove him; and it is the reason the entire Clinton-Gore national security team, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence, supported Bush when he sent American troops into Iraq in March 2003.
"The Authorization for the Use of Force bill – passed by majorities of both parties in both Houses – is the legal basis for the president’s war, which Democrats have since betrayed along with the troops they sent to the battlefield. The Authorization bill begins with 23 “whereas” clauses justifying the war. Contrary to Gore and the Democratic critics of the Bush administration, only two of these clauses refer to stockpiles of WMDs. On the other hand, twelve of the reasons for going to war refer to UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein...
"On March 17, two days before the invasion, Bush issued an eleventh-hour ultimatum to Saddam: leave the country or face war. In other words, if Saddam had agreed to leave Iraq, there would have been no American invasion. It is one of the most revealing features of the Democrats’ crusade against George Bush that they blame the war on him instead of Saddam.
In addition, there have been a significant amount of evidence showing that WMDs have been found. Hussein had enough yellowcake uranium that, if refined, would have been able to make nearly 150 nuclear bombs, besides all the other chemical weapons he had. All he would have needed was a little time and a whole lot of distraction to set up the factories to manufacture the weapons. And there should be no surprise that Hussein and Al-qaeda are connected in some way. They have been involved with each other for over a decade up until '02.
Anyone who misunderstands the reasons for the war are victims of their own forgetfulness or heavily influenced by media bias against Bush.
The war was controversial in its outset. Why Iraq? Why not keep it in Afghanistan? There were no reports of Bin Laden being in Iraq. Why waste time, money, and lives going after Hussein, who didn't even plan the 9/11 attacks? Back then, most people relied on Bush's promise to find WMDs. After five years, there doesn't seem to be much to show for all the energy put into the war. And Bush even considered it a mistake. Why keep going? We should pull out now and find the real terrorists! And then impeach Bush.
Arguments like these only show an uninformed and narrow view of the war. Many have already forgotten why we went to war in the first place. What didn't help was the mainstream media constantly focusing on the failures of the war. And many people don't make the time to do a little research to find the truth. The mainstream media already had a built-in antipathy towards Bush, so they try to find anything that would discredit him, even going so far as suppressing the truth.
Here's a reminder from the article "Why We Went to War in Iraq" by David Horowitz (emphases mine):
"...The first – and last – rationale presented for the war by the Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war was not the destruction of WMDs but the removal of Saddam Hussein, or regime change.
"This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control agreements it embodied, including UN resolutions 687 and 689, and the 15 subsequent UN resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of these, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, was itself a war ultimatum to Saddam giving him “one final opportunity” to disarm – or else. The ultimatum expired on December 7, 2002, and America went to war three months later...
"Al Gore and Bill Clinton had themselves called for the removal of Saddam by force when he expelled the UN weapons inspectors in 1998, a clear violation of the Gulf truce. This was the reason Clinton and Gore sent an “Iraqi Liberation Act” to Congress that year; it is why the congressional Democrats voted in October 2002 to authorize the president to use force to remove him; and it is the reason the entire Clinton-Gore national security team, including the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence, supported Bush when he sent American troops into Iraq in March 2003.
"The Authorization for the Use of Force bill – passed by majorities of both parties in both Houses – is the legal basis for the president’s war, which Democrats have since betrayed along with the troops they sent to the battlefield. The Authorization bill begins with 23 “whereas” clauses justifying the war. Contrary to Gore and the Democratic critics of the Bush administration, only two of these clauses refer to stockpiles of WMDs. On the other hand, twelve of the reasons for going to war refer to UN resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein...
"On March 17, two days before the invasion, Bush issued an eleventh-hour ultimatum to Saddam: leave the country or face war. In other words, if Saddam had agreed to leave Iraq, there would have been no American invasion. It is one of the most revealing features of the Democrats’ crusade against George Bush that they blame the war on him instead of Saddam.
"If its offer had been accepted, the Bush administration would have left in place a regime run by the Ba’athist Party and headed by Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz or some comparable figure from the old regime. The idea was, that without Saddam, even such a bad regime would honor the truce accords of 1991 and UN Resolution 1441. This would have led to Iraq’s cooperation with the UN inspectors and the destruction of any WMDs or WMD programs that Saddam may have had – without necessitating a war...
"Since war was not the president’s preference – first, last or otherwise – the United States did not immediately attack. Instead, the White House spent three months after the December 7th deadline trying by diplomatic means to persuade the French and Russians and Chinese to back the UN resolution they had voted for and to force Saddam to open his country to full inspections. In other words, to honor the terms of the Gulf War truce that they – as Security Council members – had ratified and promised to enforce."
In addition, there have been a significant amount of evidence showing that WMDs have been found. Hussein had enough yellowcake uranium that, if refined, would have been able to make nearly 150 nuclear bombs, besides all the other chemical weapons he had. All he would have needed was a little time and a whole lot of distraction to set up the factories to manufacture the weapons. And there should be no surprise that Hussein and Al-qaeda are connected in some way. They have been involved with each other for over a decade up until '02.
Anyone who misunderstands the reasons for the war are victims of their own forgetfulness or heavily influenced by media bias against Bush.
March 14, 2008
PMABM Newsletter #6
To continue our discussion on different martial arts I've experienced, here is a nice demonstration of silat, one of many Southeast Asian martial arts. This first video is a demonstration of both Filipino kali and silat, influenced by Dan Inosanto. He teaches the blended Maphilindo style of silat, but it's not too different from the purely Indonesian style I learned. You don't have to understand the commentators to appreciate this demonstration. If you understand Italian, then great!
This second video is more of what I trained in called pencak silat mande muda. This is part of a seminar taught by Pendekar Suwanda (pendekar means instructor). It was incredibly fun to learn since I was able to tie up my partner into a pretzel in myriad ways. This style helped catapult me to a greater understanding of contact flow and combative movement. No, it doesn't have any superficial connection to contact flow, but we'll go over some of the moves in class to help you see the shared principles.
And one more video: once again, look for the similarities in combative movement. Can you see hubud movement in there? Are you able to pick out what's effective and what's just dance-like? Do you think this can work in high speed? Do you think this can work with a sociopath coming after you?
This second video is more of what I trained in called pencak silat mande muda. This is part of a seminar taught by Pendekar Suwanda (pendekar means instructor). It was incredibly fun to learn since I was able to tie up my partner into a pretzel in myriad ways. This style helped catapult me to a greater understanding of contact flow and combative movement. No, it doesn't have any superficial connection to contact flow, but we'll go over some of the moves in class to help you see the shared principles.
And one more video: once again, look for the similarities in combative movement. Can you see hubud movement in there? Are you able to pick out what's effective and what's just dance-like? Do you think this can work in high speed? Do you think this can work with a sociopath coming after you?
March 05, 2008
I Heart Huckabee
Darn...
Huckabee dropped out of the race. And he was so good too! An incredibly gifted speaker, a natural comedian, and an overall fun-loving guy, which is not typical for a presidential candidate. I don't agree with his immigration stance, which is too much like Bush's, but for most everything else, he was closest to representing me. Oh, well, maybe I'll see him run again in 2012 or 2016 (whoa, those years seem sci-fi strange to me).
Just saw live coverage of Bush endorsing McCain. Ugh, that's too bad. I mean, both Bush and McCain are moderate anyway, so it only makes sense that they would team up. And I understand Huckabee throwing his support over to McCain, also. Strategically speaking, it would make sense to back one candidate especially if you want your party to win. I may be Republican, but I'd rather be associated with conservatism. Republicans in government are a little too moderate for me these days. Once again, it's one of those "lesser of two evils" votes. But with all the conservative radio pundits badmouthing McCain, I wonder who is truly less evil.
In the end, we'll see who God puts in the White House and then I'll have to accept it. I'll make my voice known if I need to.
Huckabee dropped out of the race. And he was so good too! An incredibly gifted speaker, a natural comedian, and an overall fun-loving guy, which is not typical for a presidential candidate. I don't agree with his immigration stance, which is too much like Bush's, but for most everything else, he was closest to representing me. Oh, well, maybe I'll see him run again in 2012 or 2016 (whoa, those years seem sci-fi strange to me).
Just saw live coverage of Bush endorsing McCain. Ugh, that's too bad. I mean, both Bush and McCain are moderate anyway, so it only makes sense that they would team up. And I understand Huckabee throwing his support over to McCain, also. Strategically speaking, it would make sense to back one candidate especially if you want your party to win. I may be Republican, but I'd rather be associated with conservatism. Republicans in government are a little too moderate for me these days. Once again, it's one of those "lesser of two evils" votes. But with all the conservative radio pundits badmouthing McCain, I wonder who is truly less evil.In the end, we'll see who God puts in the White House and then I'll have to accept it. I'll make my voice known if I need to.
March 04, 2008
Crappy News Nonsense
When we moved into our new house a month ago, the cable line was still on from the previous occupants. I told RCN to get rid of the cable because I knew I'd waste too much time in front of the dumbtube, especially with all the crap I have to do. RCN said they were on it. So, I'm watching as much as I can now before it cuts out. But man it's depressing! I'm usually on the news channels or documentary/learning channels. Talk about lack of truth and objectivity! I'm not saying there isn't any, but it sure is rare. I feel sorry for people who accept much of what these channels talk about as fact. And not only that, but the old adage "blood sells" or "sex sells" doesn't give me feel good vibes. News producers, we know the world is a wicked and violent place full of bloodshed and tears. We're very aware of the evil and the crap that happens in the world. Even though it varies in one form or another, it's still the same bad news. Is there a possibility you can report good news as often as the bad? That would be so refreshing, I would very much appreciate it. I'm sure a bunch of other people would too.
February 15, 2008
PMABM Newsletter #5
I want you to be familiar with the martial arts that have influenced my development. You're learning many of the principles from these arts, so it only makes sense to have a more in-depth knowledge of them.
Here is an Inside Martial Arts video on the Burmese martial art of Thaing, Kasheen style. I trained in a more common version of Burmese martial art called Bando, although Bando and Kasheen Thaing are both the same thing, just from different parts of Myanmar. When you watch the video, compare the similarities of combative movement in Thaing to what I teach you. Think about the underlying principles. Also, watch out for what the speaker says about the sport aspect of training, why he feels it's necessary. But, as I've said many times, even though combat sports is part of your training, it has its limitations. If the sports aspect is your only focus, it may hinder you from developing good self-defense skills, which is why contact flow and other types of non-sport self-defense training is important.
And this second video is quite interesting. Amusing actually! It's a self-defense film from the UK in the 1930s. Even then, watch out for principles of combative movement and compare it with what I teach you. Is it good self-defense? Is it bad? What techniques are usable? What goes a little too far? What is just stupid?
Remember, BASD is closed this coming Monday, so no Project Success DSD martial arts.
Here is an Inside Martial Arts video on the Burmese martial art of Thaing, Kasheen style. I trained in a more common version of Burmese martial art called Bando, although Bando and Kasheen Thaing are both the same thing, just from different parts of Myanmar. When you watch the video, compare the similarities of combative movement in Thaing to what I teach you. Think about the underlying principles. Also, watch out for what the speaker says about the sport aspect of training, why he feels it's necessary. But, as I've said many times, even though combat sports is part of your training, it has its limitations. If the sports aspect is your only focus, it may hinder you from developing good self-defense skills, which is why contact flow and other types of non-sport self-defense training is important.
And this second video is quite interesting. Amusing actually! It's a self-defense film from the UK in the 1930s. Even then, watch out for principles of combative movement and compare it with what I teach you. Is it good self-defense? Is it bad? What techniques are usable? What goes a little too far? What is just stupid?
Remember, BASD is closed this coming Monday, so no Project Success DSD martial arts.
February 06, 2008
Rid yourself of B.O.
Obama seems to have the best chance at winning the Democratic nomination right now. It's a no brainer that he'll have the majority of the black vote. It still amazes me that the party that advocated slavery ended up being the party with the most black voters in recent times. The party that fought against Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is now the party that wants to hold the black vote, not so much out of racial integration, but to keep the black people in line. Read up on the history. It's the January 27, 2008 article entitled Democrats and Racial Politics: From Jim Crow to Barack Obama by Frances Rice.
And for a little reading pleasure, here's Barack's oh so spiritual journey - as you read it can you just picture Barack as one of those Nation of Israel depictions of black Jesus, with a bright gold halo atop his closely cropped nappy hair?
And for a little reading pleasure, here's Barack's oh so spiritual journey - as you read it can you just picture Barack as one of those Nation of Israel depictions of black Jesus, with a bright gold halo atop his closely cropped nappy hair?
January 22, 2008
Roe and Doe For Sho'
“The more people learn about Roe v. Wade and what Roe v. Wade has actually done to our country, the more people oppose the provisions of Roe v. Wade... That is the primary reason that groups like Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women and other pro-abortion organizations want to get out this disinformation — they don’t want people to know the truth about Roe v. Wade.”
- Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, in an interview with Family News in Focus
This is Sanctity of Human Life week. To know how to fight abortion on demand, you'll have to know what you're up against. Read up on Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton.
Here is a summary of those decisions included in the explanation of answers from the Roe IQ test:
1. Under Roe, the Supreme Court gave free reign for abortion in the first trimester, but seemed to rule that abortion could be restricted significantly or prohibited in the second and third trimesters. However, the court said that later regulations must allow for abortions needed to protect the woman's health. Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton (issued on the same day as Roe) defined maternal "health" as: "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient." These factors are so vague and open-ended that almost any reason can be and is cited to allow abortion in the second and third trimesters. (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973); Roe, 410 U.S. at 164; Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-5; Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).
2. A woman can have an abortion for practically any reason during her pregnancy, as long as the abortion is deemed medically necessary as defined by Doe v. Bolton as "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient." (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973); Roe, 410 U.S. at 164; Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-5; Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).
3. Under Roe and Doe, there were no restrictions on how late into pregnancy a woman could have an abortion or what abortion method could be used. (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179 (1973).
4. Before Roe, the issue of abortion was decided by state legislatures and some states allowed abortion in certain circumstances. A Supreme Court decision overruling Roe would return the legalization and regulation of abortion back to the elected legislatures, as it was before. Prior to Roe, 30 states had laws criminalizing abortion. In 2006, USA Today, using data from Planned Parenthood's research arm, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, speculated that if Roe were overruled; 22 states would impose "significant" restrictions on abortion; 16 states would maintain the status quo of abortion available on demand; and 12 states would impose some restrictions on abortion. Pro-life groups have estimated that abortion would be legal in 43 states if Roe were overturned. (SOURCE: Susan Page, "Roe v. Wade: The Divided States of America," USA Today, April 17, 2006, Americans United for Life, Defending Life 2007, p. 59).
5. While various sources place the number of abortions anywhere between 40-48 million, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would approximate the number of abortions performed since 1973 to be 40,944,029. (SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Abortion Surveillance – United States, 2003, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 55, No. SS-11, November 24, 2006).
6. Although 78 percent of Americans favor parental notification laws and 72 percent support parental consent laws, under Roe, there is no required parental notification, regardless of age. In several cases after Roe, the Supreme Court cited Roe to strike down state laws that tried to ensure parents would be involved if their minor daughters had abortions. (SOURCES: Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991); Opinion Dynamics Poll, April 27, 2005).
7. Under Roe and Doe, there are no apparent restrictions on sex-selection abortions. Instead, Doe's protection of abortion for a woman's health explicitly includes "emotional, psychological, [or] familial" health, which would allow a woman to decide that having a child of a particular gender would be unhealthy for her or her family. (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179 (1973).
8. Fewer than 1 percent of abortions are done because of rape and incest. (SOURCE: A. Torres and J. Forest, "Why Do Women Have Abortions?" Family Planning Perspectives, 20:4 (July/August 1988, 169-76; A. Bankole, et al., "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries," Family Planning Perspectives, 24:3 (August 1998), 117-25, 152).
9. None of the founding documents contains the phrase "right to an abortion." The "right of privacy" that was used to justify Roe, came out of the 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut, when the court wrote: "The 'right' of privacy is based on the Bill of Rights [which] have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." A penumbra is defined by the Encarta Dictionary as a "partial outer shadow that is lighter than the darker inner shadow umbra, e.g. the area between complete darkness and complete light in an eclipse." (SOURCE: Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965).
10. The answer is Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the court's most liberal member and former counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. (SOURCE: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade," North Carolina Law Review, 63 (January 1985); 375-386, at 376).
11. Finland does not allow abortion on demand but only under certain circumstances such as life of the woman, as well as rape and incest. [including "health" may be confusing in light of Doe; this change is still consistent with the reference graph] Great Britain does not allow abortion on demand, or for rape and incest. Abortions for other reasons such as the life and health of the woman are only legal in the first six months of pregnancy. Ireland only allows abortion if the life of the woman is in danger; abortion is illegal under all other circumstances. Mexico only allows abortion during the first trimester, and then only under special circumstances (life of the woman, rape, incest, and birth defects). Abortion in the United States is legal for practically any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy. (SOURCE: "Summary of Abortion Laws Around the World," www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm).
12. Roe does not specify who can or cannot perform abortions. SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179 (1973).
- Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues at Concerned Women for America, in an interview with Family News in Focus
This is Sanctity of Human Life week. To know how to fight abortion on demand, you'll have to know what you're up against. Read up on Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton.
Here is a summary of those decisions included in the explanation of answers from the Roe IQ test:
1. Under Roe, the Supreme Court gave free reign for abortion in the first trimester, but seemed to rule that abortion could be restricted significantly or prohibited in the second and third trimesters. However, the court said that later regulations must allow for abortions needed to protect the woman's health. Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton (issued on the same day as Roe) defined maternal "health" as: "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient." These factors are so vague and open-ended that almost any reason can be and is cited to allow abortion in the second and third trimesters. (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973); Roe, 410 U.S. at 164; Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-5; Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).
2. A woman can have an abortion for practically any reason during her pregnancy, as long as the abortion is deemed medically necessary as defined by Doe v. Bolton as "all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age – relevant to the well-being of the patient." (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164 (1973); Roe, 410 U.S. at 164; Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-5; Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179, 192 (1973).
3. Under Roe and Doe, there were no restrictions on how late into pregnancy a woman could have an abortion or what abortion method could be used. (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179 (1973).
4. Before Roe, the issue of abortion was decided by state legislatures and some states allowed abortion in certain circumstances. A Supreme Court decision overruling Roe would return the legalization and regulation of abortion back to the elected legislatures, as it was before. Prior to Roe, 30 states had laws criminalizing abortion. In 2006, USA Today, using data from Planned Parenthood's research arm, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, speculated that if Roe were overruled; 22 states would impose "significant" restrictions on abortion; 16 states would maintain the status quo of abortion available on demand; and 12 states would impose some restrictions on abortion. Pro-life groups have estimated that abortion would be legal in 43 states if Roe were overturned. (SOURCE: Susan Page, "Roe v. Wade: The Divided States of America," USA Today, April 17, 2006, Americans United for Life, Defending Life 2007, p. 59).
5. While various sources place the number of abortions anywhere between 40-48 million, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would approximate the number of abortions performed since 1973 to be 40,944,029. (SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Abortion Surveillance – United States, 2003, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 55, No. SS-11, November 24, 2006).
6. Although 78 percent of Americans favor parental notification laws and 72 percent support parental consent laws, under Roe, there is no required parental notification, regardless of age. In several cases after Roe, the Supreme Court cited Roe to strike down state laws that tried to ensure parents would be involved if their minor daughters had abortions. (SOURCES: Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991); Opinion Dynamics Poll, April 27, 2005).
7. Under Roe and Doe, there are no apparent restrictions on sex-selection abortions. Instead, Doe's protection of abortion for a woman's health explicitly includes "emotional, psychological, [or] familial" health, which would allow a woman to decide that having a child of a particular gender would be unhealthy for her or her family. (SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179 (1973).
8. Fewer than 1 percent of abortions are done because of rape and incest. (SOURCE: A. Torres and J. Forest, "Why Do Women Have Abortions?" Family Planning Perspectives, 20:4 (July/August 1988, 169-76; A. Bankole, et al., "Reasons Why Women Have Induced Abortions: Evidence from 27 Countries," Family Planning Perspectives, 24:3 (August 1998), 117-25, 152).
9. None of the founding documents contains the phrase "right to an abortion." The "right of privacy" that was used to justify Roe, came out of the 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision Griswold v. Connecticut, when the court wrote: "The 'right' of privacy is based on the Bill of Rights [which] have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." A penumbra is defined by the Encarta Dictionary as a "partial outer shadow that is lighter than the darker inner shadow umbra, e.g. the area between complete darkness and complete light in an eclipse." (SOURCE: Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965).
10. The answer is Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the court's most liberal member and former counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union. (SOURCE: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade," North Carolina Law Review, 63 (January 1985); 375-386, at 376).
11. Finland does not allow abortion on demand but only under certain circumstances such as life of the woman, as well as rape and incest. [including "health" may be confusing in light of Doe; this change is still consistent with the reference graph] Great Britain does not allow abortion on demand, or for rape and incest. Abortions for other reasons such as the life and health of the woman are only legal in the first six months of pregnancy. Ireland only allows abortion if the life of the woman is in danger; abortion is illegal under all other circumstances. Mexico only allows abortion during the first trimester, and then only under special circumstances (life of the woman, rape, incest, and birth defects). Abortion in the United States is legal for practically any reason throughout all nine months of pregnancy. (SOURCE: "Summary of Abortion Laws Around the World," www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.htm).
12. Roe does not specify who can or cannot perform abortions. SOURCE: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Doe v. Bolton, 41 U.S. 179 (1973).
Answered in Genesis
I was browsing through friends blogs when I stumbled onto this one by Jud N.:
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Questions in Genesis
According to Genesis 1, plants were created on day 3, animals on day 5, and man on day 6. According to Genesis 2, man was formed before the plants (and possibly before the animals, too). Genesis 1 makes clear that male and female were both created on day 6 (i.e. before day 7). Genesis 2 seems to imply that Adam lived some time on earth alone, most likely longer than 24 hours. Can anyone help resolve these quirks? You'd think Moses could have gotten his facts a bit more clear, after all, the Holy Spirit was helping him, right?
EDIT: I've enjoyed the bit of discussion so far, and hope to keep it up, so I did a bit more studying over lunch, and the "straightforward / literal" reading of Genesis 2 in the original NASB not only says Adam was created before plants, but before the animals too, and on the same day that God made everything else. Now it seems we're all mixed up with respect to the Genesis 1 chronology. Regarding whether or not Adam and Eve were made within a 24 hour period, I certainly don't want to limit God, but it does seem that Adam would be limited by time, right? If we're to believe the natural, "literal" interpretation of the passage, that Adam actually gave names to all the animals, it's pretty hard to believe such a task could have been completed in a literal day. I'm genuinely curious if there's an answer to these problems from the "literal history" camp. Anyone want to take a crack at it?
There were a dozen commentors before me. I responded with:
"Adam worked for 12 hours with a half hour lunch when he named the animals. He was denied the two 15 minute breaks because the worker's union wasn't invented yet.
Are you seriously asking or are you just asking to spark a discussion? Do you still have the notes from freshman Bible class in Cedarville? You should find the answers there, including Genesis. (But if you're like me, then you threw them away midway through junior year.)"
Today I responded again:
"I guess you were serious. I was half-asleep when I read your Edit. Since you want an answer, here's the quick version:
Foundation: When you read the Bible, always keep in mind "context." That's the very first rule in Bible study as well as learning Biblical languages. Also, since our Bible was split into chapters and verses in the 13th and 16th centuries respectively, you don't want to rely on that to separate thoughts and ideas - an entire book has to be read as one. Next, boring dan was right in saying that Gen 2 doesn't take into account the chronological order because it merely repeats what was written earlier and that now the writer is giving details about Adam and Eve. Finally, with an old manuscript like the Bible, you have to understand the audience: Moses was writing to Israelites during the journey to the Promised Land.
Let's take Gen 2:5: the Hebrew word for "shrub" is siyach. The only other time this particular kind of plant is mentioned is in Gen 21:15 in the wilderness and Job 30:4 also in the wilderness. And, because we don't live in an agricultural society, we tend to dismiss the word "field." "Field" in Gen 2 is associated with "field" in Gen 3, as in a farm field. When those chapters are read together and acknowledge the audience, you'll see that the Israelites heard the account like this:
"God created everything perfect before sin entered. The world was different then, no wilderness shrub to make farming difficult, before we even had the need to farm, like the way you worked Pharoah's fields. Back then a mist was in the air and covered everything, unlike the dry desert heat you feel at the moment. Rain had not fallen yet, because rain is the result of sin, and I'll explain that later as well. The Garden of Eden was created on the third day with the other plants and God put man, who He created on the sixth day, in it to take care of it. Man did not cultivate fields yet because he had the Garden. Later, when man sinned, he had to cultivate the fields in hardship and eat of its fruit."
Same with naming animals - danielmfoster is right to say there weren't as many animals as we see today. Just like there were only two humans in the very beginning, there were only a small number of animals as well. I wouldn't be surprised if it took less than a day to name them all (along with that half-hour break for some non-Tree of Knowledge fruit).
So you see, there's no need to leave the "literalist camp," nor is Genesis 1-11 just poetry and metaphor, nor do we need to disregard or minimize Genesis and Revelation and only "emphasize the middle." Those bookends are part of a very important whole. By disregarding the six literal days of Creation, you disregard Jesus' reference to it in the NT as the self-evidential truth that it is. I agree that there's been too much squabbling over those two books. Revelation has had too many cheesy movies made of it and Genesis is being blown off by the established Evolutionary dogmatists as myth. How unfortunate that those dogmatists are influencing Christian thought. It's important to accept the entire Bible as plainly true because all the themes tie in with the Gospel - both Genesis and Revelation point to Jesus. With a little time and a lot of research, you'll end up with what you knew intuitively in the first place: Gen 1-11 is literal history, part of God's inerrant word."
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Questions in Genesis
According to Genesis 1, plants were created on day 3, animals on day 5, and man on day 6. According to Genesis 2, man was formed before the plants (and possibly before the animals, too). Genesis 1 makes clear that male and female were both created on day 6 (i.e. before day 7). Genesis 2 seems to imply that Adam lived some time on earth alone, most likely longer than 24 hours. Can anyone help resolve these quirks? You'd think Moses could have gotten his facts a bit more clear, after all, the Holy Spirit was helping him, right?
EDIT: I've enjoyed the bit of discussion so far, and hope to keep it up, so I did a bit more studying over lunch, and the "straightforward / literal" reading of Genesis 2 in the original NASB not only says Adam was created before plants, but before the animals too, and on the same day that God made everything else. Now it seems we're all mixed up with respect to the Genesis 1 chronology. Regarding whether or not Adam and Eve were made within a 24 hour period, I certainly don't want to limit God, but it does seem that Adam would be limited by time, right? If we're to believe the natural, "literal" interpretation of the passage, that Adam actually gave names to all the animals, it's pretty hard to believe such a task could have been completed in a literal day. I'm genuinely curious if there's an answer to these problems from the "literal history" camp. Anyone want to take a crack at it?
There were a dozen commentors before me. I responded with:
"Adam worked for 12 hours with a half hour lunch when he named the animals. He was denied the two 15 minute breaks because the worker's union wasn't invented yet.
Are you seriously asking or are you just asking to spark a discussion? Do you still have the notes from freshman Bible class in Cedarville? You should find the answers there, including Genesis. (But if you're like me, then you threw them away midway through junior year.)"
Today I responded again:
"I guess you were serious. I was half-asleep when I read your Edit. Since you want an answer, here's the quick version:
Foundation: When you read the Bible, always keep in mind "context." That's the very first rule in Bible study as well as learning Biblical languages. Also, since our Bible was split into chapters and verses in the 13th and 16th centuries respectively, you don't want to rely on that to separate thoughts and ideas - an entire book has to be read as one. Next, boring dan was right in saying that Gen 2 doesn't take into account the chronological order because it merely repeats what was written earlier and that now the writer is giving details about Adam and Eve. Finally, with an old manuscript like the Bible, you have to understand the audience: Moses was writing to Israelites during the journey to the Promised Land.
Let's take Gen 2:5: the Hebrew word for "shrub" is siyach. The only other time this particular kind of plant is mentioned is in Gen 21:15 in the wilderness and Job 30:4 also in the wilderness. And, because we don't live in an agricultural society, we tend to dismiss the word "field." "Field" in Gen 2 is associated with "field" in Gen 3, as in a farm field. When those chapters are read together and acknowledge the audience, you'll see that the Israelites heard the account like this:
"God created everything perfect before sin entered. The world was different then, no wilderness shrub to make farming difficult, before we even had the need to farm, like the way you worked Pharoah's fields. Back then a mist was in the air and covered everything, unlike the dry desert heat you feel at the moment. Rain had not fallen yet, because rain is the result of sin, and I'll explain that later as well. The Garden of Eden was created on the third day with the other plants and God put man, who He created on the sixth day, in it to take care of it. Man did not cultivate fields yet because he had the Garden. Later, when man sinned, he had to cultivate the fields in hardship and eat of its fruit."
Same with naming animals - danielmfoster is right to say there weren't as many animals as we see today. Just like there were only two humans in the very beginning, there were only a small number of animals as well. I wouldn't be surprised if it took less than a day to name them all (along with that half-hour break for some non-Tree of Knowledge fruit).
So you see, there's no need to leave the "literalist camp," nor is Genesis 1-11 just poetry and metaphor, nor do we need to disregard or minimize Genesis and Revelation and only "emphasize the middle." Those bookends are part of a very important whole. By disregarding the six literal days of Creation, you disregard Jesus' reference to it in the NT as the self-evidential truth that it is. I agree that there's been too much squabbling over those two books. Revelation has had too many cheesy movies made of it and Genesis is being blown off by the established Evolutionary dogmatists as myth. How unfortunate that those dogmatists are influencing Christian thought. It's important to accept the entire Bible as plainly true because all the themes tie in with the Gospel - both Genesis and Revelation point to Jesus. With a little time and a lot of research, you'll end up with what you knew intuitively in the first place: Gen 1-11 is literal history, part of God's inerrant word."
January 16, 2008
Happy Religious Freedom Day!
Remember the first part of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
No, I didn't know there was such a day either. It's good to recognize it, though. The establishment and free exercise clauses are misunderstood these days, especially with the oft misunderstood unconstitutional phrase "separation of church and state." Jefferson wrote that phrase in a letter to a church, not as a part of our founding documents. It's nice to know his views, although how people read it as separating religion from government so that we live in a secular society free from the Bible's influence is not the correct interpretation of the First Amendment.
Simply put, government should never make a Church of the United States. It shouldn't prefer one religion or denomination over another. The separation of church and state that Jefferson and Madison spoke of in personal letters was so that government will not be able to control churches and vice versa. Like, if Harrisburg controls the funds for the churches in Pennsylvania, collects taxes for those churches, creates its hierarchical structure, makes its weekly teaching schedule, then it violates the establishment clause. Also, government cannot keep its citizens from practicing their religion and expressing what they believe in, on private or public property, or else it violates the free exercise clause. Government should leave the churches alone. Churches shouldn't control government either. A church organization should not run a city or state government or have anything to do with their bureaucracy. But because churches are made up of citizens, they have all the right to be represented and make changes, even Biblically motivated changes, in their government on all levels.
I am glad that I live in a country where I can express my faith with no fear of government persecution. Yes, I may receive social "persecution" but that is nothing compared to what my brothers and sisters face on a daily basis in the 1040 Window, those countries in the world where Christians are constantly harassed and persecuted simply because of their faith. But wherever Christians are persecuted, they grow stronger. American Christians tend to take their freedoms for granted, and many have become weak and shallow in their faith. I can only hope that American Christians will be as strong as those Christians in the 1040 countries. And it's scary to think that the only way Christians in the US will ever be as strong is if our religious freedoms are taken away.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
No, I didn't know there was such a day either. It's good to recognize it, though. The establishment and free exercise clauses are misunderstood these days, especially with the oft misunderstood unconstitutional phrase "separation of church and state." Jefferson wrote that phrase in a letter to a church, not as a part of our founding documents. It's nice to know his views, although how people read it as separating religion from government so that we live in a secular society free from the Bible's influence is not the correct interpretation of the First Amendment.
Simply put, government should never make a Church of the United States. It shouldn't prefer one religion or denomination over another. The separation of church and state that Jefferson and Madison spoke of in personal letters was so that government will not be able to control churches and vice versa. Like, if Harrisburg controls the funds for the churches in Pennsylvania, collects taxes for those churches, creates its hierarchical structure, makes its weekly teaching schedule, then it violates the establishment clause. Also, government cannot keep its citizens from practicing their religion and expressing what they believe in, on private or public property, or else it violates the free exercise clause. Government should leave the churches alone. Churches shouldn't control government either. A church organization should not run a city or state government or have anything to do with their bureaucracy. But because churches are made up of citizens, they have all the right to be represented and make changes, even Biblically motivated changes, in their government on all levels.
I am glad that I live in a country where I can express my faith with no fear of government persecution. Yes, I may receive social "persecution" but that is nothing compared to what my brothers and sisters face on a daily basis in the 1040 Window, those countries in the world where Christians are constantly harassed and persecuted simply because of their faith. But wherever Christians are persecuted, they grow stronger. American Christians tend to take their freedoms for granted, and many have become weak and shallow in their faith. I can only hope that American Christians will be as strong as those Christians in the 1040 countries. And it's scary to think that the only way Christians in the US will ever be as strong is if our religious freedoms are taken away.
January 15, 2008
PMABM Newsletter #4
Hello! Welcome to the new year, another year to be a better martial artist.
For this month, I decided to use two videos representing the two major components of what I teach: self-defense and sport.
Self-defense:
The Dog Brothers have exceptional promotional videos for their product line. This is the promotional for their self-defense video The Interface Between Gun, Knife, and Empty-hand, which shows you how to deal with the knife and the gun. There are several ideas presented that I'd like for you to keep in mind, and I will ask you about them in class. Even though I teach you mainly from John Perkins's approach to the knife and the gun, it's good to be open to other people's views as well. As it says in the beginning of the video, "Research your own experience," and to continue that statement, "Absorb what is useful. Reject what is useless. Add what is specifically your own."
For this month, I decided to use two videos representing the two major components of what I teach: self-defense and sport.
Self-defense:
The Dog Brothers have exceptional promotional videos for their product line. This is the promotional for their self-defense video The Interface Between Gun, Knife, and Empty-hand, which shows you how to deal with the knife and the gun. There are several ideas presented that I'd like for you to keep in mind, and I will ask you about them in class. Even though I teach you mainly from John Perkins's approach to the knife and the gun, it's good to be open to other people's views as well. As it says in the beginning of the video, "Research your own experience," and to continue that statement, "Absorb what is useful. Reject what is useless. Add what is specifically your own."
Sport:
The History channel show, Human Weapon, has segments where computer generated figures are used to demonstrate various martial arts techniques. The two I've included use the same principles - the juji-gatame, also known as the armbar. We have to get you guys back on the mat to practice this basic technique while in full sparring mode. Not only that but we also have to continue practicing how to get out of the armbar as well.
Juji-gatame:
Armbar:
January 11, 2008
Time to pick the donuts
The Iowa and New Hampshire Primaries are over, but I'm still in the process of researching the candidates and figuring out which one best represents me. I'm a values voter and my spiritual values are the basis for which all the other issues are decided - domestic policy, foreign policy, economics, and various others.
For example, in economics, I am a compassionate capitalist. Here is a quick progression of thought as to why: I base this on the idea that God provides. Man is free to make his own choices and build his wealth the way he sees fit according to God-given laws, yet he is inherently sinful. God instituted government to protect man from other sinful men. Because man is flawed, government should not have too much power. With that basis, we move to the U.S. specifically - The U.S. was formed with Biblical principles as its foundation. The Founders knew man was inherently sinful and would take advantage of other men if given power, which is why they created a limited representative government with checks and balances. The phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is found in the Declaration of Independence and explained in the court case with justices Harlan and Woods1. As US citizens, we are allowed to pursue whatever we want financially, making sure it doesn't infringe on someone else's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Government's job is simply to make everyone play fair in this pursuit. Government should help the poor, but in the sense of encouraging citizens to give. Since the Bible doesn't use government as the intermediary to give to the poor, it is not government's job to take from those with more to give to those with less or none. There are those who legitimately need aid, but if unchecked will allow (has allowed) many to relinquish their personal responsibility and neglected the principle of "gleaning from the corners of the field."2 The poor have the responsibility to do what it takes (legally) to provide for themselves. The rich have the responsibility to give to the needy out of their abundance. And anyone who makes any sort of income in the US should give to those in need. So one solution would be tax breaks for those who give which is a great incentive for helping the poor.
I'll just stop there, even though I can keep going. With this progression, I've touched on several topics like welfare, big business, taxes, healthcare, and incentives for giving. I'm sure you can gather what my position is on those issues.
The liberal media make some candidates look more Christian friendly, especially those with no hard stance on the issues. Here is a video that explains this lack.
I'm looking for a candidate who will stand up and strongly declare his position and be willing to follow through on his promises. I'm aware that the candidate will be challenged greatly on those promises if ever he's elected president. The worst would be if he is one way now and then betray his voters by doing an about face during his presidency. I'm looking for someone who will offer a healthcare plan with minimal government interference, who will cut back on government spending, who will put an end to Roe vs. Wade, who will continue to cut taxes, who will hold to the true definition of marriage, who will actually enforce immigration laws, who will win this war, etc. We do not need another Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. We do need a more conservative GW, or maybe even a new Ronald Reagan.
Sources:
1. Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City CO., 111 U.S. 746 (Supreme Court 1884).
2. Leviticus 23:22
For example, in economics, I am a compassionate capitalist. Here is a quick progression of thought as to why: I base this on the idea that God provides. Man is free to make his own choices and build his wealth the way he sees fit according to God-given laws, yet he is inherently sinful. God instituted government to protect man from other sinful men. Because man is flawed, government should not have too much power. With that basis, we move to the U.S. specifically - The U.S. was formed with Biblical principles as its foundation. The Founders knew man was inherently sinful and would take advantage of other men if given power, which is why they created a limited representative government with checks and balances. The phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is found in the Declaration of Independence and explained in the court case with justices Harlan and Woods1. As US citizens, we are allowed to pursue whatever we want financially, making sure it doesn't infringe on someone else's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Government's job is simply to make everyone play fair in this pursuit. Government should help the poor, but in the sense of encouraging citizens to give. Since the Bible doesn't use government as the intermediary to give to the poor, it is not government's job to take from those with more to give to those with less or none. There are those who legitimately need aid, but if unchecked will allow (has allowed) many to relinquish their personal responsibility and neglected the principle of "gleaning from the corners of the field."2 The poor have the responsibility to do what it takes (legally) to provide for themselves. The rich have the responsibility to give to the needy out of their abundance. And anyone who makes any sort of income in the US should give to those in need. So one solution would be tax breaks for those who give which is a great incentive for helping the poor.
I'll just stop there, even though I can keep going. With this progression, I've touched on several topics like welfare, big business, taxes, healthcare, and incentives for giving. I'm sure you can gather what my position is on those issues.
The liberal media make some candidates look more Christian friendly, especially those with no hard stance on the issues. Here is a video that explains this lack.
I'm looking for a candidate who will stand up and strongly declare his position and be willing to follow through on his promises. I'm aware that the candidate will be challenged greatly on those promises if ever he's elected president. The worst would be if he is one way now and then betray his voters by doing an about face during his presidency. I'm looking for someone who will offer a healthcare plan with minimal government interference, who will cut back on government spending, who will put an end to Roe vs. Wade, who will continue to cut taxes, who will hold to the true definition of marriage, who will actually enforce immigration laws, who will win this war, etc. We do not need another Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. We do need a more conservative GW, or maybe even a new Ronald Reagan.
Sources:
1. Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City CO., 111 U.S. 746 (Supreme Court 1884).
2. Leviticus 23:22
December 15, 2007
Approved to God
December 15, My Utmost For His Highest, by Oswald Chambers
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." — 2 Timothy 2:15
If you cannot express yourself well on each of your beliefs, work and study until you can. If you don’t, other people may miss out on the blessings that come from knowing the truth. Strive to re-express a truth of God to yourself clearly and understandably, and God will use that same explanation when you share it with someone else. But you must be willing to go through God’s winepress where the grapes are crushed. You must struggle, experiment, and rehearse your words to express God’s truth clearly. Then the time will come when that very expression will become God’s wine of strength to someone else. But if you are not diligent and say, "I’m not going to study and struggle to express this truth in my own words; I’ll just borrow my words from someone else," then the words will be of no value to you or to others. Try to state to yourself what you believe to be the absolute truth of God, and you will be allowing God the opportunity to pass it on through you to someone else.
Always make it a practice to stir your own mind thoroughly to think through what you have easily believed. Your position is not really yours until you make it yours through suffering and study. The author or speaker from whom you learn the most is not the one who teaches you something you didn’t know before, but the one who helps you take a truth with which you have quietly struggled, give it expression, and speak it clearly and boldly.
"Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." — 2 Timothy 2:15
If you cannot express yourself well on each of your beliefs, work and study until you can. If you don’t, other people may miss out on the blessings that come from knowing the truth. Strive to re-express a truth of God to yourself clearly and understandably, and God will use that same explanation when you share it with someone else. But you must be willing to go through God’s winepress where the grapes are crushed. You must struggle, experiment, and rehearse your words to express God’s truth clearly. Then the time will come when that very expression will become God’s wine of strength to someone else. But if you are not diligent and say, "I’m not going to study and struggle to express this truth in my own words; I’ll just borrow my words from someone else," then the words will be of no value to you or to others. Try to state to yourself what you believe to be the absolute truth of God, and you will be allowing God the opportunity to pass it on through you to someone else.
Always make it a practice to stir your own mind thoroughly to think through what you have easily believed. Your position is not really yours until you make it yours through suffering and study. The author or speaker from whom you learn the most is not the one who teaches you something you didn’t know before, but the one who helps you take a truth with which you have quietly struggled, give it expression, and speak it clearly and boldly.
December 12, 2007
The Murray Question
This is the background story on Matthew Murray.
Was this young man ignored? Rejected? Was there something that could've been done differently? What can we learn from his experience to prevent something like this from happening again? Times like these when I question people's belief in Calvinistic sovereignty.
Apparently, Murray wasn't a Christian. Yes, he may have been raised one, but somewhere along the line, something developed in him to make him resent Christianity and, assuming he had "accepted Christ" as a child, made him deny Christ as a young adult.
From the article, he made it clear that he was influenced by the world's culture, especially by the music he listened to. Whatever you program your mind with will change you accordingly. One of the best ways to program your mind is through music because it repeats ideas to a melody, which also affects you emotionally. Or, if you already have a certain emotional bent, music will either assuage it or exaggerate it. I don't need to cite evidence for this through research because this is common knowledge - what you expose your mind to, will affect you. Murray already had a resentment towards Christians and Christianity, so the music he listened to only exaggerated this resentment. But that's only one factor among many that did him in.
I remember one guest to my youth group, we'll call him John, who resented Christian teachers. And he grew up in a Christian home! In his effort to be individualistic in his thinking, John inevitably revealed that he was uninformed and judgemental, the two things he accused Christian teachers of being. (For example, he quickly criticized one teacher's opening message without listening to the following reasons. John practically closed his ears to it.) I don't know exactly what he went through in life, but he is obviously sensitive and hurts easily. I don't deny his intelligence or his temperament; I question his reasoning and how he developed his thinking. It could be several reasons, the reasons that Murray may have experienced: It could have been the Christian teachers in his church or maybe even his parents. They could've been inconsistent in teaching him foundational Biblical principles (they taught it verbally and didn't show it in their lives). Maybe they were consistent but too hard on him, making him follow rules without letting him see the importance of relationships - with God, with them, with others. Or maybe they told him that following specific rules and doing ritualistic religion is what pleases God, which is antithetical to what the Bible teaches. Or it could be that those teachers and his parents did all they could do well and as best they knew how, but he ended up with the wrong crowd. For example, Murray was influenced by the Columbine killers and repeated the phrases they used.
I'm not about to blame the people in Murray's life. If anything, it was his responsibility, he was the one who became the monster. The question remains, though: what can we do to prevent such evil from happening, especially with the people from our own circle of influence? Prayer is top priority, of course, but what else? What can we do with the youth to influence them for God without forcing them or neglecting them?
Was this young man ignored? Rejected? Was there something that could've been done differently? What can we learn from his experience to prevent something like this from happening again? Times like these when I question people's belief in Calvinistic sovereignty.
Apparently, Murray wasn't a Christian. Yes, he may have been raised one, but somewhere along the line, something developed in him to make him resent Christianity and, assuming he had "accepted Christ" as a child, made him deny Christ as a young adult.
From the article, he made it clear that he was influenced by the world's culture, especially by the music he listened to. Whatever you program your mind with will change you accordingly. One of the best ways to program your mind is through music because it repeats ideas to a melody, which also affects you emotionally. Or, if you already have a certain emotional bent, music will either assuage it or exaggerate it. I don't need to cite evidence for this through research because this is common knowledge - what you expose your mind to, will affect you. Murray already had a resentment towards Christians and Christianity, so the music he listened to only exaggerated this resentment. But that's only one factor among many that did him in.
I remember one guest to my youth group, we'll call him John, who resented Christian teachers. And he grew up in a Christian home! In his effort to be individualistic in his thinking, John inevitably revealed that he was uninformed and judgemental, the two things he accused Christian teachers of being. (For example, he quickly criticized one teacher's opening message without listening to the following reasons. John practically closed his ears to it.) I don't know exactly what he went through in life, but he is obviously sensitive and hurts easily. I don't deny his intelligence or his temperament; I question his reasoning and how he developed his thinking. It could be several reasons, the reasons that Murray may have experienced: It could have been the Christian teachers in his church or maybe even his parents. They could've been inconsistent in teaching him foundational Biblical principles (they taught it verbally and didn't show it in their lives). Maybe they were consistent but too hard on him, making him follow rules without letting him see the importance of relationships - with God, with them, with others. Or maybe they told him that following specific rules and doing ritualistic religion is what pleases God, which is antithetical to what the Bible teaches. Or it could be that those teachers and his parents did all they could do well and as best they knew how, but he ended up with the wrong crowd. For example, Murray was influenced by the Columbine killers and repeated the phrases they used.
I'm not about to blame the people in Murray's life. If anything, it was his responsibility, he was the one who became the monster. The question remains, though: what can we do to prevent such evil from happening, especially with the people from our own circle of influence? Prayer is top priority, of course, but what else? What can we do with the youth to influence them for God without forcing them or neglecting them?
December 11, 2007
PMABM Newsletter #3
This month we'll comment on two videos: one from the Guided Chaos youtube channel and the other a surveillance video capturing a real life self-defense altercation.
The Guided Chaos video shows that it is best not to play around with locks or holds especially against an assailant with serious deadly intent.
This second video shows a robbery attempt. The entire event took less than ten minutes, but for the store employees, it must have seemed like an eternity. Fortunately for the employees, the perpetrator was only armed with a knife. Anyone can play the Monday morning quarterback with videos like these, so I'm not going to say too much. I can't criticize the manager for being the hero. As I mentioned in class, what are you willing to do and what are you prepared to deal with before the spit hits the fan? Will you let a perp go and allow law-enforcement to handle everything or will you do what this manager did? Either way would be all right, although the manager risked his own safety by holding on to the perp. Good for him that the perp didn't have a second knife or even a gun. Using the ideas from the first video, you'll see that it was quite a challenge to try and control the perp. (And for you MMA nuts, what technique did the manager use to control the would-be robber? Hint at 3:33)
The Guided Chaos video shows that it is best not to play around with locks or holds especially against an assailant with serious deadly intent.
This second video shows a robbery attempt. The entire event took less than ten minutes, but for the store employees, it must have seemed like an eternity. Fortunately for the employees, the perpetrator was only armed with a knife. Anyone can play the Monday morning quarterback with videos like these, so I'm not going to say too much. I can't criticize the manager for being the hero. As I mentioned in class, what are you willing to do and what are you prepared to deal with before the spit hits the fan? Will you let a perp go and allow law-enforcement to handle everything or will you do what this manager did? Either way would be all right, although the manager risked his own safety by holding on to the perp. Good for him that the perp didn't have a second knife or even a gun. Using the ideas from the first video, you'll see that it was quite a challenge to try and control the perp. (And for you MMA nuts, what technique did the manager use to control the would-be robber? Hint at 3:33)
November 20, 2007
Behind
The evening news occasionally reports medical break-throughs. They advertise these stories as if they had the edge on what's going on in the medical community. When I was growing up, my mom, who's a nurse, would always say how far behind the media was in reporting these break-throughs. I usually rolled my eyes; sometimes I believed her, sometimes I didn't.
Today I read about how researchers can use nonembryonic adult stem cells (ASCs) as an alternative[1] to the more controversial embryonic stem cells. Just like my previous article citing the appendix, I found myself saying, "this report is so far behind." The media lumps stem cells into one category, embryonic stem cells (ESCs), and that these are the only kind of cells that are the answer to the myriad diseases and cancers plaguing mankind. And they make it seem like this Bush guy is halting science by withdrawing funding for research into this panacea of panaceas.
The whole debate with ESCs began as a pursuit for cellular immortality through the cell's regenerative power.[2] Researchers were able to isolate ESCs with the hope that these cells will be the most versatile in cellular therapy. But the research proved that ESCs were not capable of immortality. "The only immortal cells we know of are cancer cells."[3] A lot of media hype, liberal thought indoctrination, and celebrity power were the source of misinformation and caused the inevitable controversy. When human life is redefined by government and culture as only occurring in the last trimester of pregnancy, then there will be problems. I don't want to let government be the last word in defining terms for me. Human life begins at the embryonic stage and saying so uses both scientific reasoning and common sense. Destroying an embryo for research is the same as destroying a human life. It can't get anymore simple than that.
Adult stem cells are the best choice in therapy. One stem cell researcher, Markus Grompe, had an ethical dilemma and tried to make sense of the issue. He said "it is factually wrong to state that limitations on ESC research are preventing life-saving cures, and it is equally false to claim that ESCs have no therapeutic potential. At this point, we simply don't know."[4] Even though Grompe leans toward not destroying ESCs, he missed an important point about their research. ESCs may have therapeutic potential, but because it is programmed to develop an entire body, it poses several problems for researchers including genetic instability and the development of cancerous cells. ASCs are being used today on a consistent basis. To date, ASCs account for around 70 therapeutic applications.[5] And they don't seem to be mostly blood related like Grompe said. In fact, there are a variety of applications including various cancers and bodily damage, not just for blood. Yes, it could have all been experimental and not clinical, but it worked.[6]
I'm glad the media pointed out that skin cells can be used as stem cells, but it's old hat. Instead, they should emphasize how ASCs are being used already and that the skin cells are just one of many options people have in helping them with their ailment without having to destroy human life to do so.[7]
Sources:
1. Associated Press. (2007, November 20). 'Milestone' stem cell advance reported. CNN.com. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/20/stem.cells.ap/index.html
2. Bethell, T. (2006, November 20). The Great Stem Cell Error. The American Spectator. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10652
3. Ibid.
4. Grompe, M. (2007, October 11). Alternative energy for embryonic stem cell research. Nature Reports Stem Cells. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2007/0710/071011/full/stemcells.2007.100.html [doi:10.1038/stemcells.2007.100]
5. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf
6. Hall, R. (2007, July 30). Adult Stem Cell Research Puts Patients First, Proponents Say. CNS News. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070730a.html
7. Lillge, W. (2001) The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research. 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
Today I read about how researchers can use nonembryonic adult stem cells (ASCs) as an alternative[1] to the more controversial embryonic stem cells. Just like my previous article citing the appendix, I found myself saying, "this report is so far behind." The media lumps stem cells into one category, embryonic stem cells (ESCs), and that these are the only kind of cells that are the answer to the myriad diseases and cancers plaguing mankind. And they make it seem like this Bush guy is halting science by withdrawing funding for research into this panacea of panaceas.
The whole debate with ESCs began as a pursuit for cellular immortality through the cell's regenerative power.[2] Researchers were able to isolate ESCs with the hope that these cells will be the most versatile in cellular therapy. But the research proved that ESCs were not capable of immortality. "The only immortal cells we know of are cancer cells."[3] A lot of media hype, liberal thought indoctrination, and celebrity power were the source of misinformation and caused the inevitable controversy. When human life is redefined by government and culture as only occurring in the last trimester of pregnancy, then there will be problems. I don't want to let government be the last word in defining terms for me. Human life begins at the embryonic stage and saying so uses both scientific reasoning and common sense. Destroying an embryo for research is the same as destroying a human life. It can't get anymore simple than that.
Adult stem cells are the best choice in therapy. One stem cell researcher, Markus Grompe, had an ethical dilemma and tried to make sense of the issue. He said "it is factually wrong to state that limitations on ESC research are preventing life-saving cures, and it is equally false to claim that ESCs have no therapeutic potential. At this point, we simply don't know."[4] Even though Grompe leans toward not destroying ESCs, he missed an important point about their research. ESCs may have therapeutic potential, but because it is programmed to develop an entire body, it poses several problems for researchers including genetic instability and the development of cancerous cells. ASCs are being used today on a consistent basis. To date, ASCs account for around 70 therapeutic applications.[5] And they don't seem to be mostly blood related like Grompe said. In fact, there are a variety of applications including various cancers and bodily damage, not just for blood. Yes, it could have all been experimental and not clinical, but it worked.[6]
I'm glad the media pointed out that skin cells can be used as stem cells, but it's old hat. Instead, they should emphasize how ASCs are being used already and that the skin cells are just one of many options people have in helping them with their ailment without having to destroy human life to do so.[7]
Sources:
1. Associated Press. (2007, November 20). 'Milestone' stem cell advance reported. CNN.com. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/11/20/stem.cells.ap/index.html
2. Bethell, T. (2006, November 20). The Great Stem Cell Error. The American Spectator. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10652
3. Ibid.
4. Grompe, M. (2007, October 11). Alternative energy for embryonic stem cell research. Nature Reports Stem Cells. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.nature.com/stemcells/2007/0710/071011/full/stemcells.2007.100.html [doi:10.1038/stemcells.2007.100]
5. http://www.stemcellresearch.org/facts/asc-refs.pdf
6. Hall, R. (2007, July 30). Adult Stem Cell Research Puts Patients First, Proponents Say. CNS News. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200707/CUL20070730a.html
7. Lillge, W. (2001) The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research. 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html
November 19, 2007
Questions
Pastor Deb of Family Life Community Church started a blog and it provides different questions for the week. After a few days or so of thinking about it, I finally came up with a decent question: Is it necessary to keep pushing for political/cultural change while also working on affecting individuals for Jesus or should we keep focus on the individual level with the hope that it will then affect the political/cultural arena?
I can answer that question myself, but I also want to see other people's answers as well.
I can answer that question myself, but I also want to see other people's answers as well.
November 18, 2007
Useless organs?
I wanted to review the human muscular system and looked into the book Anatomy and Physiology, which my wife borrowed from a friend. When I opened the book, the first chapter had a section devoted to evolution. I thought evolution was dumb before, but after the Creation Seminar this past week, it was laughable to see the "evidence" for evolution. There was a little factoid box on page 11 that talked about vestigial organs,[1] organs that have lost function or just have limited function because of an evolutionary development in the human body. First of all, "the list of vestigial organs in humans has shrunk from 180 in 1890 to 0 in 1999."[2] This Anatomy and Physiology book was the second edition from 2001. The editors were either clueless about the recent finds in medicine about those organs, or they were in denial. I noticed that the list of vestigial organs was limited to human body hair and the muscles for ear movement. Neither are vestigial either, just part of the bigger system of the human body. Just because evolutionists don't know its purpose or how it developed, does not mean it has no function or that it is simply a vestige of a previously functioning organ. Right now, I'll get rid of doubts about the most cited "vestigial" organ - the appendix:
The appendix is a very useful and complex organ in the body. The evolutionary dogma that states the appendix is vestigial most likely hampered any major advance in research concerning its true function: being part of the immune system. Ham and Wieland (1997) cites a medical textbook by Dr. Martini saying: "the authors are emphatic about the function of the appendix: The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system."[3] Ham and Wieland says further: "the appendix, in conjunction with other parts of the body which also contain cells called B-lymphocytes, manufactures several types of antibodies:
1. IgA immunoglobulins, involved in surface or mucosal immunity. These are vital in maintaining the protective barrier between the bowel and the bloodstream.
2. IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders via the bloodstream."
Last month, I read a CNN report saying that Duke University Medical School doctors found the purpose of the appendix. I'm not a doctor and yet I was fully aware of the appendix's function back in college. The "new" medical find was actually behind the times. The article quoted a Duke University surgery professor who said, "in less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S."[4] The professor didn't seem to account for the diet of industrialized nations - generally processed, ultra-hygienic, and low in natural fiber. Ham and Wieland states "it is clear that appendicitis is only common in countries where a very highly refined modern diet is eaten. Where people eat a high proportion of vegetables, fruit and unrefined cereals, (in other words, have a high fiber diet), appendicitis is actually very rare.[3]"
I shake my head in disbelief when I read professional literature that talks of vestigial organs as if it is still a valid research subject. I think to myself, "People with doctorates write this stuff?" I'm tempted to get a doctorate as well and be one of a growing number of scientists who know that life didn't come about by chance and evolutionary processes, but by the power of the Creator.
Sources:
1. Saladin, K. (2001). Anatomy and physiology: The unity of form and function. McGraw-Hill: New York.
2. Bergman, J. (2000). Do any vestigial organs exist in humans? Technical Journal 14(2):95–98. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp
3. Ham, K. & Wieland, C. (1997). Your appendix ... it’s there for a reason. Creation 20(1):41–42 December 1997. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/appendix.asp
4. CNN.com (2007, October 5). Purpose of appendix believed found. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html
The appendix is a very useful and complex organ in the body. The evolutionary dogma that states the appendix is vestigial most likely hampered any major advance in research concerning its true function: being part of the immune system. Ham and Wieland (1997) cites a medical textbook by Dr. Martini saying: "the authors are emphatic about the function of the appendix: The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system."[3] Ham and Wieland says further: "the appendix, in conjunction with other parts of the body which also contain cells called B-lymphocytes, manufactures several types of antibodies:
1. IgA immunoglobulins, involved in surface or mucosal immunity. These are vital in maintaining the protective barrier between the bowel and the bloodstream.
2. IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders via the bloodstream."
Last month, I read a CNN report saying that Duke University Medical School doctors found the purpose of the appendix. I'm not a doctor and yet I was fully aware of the appendix's function back in college. The "new" medical find was actually behind the times. The article quoted a Duke University surgery professor who said, "in less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S."[4] The professor didn't seem to account for the diet of industrialized nations - generally processed, ultra-hygienic, and low in natural fiber. Ham and Wieland states "it is clear that appendicitis is only common in countries where a very highly refined modern diet is eaten. Where people eat a high proportion of vegetables, fruit and unrefined cereals, (in other words, have a high fiber diet), appendicitis is actually very rare.[3]"
I shake my head in disbelief when I read professional literature that talks of vestigial organs as if it is still a valid research subject. I think to myself, "People with doctorates write this stuff?" I'm tempted to get a doctorate as well and be one of a growing number of scientists who know that life didn't come about by chance and evolutionary processes, but by the power of the Creator.
Sources:
1. Saladin, K. (2001). Anatomy and physiology: The unity of form and function. McGraw-Hill: New York.
2. Bergman, J. (2000). Do any vestigial organs exist in humans? Technical Journal 14(2):95–98. Retrieved November 18, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp
3. Ham, K. & Wieland, C. (1997). Your appendix ... it’s there for a reason. Creation 20(1):41–42 December 1997. Retrieved October 5, 2007, from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/appendix.asp
4. CNN.com (2007, October 5). Purpose of appendix believed found. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/10/05/appendix.purpose.ap/index.html
November 09, 2007
Wiki madness
I love online encyclopedias because they make research a little more convenient. I'm aware they're not always credible and they're not academic journals, no matter how academic they may sound. The biggest and most popular is Wikipedia. Based on the free Media wiki software, this encyclopedia is constantly growing and is a good start in any research endeavor. But because I'm into the truth, I also look for another view to the facts. Wikipedia is good for general usage, but because of the slightly liberal (or blatantly liberal) views on certain topics, I balance it out with Conservapedia, the more conservative view of the facts. I won't even get into the radical and nonsensical wiki sites, like the supposedly "rational" wiki. And if I'm looking for theology or anything related, I use Theopedia, which seems to be dependable. All three combined are useful in leading me to better sources.
Sources:
Media Wiki (2007). http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
Wiki Index (2007). http://www.wikiindex.org/Category:MediaWiki
Sources:
Media Wiki (2007). http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
Wiki Index (2007). http://www.wikiindex.org/Category:MediaWiki
November 08, 2007
PMABM Newsletter #2
I've decided to do a monthly newsletter instead of a bi-weekly one, since there isn't a big readership for it right now, and I have way too much to do.
This month's video is from the Dog Brothers. This is their promo video for their semi-annual Gathering of the Pack tournaments, which is beyond UFC and something more akin to what we like to do. They take the cake in how advanced they are in their approach to martial arts and they do a wonderful job at promoting this event. Make sure you comment on this and if you haven't commented on the previous video that you do so as well.
This month's video is from the Dog Brothers. This is their promo video for their semi-annual Gathering of the Pack tournaments, which is beyond UFC and something more akin to what we like to do. They take the cake in how advanced they are in their approach to martial arts and they do a wonderful job at promoting this event. Make sure you comment on this and if you haven't commented on the previous video that you do so as well.
October 22, 2007
Heroes welcome
I finally got to watch the first few episodes of Heroes. My sisters promoted it so much to me that I finally took the time to rent it. It's like a superhero comic book without the cheese. From what I see so far, it's a good combination of X-Files and X-Men, both being top-notch in their respective areas of sci-fi. My sibs and I are big sci-fi fans and we also read comic books growing up. Not only that but we're into good literature and we're quite familiar with world myths. Heroes is now another great addition to our stockpile of addictive stories that color our conversations.
I have one critique - Heroes is so blatantly pro-evolution that sometimes it's tough not to get riled up. Yes, it's a sci-fi show, but it's based on concepts that people think is real science. I'm sure many scientists cringe also, but for the evolutionists, this is one entertaining way to market and indoctrinate their religion. As I'm doing more research on Creationism, it just makes evolution that much more silly of a concept. Nice as science-fiction; paltry as science. Since evolution is merely today's origins myth, I liken good sci-fi to the great myths of old. The ancient pagans believed the world began a certain way, ie - Kaos of Greek myth or Pan Ku of Chinese myth. Likewise today, the majority belief is that random chance processes brought the world into existence over billions of years. Just because the majority believes something is true does not mean it's true.
I give Heroes credit for at least allowing the idea that God may be the source of their powers. They may not be talking about the God of the Bible, but at least He's implied. In a way, I hope to see more of that idea pan out as I finish the first season. I better hurry through it because I think the second season just started.
I have one critique - Heroes is so blatantly pro-evolution that sometimes it's tough not to get riled up. Yes, it's a sci-fi show, but it's based on concepts that people think is real science. I'm sure many scientists cringe also, but for the evolutionists, this is one entertaining way to market and indoctrinate their religion. As I'm doing more research on Creationism, it just makes evolution that much more silly of a concept. Nice as science-fiction; paltry as science. Since evolution is merely today's origins myth, I liken good sci-fi to the great myths of old. The ancient pagans believed the world began a certain way, ie - Kaos of Greek myth or Pan Ku of Chinese myth. Likewise today, the majority belief is that random chance processes brought the world into existence over billions of years. Just because the majority believes something is true does not mean it's true.
I give Heroes credit for at least allowing the idea that God may be the source of their powers. They may not be talking about the God of the Bible, but at least He's implied. In a way, I hope to see more of that idea pan out as I finish the first season. I better hurry through it because I think the second season just started.
October 10, 2007
PMABM Newsletter #1
This is the first video newsletter for our advanced class! For the next few weeks, we'll be analyzing Kurae no ken's kurae fighting style video. There's a lot in this and I would love to hear your input. To make this worthwhile for all of us, I prefer that with each video I add, we should make a comment, a critique or a question, and a case-study practice exercise. To give you guys an example of what I'm talking about:
Comment:
This is one of the best martial art school promotional videos I've seen so far.
Critique:
The knife disarms are too impractical and downright dangerous to pull off in real life. Fun to watch, though, and it's still good to learn things like that. (Or if you have a question about it - Would knife disarms like that actually work in real life?)
Case-study:
We should practice the Indonesian/Filipino silat principle of driving into the opponent.
I can easily go on with each point and you can too if you want. This is the least we should do so we can get into the habit of doing something about what we see and not just let it entertain us. Everything we do should have a point so we can get more from our practice.
Comment:
This is one of the best martial art school promotional videos I've seen so far.
Critique:
The knife disarms are too impractical and downright dangerous to pull off in real life. Fun to watch, though, and it's still good to learn things like that. (Or if you have a question about it - Would knife disarms like that actually work in real life?)
Case-study:
We should practice the Indonesian/Filipino silat principle of driving into the opponent.
I can easily go on with each point and you can too if you want. This is the least we should do so we can get into the habit of doing something about what we see and not just let it entertain us. Everything we do should have a point so we can get more from our practice.
July 12, 2007
Oh my heaven
Tori Spelling becomes an ordained minister? Wow. I guess if you have enough time on your hands and you want to deconstruct the very idea of marriage, then I guess you can do that type of thing. She must have gotten her certification from the Church of Secular Humanism because what she did was definitely not Christian. Bad enough that secular organizations pass themselves off as religious, or even Christian, and perform gay marriages. It's worse when people who come from a Christian denomination accept even the idea of gay marriage. Absolutely no thought behind that conclusion. You'd have to eradicate all sense of good reason and knowledge of the Bible and mindlessly go along with the culture to say that gay marriage is acceptable. To say that it is acceptable in the Bible is beyond mindlessness, it's irrational and dangerous.
Source:
Hall, S. (2007, July 10) Tori Spelling officiates. E! Online News. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=918054c3-c4b8-4f04-b48f-de042634830c
Source:
Hall, S. (2007, July 10) Tori Spelling officiates. E! Online News. Retrieved July 12, 2007, from http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=918054c3-c4b8-4f04-b48f-de042634830c
July 09, 2007
Flimsy
Sources are important to lend your argument or assertion some credibility. Blogs don't necessarily need them since most bloggers write opinion pieces rather than academic articles. But for those who write professionally, say in the world of journalism and the more serious bloggers, it is vital they use sources that are reliable and truly credible. I hate it when I read articles in newspapers that use other newspapers as their source. Whatever statement the writer tried to prove was buttressed by twigs.
The same is true in the blogosphere. I was ambivalent in using references, citations, or sources in my articles. Sometimes I thought "what's the point?" Other times I thought, "hey, maybe this will lend my articles a little more credibility." I've seen articles where the blogger used references, but the references were not credible at all. Sorry, I don't have a source for that. Trust me, though, I've read several. I may add some examples in the future if the need arises. But I've decided to add sources when I can in future articles. I may want to publish a few outside of this blog.
The same is true in the blogosphere. I was ambivalent in using references, citations, or sources in my articles. Sometimes I thought "what's the point?" Other times I thought, "hey, maybe this will lend my articles a little more credibility." I've seen articles where the blogger used references, but the references were not credible at all. Sorry, I don't have a source for that. Trust me, though, I've read several. I may add some examples in the future if the need arises. But I've decided to add sources when I can in future articles. I may want to publish a few outside of this blog.
July 07, 2007
Live Dearth
"Hartwig Volz, a geophysicist with RWE Research Lab in Germany, questioned the merit of the climate projections coming from the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC climate projections have fueled worldwide support for the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to restrict the greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming.
Volz noted that IPCC does not even call the climate models "predictions" and instead refers to them as "projections" or "story lines." Volz said the projections might be more aptly termed "fairy tales."
Scientists Debunk 'Fairy Tale' of 'Global Warming' by Marc Morano, CNSNews.com Wednesday, May 15, 2002
Al Gore is a self-deluded propagandist.
Also, this is one article among many written by scientists who let the evidence speak for itself.One thing is sure about global warming: we are not causing it and we cannot control it, that is, if it's actually happening at all. To understand what is going on depends on a person's worldview and their understanding of science.
Added on October 14, 2007:
Al Gore is my sheperd
He is only aware of what he wants
He makes me lie down on park benches outside his mansion
He leads me beside the polluted water of his strip mine
He restores my doubt in brain dead politicians
He leads me in the path of Kyoto for his legacy sake
His lies make children sleepless
Though I walk dark in my house, his three are lit like Vegas
Surely his lust for power will follow me all the days of my life
And I will see votes held to the light on thanksgiving forever
by carmexworks, comment on youtube.com from Gore's holographic opening of live earth 7-7-7 channel by stefanhelder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)