Posts
The evolutionist:
The whole business about fossilization.Flora and fauna occur at radically different densities and of radically different types in different age rocks. Exactly as predicted in the evolutionary model. The part you left out about your evalution was the nature of the rock itself. Some types of rock are formed through creative destruction. It is broken up, remelted, puverized or otherwise completely reformed through geological processes. Other rock layers, formed through other processes, then presearved in its original state through shear luck, are presented to us intact. Sometimes we are lucky enough to have the right condition for fossilization to have occured millions of years ago when they were formed. These layers are indeed dense with life, while others, those that come to us through a destructive process, contain no traces. Just as would be predicted. I do not agree with the scenario you laid out before for fossilization, because it does not take into account this geological process.
Me:
Finally, I get the chance to do this again. Whoa, didn't realize you guys kept going, but here's my response to what Erich wrote last week. Hope you don't mind:
Geomorphism is good and fine, it's observable and can be tested (with the exception of age, which both camps differ). As I stated, though: How did the fossils get there? Not, how was it "preserved through the eons," but how did it get fossilized in the first place. There are so many fossils that were caused by permineralization and compression that "shear luck" can't really account for it. Besides, the "radically different" sentence about rocks is a given for both models (once again, with the exception of age). Geomorphism is a given. Please account for how the remains got there and instantiate your claims. And don't say that dinosaurs buried their dead!
And here's an excerpt from Raup's 'Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology' (and just in case you think this is from Creationist literature this is from Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History: Chicago IL, January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.22-29, pp.24-25)
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic."
I'll include this train of thought in the next email.
August 23, 2008
August 19, 2008
Define discipline
About a week ago, I heard a complaint made by a student from another school about my martial arts school. He said that our school is not the place to learn discipline and that it's best to go to his school instead. I'm not one to jump at every complaint made about me, especially if it's not legitimate. I'll take it into account, but I don't let those things bother me. But just in case my students need an idea of how to respond to people who make those comments, this entry gives an answer. Apparently, whoever made the complaint wasn't practicing discipline with his words:
My school does not teach traditional martial arts so it will not have the same formalities. Bowing and lining up in rank order is a fine practice. It's a good visual aid to a form of discipline, but it is not the discipline itself. One major philosophy in our school is practicality, so you will not see these forms like you see in traditional schools. Instead, there is more of an emphasis on personal responsibility. The teacher motivates the students to take initiative for their martial arts training and have the students pursue their own personal goals while maintaining the attitude of mutual respect. Both the teacher and the student work together to reach those goals and concurrently learn how to work with others to reach their goals.
Through the martial arts, students learn to abide by a code of conduct based on respect for the teacher, fellow students, and the art form. This is done through consistent direct communication of what is expected of them, which is all good and fine. But from my experience and observation, when the sensei or coach tells students what to do, and they do it, it's only discipline for that particular activity. The student did not necessarily transfer that discipline to other areas of life. The hope of "do what you're told" is that the habit of doing that activity would transfer to other areas, but that isn't always the case. In fact, for the most part, students become dependent on someone to tell them what to do rather than take initiative to do what's needed for them personally.
(There are those who come to resent the more demanding authority, also.)
"Over-reliance on extrinsic motivation leads to learned helplessness and learned dependence. Learned helplessness is a state in which the individual does not believe that she is capable of influencing important outcomes in her life. The more students’ behavior is determined by others’ directions and external inducements, the more the students will lose their sense of self-determination and self-efficacy" (Ylvisikar, Hibbard, and Feeney, Online).
Only few actually learn to internalize those discipline concepts and transfer them to other areas of life. I guide students to what they need to do and from there, they choose to do it. Instead of just telling them what to do, I take the extra step of letting them know how it applies to other life activities and to persistently persuade them to be more intrinsically motivated. They will choose to do what is demanded of them.
A second point to our method of discipline is that our school does not adhere to Confucian-influenced hierarchy. We do teach discipline, just not in the traditional Asian martial arts sense of the word. We respect the instructor because he is willing to give his knowledge and time to train the student and he is the authority in matters of coaching in the martial arts and various parts of life. In Confucian philosophy, the basis for respecting the instructor has more to do with filial piety, or ancestor worship. People are intuitively aware of a spiritual reality and most if not all cultures are naturally inclined to be superstitious. This means that "spirit" to the Confucian is not just the ideals, essence of philosophy, and personality of a dead person, but "spirit" means the soul, the very life-force of the person that continues on after death. Instead of submitting to authority out of simply respecting them because you seek their knowledge and experience, in Confucian-influenced societies, submitting to authority has more to do with respecting those "spirits", thus keeping order in a collective or else incur the wrath of your ancestors and the government. I have endeavored not to include any hint of Eastern spirituality or even hierarchy structure based on Eastern spirituality in my martial arts philosophy.
The best answer, of course, was made by one of my students:
"You've never practiced with us, so how would you know?"
August 15, 2008
Let's get ready to rumble! (Part 2)
The evolutionist:
Intelligent Design is just a stupid cover term for Creationism. There is no scientific 'Intelligent Design' movement. Look into it, and it all leads back to the same two web sites run by non-sicentist Christians organizations pushing literal interpretation of the bible. And they are not "growing". The "many articles" again all lead back to the same place. Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years. In the context of the age of the earth, this a mere blink of the eye. This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.
Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant. Or wait! Maybe the THOUSANDS of scientists that looked at this issue have all missed the explaination you have given below. Yeah, that;s it! That's the ticket! You have a grasp of the requirements for fossilization that TENS OF THOUSANDS of scientists who spend their whole lives studying this issue have not figured out! I strongly suggest you write an article for a real sicence journal (i.e. one that is not published by the same two web sites run by the same non-scientist Cristian organization pushing literal interpretation of the bible). This kind of new insight into the truth is exactly what the science world is always looking for. Except for the Satanists in the scientific world, who will work undercover to squash your ideas to keep their minions in line.
Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right. That would, indeed, require supernatural intervention of the Satanic kind.
Me:
Ah, it seems you've been listening to the National Center for Science Education who are on the defensive these days.
No, ID isn't a cover term. I had hoped you wouldn't say that because it would tell me you aren't knowledgeable of the intricacies involved in this hotly debated issue. If you've ever read anything from them, you'll see that not all are creationists. They have a variety of views and not all even acknowledge the God of the Bible. So unfortunately your statement disappointed me there. And yes, there are scientists in the intelligent design movement, but are just branded by the media as ignorant and vilified by the evolutionary dogmatists, who have a loud voice but no real evidential support. I guess you like to listen to good marketing. (My favorite evolutionary sales pitches are found on the Discovery channel.) It seems you really haven't taken the time to look into the resource I suggested. Don't worry, they're not the "two websites" that you keep harping on. What are those websites anyway? Yes, I use "two websites," but I also use several other websites and sources. Once again you have no backing to your claim that those "two websites" only employ "non-scientists." Your argument is weak. Please take the time to buttress your statements like I do mine.
Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant.
Please explain because you begin with an assertion but fail to give good follow-up reasoning. Your statement is incomplete. I know we're only having email discussions, but you can still provide examples like I did. My reasoning is based on scientific logic and observable phenomena. Yours? Sounds like parroted statements made by the more militant evolutionary dogmatists who, like you, say that evolution is true without good enough support to their statements. I'm also disappointed because you didn't honor me by responding with an example using scientific methodology, no matter how small, or even a good counterargument without resorting to unnecessary diatribe. And if you want credibility, here are a couple of Intelligent Design scientists, not to be confused with "non-scientist Christians" Jonathan Wells http://www.iconsofevolution.com/author/ and Richard Sternberg http://www.richardsternberg.org/biography.php
Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years.
This is another unsubstantiated statement. And yes I'm aware that evolutionists think it could be up to 1 million years, but not too much longer. They don't have the fossil record for it, which is why some even think it's much faster, even down to the tens of thousands of years. I don't usually like using websites like these as a resource, but make sure you look into this quick summary of punctuated equilibrium.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html
Or if you've read anything by Gould you'll recognize this phrase when talking about punctuated equilibrium and the "imperfect fossil record" statement that Darwin had to fall back on in the 19th century: the imperfect record statement "still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly." I know he said that in the 1970s but it's still relevant today. Even though he was coming from an evolutionary standpoint and, in context, wanted to explain punctuated equilibrium, the fact remains, even by evolutionist standards: there are no good transition forms.
This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.
Darwin proposed gradualism and uniformitarianism, well-informed evolutionists these days accept otherwise (although that side is varied and a few try to synthesize). Darwin himself wrote in The Origin of the Species: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." For those who compare the fossil record and Darwin's theory, the record wins and Darwin's theory needs changing. It has been changed and revised since the 19th century by the way.
Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right.
Concerning my fossilization example, here are two sources to counter your not-too-well-cited and albeit, overgeneralized and weak statements: (No, they're not from those "two websites" and bold words are mine.)
From the New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fossil
"Permineralization fossilization - for permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decaying process...Most dinosaur fossils that are found are permineralized."
From UCMP at Berkeley: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleo/fossils/
"There are many conditions that contribute to the formation of fossils. The most common include the possession of hard parts, such as a skeleton or shell, and a rapid burial after death. Besides being tough and hard, the organism must come to rest in a place where it can be buried before it decays or disintegrates. If the organism is not buried deeply and quickly, aerobic bacteria will reduce it to rubble."
I used to go to NYC's Museum of Natural History quite often and they display lots of fossils in a chaotic jumble. You will either accept that there was a massive burial of many different flora and fauna over "several geologic eras" or you will accept that there was only a small and limited amount of fossilized remains. The evidence of course points to the former. And no, not too many evolutionists will accept the simple fact that fossils with complex structures are found in all strata.
Oh, and I have both The Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man in my personal library. I've read both (absolutely dull). Have you? From what I've read of your comments so far, it seems you have not. And it's disappointing that you haven't kept up with the most recent research, in the evolution camp, in the intelligent design camp, and in the creation camp.
And please, try not to get upset. I have nothing against you and I hope you have nothing against me. I'm having fun with this and I'm sure you are, too. I mean, it's highly entertaining to hear you talk of Satan and conspiracy theories, but it doesn't have any bearing on our discussion right now. We'll talk about spiritual issues, too, no doubt about that. But if you think this discussion is a joke and you'd rather not share in serious scientific inquiry, then I would have to bow out, since I can't waste my time. I need you to be a professional, science-minded adult while we discuss.
Intelligent Design is just a stupid cover term for Creationism. There is no scientific 'Intelligent Design' movement. Look into it, and it all leads back to the same two web sites run by non-sicentist Christians organizations pushing literal interpretation of the bible. And they are not "growing". The "many articles" again all lead back to the same place. Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years. In the context of the age of the earth, this a mere blink of the eye. This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.
Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant. Or wait! Maybe the THOUSANDS of scientists that looked at this issue have all missed the explaination you have given below. Yeah, that;s it! That's the ticket! You have a grasp of the requirements for fossilization that TENS OF THOUSANDS of scientists who spend their whole lives studying this issue have not figured out! I strongly suggest you write an article for a real sicence journal (i.e. one that is not published by the same two web sites run by the same non-scientist Cristian organization pushing literal interpretation of the bible). This kind of new insight into the truth is exactly what the science world is always looking for. Except for the Satanists in the scientific world, who will work undercover to squash your ideas to keep their minions in line.
Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right. That would, indeed, require supernatural intervention of the Satanic kind.
Me:
Ah, it seems you've been listening to the National Center for Science Education who are on the defensive these days.
No, ID isn't a cover term. I had hoped you wouldn't say that because it would tell me you aren't knowledgeable of the intricacies involved in this hotly debated issue. If you've ever read anything from them, you'll see that not all are creationists. They have a variety of views and not all even acknowledge the God of the Bible. So unfortunately your statement disappointed me there. And yes, there are scientists in the intelligent design movement, but are just branded by the media as ignorant and vilified by the evolutionary dogmatists, who have a loud voice but no real evidential support. I guess you like to listen to good marketing. (My favorite evolutionary sales pitches are found on the Discovery channel.) It seems you really haven't taken the time to look into the resource I suggested. Don't worry, they're not the "two websites" that you keep harping on. What are those websites anyway? Yes, I use "two websites," but I also use several other websites and sources. Once again you have no backing to your claim that those "two websites" only employ "non-scientists." Your argument is weak. Please take the time to buttress your statements like I do mine.
Your whole dissertation of the fossilization of life forms has serious problems. The conditions that are required for fossilization and the numbers and densities of fossils found in rock strata are entirely consistant.
Please explain because you begin with an assertion but fail to give good follow-up reasoning. Your statement is incomplete. I know we're only having email discussions, but you can still provide examples like I did. My reasoning is based on scientific logic and observable phenomena. Yours? Sounds like parroted statements made by the more militant evolutionary dogmatists who, like you, say that evolution is true without good enough support to their statements. I'm also disappointed because you didn't honor me by responding with an example using scientific methodology, no matter how small, or even a good counterargument without resorting to unnecessary diatribe. And if you want credibility, here are a couple of Intelligent Design scientists, not to be confused with "non-scientist Christians" Jonathan Wells http://www.iconsofevolution.com/author/ and Richard Sternberg http://www.richardsternberg.org/biography.php
Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that a jump in evolution can occur relatively rapidly. But relatively rapidly, in the time frame of Paleontology, could be 1 million years.
This is another unsubstantiated statement. And yes I'm aware that evolutionists think it could be up to 1 million years, but not too much longer. They don't have the fossil record for it, which is why some even think it's much faster, even down to the tens of thousands of years. I don't usually like using websites like these as a resource, but make sure you look into this quick summary of punctuated equilibrium.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/5/l_035_01.html
Or if you've read anything by Gould you'll recognize this phrase when talking about punctuated equilibrium and the "imperfect fossil record" statement that Darwin had to fall back on in the 19th century: the imperfect record statement "still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly." I know he said that in the 1970s but it's still relevant today. Even though he was coming from an evolutionary standpoint and, in context, wanted to explain punctuated equilibrium, the fact remains, even by evolutionist standards: there are no good transition forms.
This is well within the current theory of evolution and in no way negates or contradicts the theory.
Darwin proposed gradualism and uniformitarianism, well-informed evolutionists these days accept otherwise (although that side is varied and a few try to synthesize). Darwin himself wrote in The Origin of the Species: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." For those who compare the fossil record and Darwin's theory, the record wins and Darwin's theory needs changing. It has been changed and revised since the 19th century by the way.
Look, if what you describe about fossilization were true (and I have read some articles about fossilization, so I can say with confidence that they are not), you would have to create some sort of massive conspiracy to explain why this would be some big secret that no scientist accepts as right.
Concerning my fossilization example, here are two sources to counter your not-too-well-cited and albeit, overgeneralized and weak statements: (No, they're not from those "two websites" and bold words are mine.)
From the New World Encyclopedia: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Fossil
"Permineralization fossilization - for permineralization to occur, the organism must become covered by sediment soon after death or soon after the initial decaying process...Most dinosaur fossils that are found are permineralized."
From UCMP at Berkeley: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleo/fossils/
"There are many conditions that contribute to the formation of fossils. The most common include the possession of hard parts, such as a skeleton or shell, and a rapid burial after death. Besides being tough and hard, the organism must come to rest in a place where it can be buried before it decays or disintegrates. If the organism is not buried deeply and quickly, aerobic bacteria will reduce it to rubble."
I used to go to NYC's Museum of Natural History quite often and they display lots of fossils in a chaotic jumble. You will either accept that there was a massive burial of many different flora and fauna over "several geologic eras" or you will accept that there was only a small and limited amount of fossilized remains. The evidence of course points to the former. And no, not too many evolutionists will accept the simple fact that fossils with complex structures are found in all strata.
Oh, and I have both The Origin of the Species and The Descent of Man in my personal library. I've read both (absolutely dull). Have you? From what I've read of your comments so far, it seems you have not. And it's disappointing that you haven't kept up with the most recent research, in the evolution camp, in the intelligent design camp, and in the creation camp.
And please, try not to get upset. I have nothing against you and I hope you have nothing against me. I'm having fun with this and I'm sure you are, too. I mean, it's highly entertaining to hear you talk of Satan and conspiracy theories, but it doesn't have any bearing on our discussion right now. We'll talk about spiritual issues, too, no doubt about that. But if you think this discussion is a joke and you'd rather not share in serious scientific inquiry, then I would have to bow out, since I can't waste my time. I need you to be a professional, science-minded adult while we discuss.
August 14, 2008
Let's get ready to rumble!
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!
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 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)