I love Saturday. Saturday is the day you look forward to on every other day of the week. Even on Sunday, you start to schedule your next Saturday in your mind. For some reason Monday's are irrepressibly depressing, because its so opposite of Saturday. Saturday equals options for the individual, Monday equals duty for the individual.
It would be an interesting study indeed to find out how different days of the week affect people. I personally, tend to notice about 90% ups on the depression scale when Monday rolls around. I don't doubt that most of my customers would confess to feeling a slight heaviness of the heart when their alarm clock sounds off Monday morning. I, assuredly, feel gradually more and more depressed by the gloom of people feeling gloomy. Spring and sunshine, where are you?
But take heart! It's still Saturday! And you're still not done reading my blog!
Today, I had a spontaneous girlfriend day. I don't normally get chances to get together with my friend Kimmie, so when she called me up last night to ask if I wanted to go shopping, I sniffed my last sniff of sickness and felt better instantly. "What time?" - was my reply.
After the deliciously nauseating feeling of too much food from Ponderosa (my childhood favorite restaurant - brings back the macaroni and cheese memories), we drove to the mall and I scoured the prom dresses (inevitable). My friend and I get crazy when we shop, though. We like never buy anything. We just spend forever 'looking' (the phenomenon that drives all men batty).
Although, there was the exception of one time (in the past) at Target we bought batteries and deodherant. I wrote out a check for 15 bucks, and now that seems so hilarious. We don't buy things like normal people, because it just seems so much more fun to amuse ourselves with abnormal things. It did get a little embarrassing, though, when my friend began humming the mission impossible theme and darted from pillar to pillar behind two unsuspecting ladies. We also went into Bath and Body Works and were befriended by a woman who wanted to tell us all about the body-spray we had been sampling. I asked (for a friend) if any of their foot products dispelled planters warts, and my friend got this shocked look. It was classic - pay-back embarrassing moments. That's how we are, though. We're those giggly nuts who squeeze behind curtains into photo booths and scream because the pictures are taken too fast. Only, the last time we did it there was no curtain, and every body who went past us looked in with wrinkled, mature noses. That was quite fun.
Anyways, so that was my Saturday. I came home, filled out a migraine of a Scholarship form (my Dad moaned that it felt like taxes all over again), and I ate my mom's steaming, home-made biscuits. My mom makes the best biscuits in the world. I told her that when I get to college, I would like her to please mail a box of her biscuits to me still steaming all the way from winter-land. There's something irresistibly melty about them, that even Ponderosa and campus meals cannot possibly hold a candle to my mom's biscuits.
Random. Spontaneous. Irresistible. Unpredictable. Yes. That's me/life.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
In Fact...
Right, so today I stood at the green counter and decided life was rather boring. Perhaps it was merely in my perspective that life was boring -- it could in fact have been very exciting and I just missed out today -- or it could be that I still feel focused very strongly on a certain issue, and even though deep in my gut I know there is no end to this argument (unless of course, I agree with those who disagree with me)... there seems to be an endless fountain of thoughts on the subject. It's on me mind. It's boring me, but it's on me mind. So it's welling up within me. No beliefs shall be altered. Might as well drive this into the dust, eh? What have I got to lose!
First of all, I'd like to thank those of my customers who have graciously visited my blog. You know how much I treasure and value your opinions - that is why I divulge some of your deep thoughts here. It's really fascinating - how much you can learn from passing conversations, passing witty thoughts, and even different infectious ways of saying 'hello' and 'goodbye'. Anyways, that was totally free.
Evolutionists. Very knowledgable people, I must say. But I wonder if they are really all that comfortable skirting around the issues they don't know, and spouting off about the issues they do know. (Regardless, they certainly deal with alot of issues).
In fact, as interesting as the perspective of the theory Evolution has been for me, Evolution is NOT Science. The literal meaning of 'Science' is 'knowledge'. Evolution is merely a way of LOOKING at knowledge - discoveries - new information - scientific processes.
Everyone is biased - duh. I have never read a work that was notpbaised, and if I ever did, I probably wouldn't finish it because it would be boring! So a 'bias', or 'leaning of beliefs' is inescapable for any religion (be it Evolution, Creation, or any other nut job out there).
One of my customers had a very good, simple way of describing this bias. If having a bias is like wearing a pair of glasses, then no matter what you study 'scientifically', you will be seeing it all through your choice of glasses (i.e. your bias).
For Creationists, it is fascinating to discover new things, because it does not have to 'disprove Science' or 'disprove facts'. No, when a Creationist Scientist studies and observes science, he sees added detail to Intelligent Design. Creatinist Scientists see a Detrimental or Neutral Mutation, and because of their bias, think 'That proves it. Only God could create a Beneficial Mutation'. Studying science through the shades of Creation, therefore strengthens the faith of the Creationist. This is not scientifically 'incorrect', it is merely a different way of interpreting the data. (As for new 'religions' poppin up all over the place, which give atheists cause to challenge 'which is the true god?' - I submit that the true god is the oldest God - the one God - the only God of the Bible. If a new god is being discovered in 2008, that is one pathetic and unpowerful god. Let's stick with the God you've always fought against, no?).
Evolutionists cannot create Beneficial Mutations - but through their bias, it is only logical for them to say triumphantly, "But that makes sense! Only billions of years could bring about something so complex."
Both ways of evaluating, are in fact in pursuit of "Science"/"Knowledge".
Because the concept of Creationism has been around for so long, many modern scientists find it too 'simple', 'unchanging', and quite possibly 'too-God-oriented'. This is unfortunate.
Evolutionists like to come across as "more complex", "more scientific", and "more accurate". When in fact, their technical terms are a pretty way to dress up what they DO know, and CAN prove (thinks that could in fact, have more than one way to look at it). Naturally, they quickly forgive the GAPS in their theories, look no deeper, and call it Evolution/Science. Indeed, Evolutionists are perched behind pileds of knowledge, but they see it all through a glass darkly.
Many children that are taught the theory of Creation all of their growing up years - go on to a secular college, and are immediately retaught all that 'science' entails. Do you suppose if a Scientist who has been trained all of his academic years to support the theory of Evolution were to find a contradiction to the theory of Evolution - he would actually deliver it up to the public or print it in textbooks? Most would scorn the idea - and like BLT said - would never believe regardless of conflicting evidence. No, my friends. They would automatically set about to disprove it... This is only natural, because they are strongly biased. Logically, they would call it an 'exception', and would quickly shelve it. This is merely a stipulation, of course, but it does give cause for ponder.
A Creationist, looks at the layers of our earth, and say "Yes, it is odd how each of those layers seems to represent billions of years'. And yet - a Creationist is willing to look deeper - NATURALLY - because he is willing to prove his bias. What a Creationist might find, is an uprooted tree - petrified straight up through those layers. Now he can ask - "Did the tree stand there and wait for billions of years of layers to build up around it? Or is the account of the Biblical flood possible?"
In response to all of the questions directed against me, I would honestly love to stay on and google 24/7, and alternate between debating every comment that contradicts my beliefs, but - in fact - I have a life. A boring one at times, albeit a very "full-of-potential and things to do" life. Ture - it is good to know what other's think and say - but in the end, few care to hear once again what 'others think'. They want you to speak for yourself.
For this reason, I find it cute that many of the evolutionists seem to have a 'Book of Links Promoting Evolution' on hand. Ask them a question, and they raise their hands eagerly... to pull down the 'Link Book'. Theny they, the master's of copy and paste, copy the approved Link in answer to any of their problems (with the exception of David. I appreciate your thorough insight, sir).
Truly, I tell my fellow skeptics (which literally means: thoughtful, inquiring), that the theory of Evolution is very smooth, it is very complex, and it has become - over the last only 150 or so years - the generally accepted modern answer to 'life'. But Evolution is just a way of looking at Science. Evolution is NOT Science.
Many years ago, the geocentric theory was FACT. Spontaneous generation (the concept that organisms come to life from non-living substances) was accepted until the mide-1800's. During the Middle Ages, it was believed that frogs and fish were formed during raisntorms. So, of course 'Science' (man's limited knowledge) is constantly changing!
To some, logical reasoning is truth. They feel it is true, if everything makes sense and is figured out. Mathematics is logical. 2 + 2 = 4. But, in fact - we are dealing with 2 + x = 5. You tell me what the answer is. (that's rhetorical, don't get defensive).
So, is it logical to come from nothing? I realize there are alot of technical terms for it all, but strip away the formalities and talk human. Is it logical for matter (which can be neither created nor destroyed, only altered) to create/evolve more matter through un-inspired mutations? Is it possible that modern Science has become skewed - quite popularly - so that man is told not to question - never to question (only ask for more knowledge 'humbly' - as I was instructed to try) - only absorb. And it is an untruth to accuse me of "not questioning" my beliefs and my upbringing and my God. I've questioned God on alot of things, and I've been searching for answers. He has never failed to show me that, while the world may constantly change and alter in so many ways, it is TRUTH that remains the same foundation.
The belief in God, as Supreme Designer of this world, however, is the only Simplicity about the theory of 'Creation'. Many mature evolutionists have mocked 'Godidit' - as though that is the answer for every scientific phenomenon that Creation Scientists discover. But, it is obvious that the life God created on Earth is VERY complex - something no man could ever duplicate, improve on, or seek to alter. Hoenstly. Think about it. Even if someone went about the process of putting an organism completely together, they could not make the organism function or even proces life.
Evolution is based on DEATH - each less superior animal or organism had to die off to give way to a new, better, improved organism.
Creation is based on LIFE - God made a mature world, and He made good on His perfect Creation right from the start. What does God need with evolution? If He can create something as complex as the DNA Double Helix (which Evolutionists cannot possibly credit to the theory of Evolution), He can certainly create man how he should be from the start - instead of evolving the first poor creature into some better version of Adam!
Another thing - while I'm at it - are these words by Darwin rejected by Evolutionists?
---"Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day, I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered…"--- Darwin also said: "Not one change of species into another is on record…we cannot prove that a single species has changed (into another )".
While we're pulling for 'Link Books', here are some links you might like to check out and disprove for me.
http://www.creator-creation.com/evolution.htm
http://www.allaboutscience.org/dNA-double-helix.htm
www.icr.org
http://www.creationstudies.org/
and then, once you're exhausted from those (or comforted by completely ignoring them),
here's a happy familiar pro-evolution one you guys gave me. I send it right back atcha for your assurance in time of need.
www.talkorigins.org
First of all, I'd like to thank those of my customers who have graciously visited my blog. You know how much I treasure and value your opinions - that is why I divulge some of your deep thoughts here. It's really fascinating - how much you can learn from passing conversations, passing witty thoughts, and even different infectious ways of saying 'hello' and 'goodbye'. Anyways, that was totally free.
Evolutionists. Very knowledgable people, I must say. But I wonder if they are really all that comfortable skirting around the issues they don't know, and spouting off about the issues they do know. (Regardless, they certainly deal with alot of issues).
In fact, as interesting as the perspective of the theory Evolution has been for me, Evolution is NOT Science. The literal meaning of 'Science' is 'knowledge'. Evolution is merely a way of LOOKING at knowledge - discoveries - new information - scientific processes.
Everyone is biased - duh. I have never read a work that was notpbaised, and if I ever did, I probably wouldn't finish it because it would be boring! So a 'bias', or 'leaning of beliefs' is inescapable for any religion (be it Evolution, Creation, or any other nut job out there).
One of my customers had a very good, simple way of describing this bias. If having a bias is like wearing a pair of glasses, then no matter what you study 'scientifically', you will be seeing it all through your choice of glasses (i.e. your bias).
For Creationists, it is fascinating to discover new things, because it does not have to 'disprove Science' or 'disprove facts'. No, when a Creationist Scientist studies and observes science, he sees added detail to Intelligent Design. Creatinist Scientists see a Detrimental or Neutral Mutation, and because of their bias, think 'That proves it. Only God could create a Beneficial Mutation'. Studying science through the shades of Creation, therefore strengthens the faith of the Creationist. This is not scientifically 'incorrect', it is merely a different way of interpreting the data. (As for new 'religions' poppin up all over the place, which give atheists cause to challenge 'which is the true god?' - I submit that the true god is the oldest God - the one God - the only God of the Bible. If a new god is being discovered in 2008, that is one pathetic and unpowerful god. Let's stick with the God you've always fought against, no?).
Evolutionists cannot create Beneficial Mutations - but through their bias, it is only logical for them to say triumphantly, "But that makes sense! Only billions of years could bring about something so complex."
Both ways of evaluating, are in fact in pursuit of "Science"/"Knowledge".
Because the concept of Creationism has been around for so long, many modern scientists find it too 'simple', 'unchanging', and quite possibly 'too-God-oriented'. This is unfortunate.
Evolutionists like to come across as "more complex", "more scientific", and "more accurate". When in fact, their technical terms are a pretty way to dress up what they DO know, and CAN prove (thinks that could in fact, have more than one way to look at it). Naturally, they quickly forgive the GAPS in their theories, look no deeper, and call it Evolution/Science. Indeed, Evolutionists are perched behind pileds of knowledge, but they see it all through a glass darkly.
Many children that are taught the theory of Creation all of their growing up years - go on to a secular college, and are immediately retaught all that 'science' entails. Do you suppose if a Scientist who has been trained all of his academic years to support the theory of Evolution were to find a contradiction to the theory of Evolution - he would actually deliver it up to the public or print it in textbooks? Most would scorn the idea - and like BLT said - would never believe regardless of conflicting evidence. No, my friends. They would automatically set about to disprove it... This is only natural, because they are strongly biased. Logically, they would call it an 'exception', and would quickly shelve it. This is merely a stipulation, of course, but it does give cause for ponder.
A Creationist, looks at the layers of our earth, and say "Yes, it is odd how each of those layers seems to represent billions of years'. And yet - a Creationist is willing to look deeper - NATURALLY - because he is willing to prove his bias. What a Creationist might find, is an uprooted tree - petrified straight up through those layers. Now he can ask - "Did the tree stand there and wait for billions of years of layers to build up around it? Or is the account of the Biblical flood possible?"
In response to all of the questions directed against me, I would honestly love to stay on and google 24/7, and alternate between debating every comment that contradicts my beliefs, but - in fact - I have a life. A boring one at times, albeit a very "full-of-potential and things to do" life. Ture - it is good to know what other's think and say - but in the end, few care to hear once again what 'others think'. They want you to speak for yourself.
For this reason, I find it cute that many of the evolutionists seem to have a 'Book of Links Promoting Evolution' on hand. Ask them a question, and they raise their hands eagerly... to pull down the 'Link Book'. Theny they, the master's of copy and paste, copy the approved Link in answer to any of their problems (with the exception of David. I appreciate your thorough insight, sir).
Truly, I tell my fellow skeptics (which literally means: thoughtful, inquiring), that the theory of Evolution is very smooth, it is very complex, and it has become - over the last only 150 or so years - the generally accepted modern answer to 'life'. But Evolution is just a way of looking at Science. Evolution is NOT Science.
Many years ago, the geocentric theory was FACT. Spontaneous generation (the concept that organisms come to life from non-living substances) was accepted until the mide-1800's. During the Middle Ages, it was believed that frogs and fish were formed during raisntorms. So, of course 'Science' (man's limited knowledge) is constantly changing!
To some, logical reasoning is truth. They feel it is true, if everything makes sense and is figured out. Mathematics is logical. 2 + 2 = 4. But, in fact - we are dealing with 2 + x = 5. You tell me what the answer is. (that's rhetorical, don't get defensive).
So, is it logical to come from nothing? I realize there are alot of technical terms for it all, but strip away the formalities and talk human. Is it logical for matter (which can be neither created nor destroyed, only altered) to create/evolve more matter through un-inspired mutations? Is it possible that modern Science has become skewed - quite popularly - so that man is told not to question - never to question (only ask for more knowledge 'humbly' - as I was instructed to try) - only absorb. And it is an untruth to accuse me of "not questioning" my beliefs and my upbringing and my God. I've questioned God on alot of things, and I've been searching for answers. He has never failed to show me that, while the world may constantly change and alter in so many ways, it is TRUTH that remains the same foundation.
The belief in God, as Supreme Designer of this world, however, is the only Simplicity about the theory of 'Creation'. Many mature evolutionists have mocked 'Godidit' - as though that is the answer for every scientific phenomenon that Creation Scientists discover. But, it is obvious that the life God created on Earth is VERY complex - something no man could ever duplicate, improve on, or seek to alter. Hoenstly. Think about it. Even if someone went about the process of putting an organism completely together, they could not make the organism function or even proces life.
Evolution is based on DEATH - each less superior animal or organism had to die off to give way to a new, better, improved organism.
Creation is based on LIFE - God made a mature world, and He made good on His perfect Creation right from the start. What does God need with evolution? If He can create something as complex as the DNA Double Helix (which Evolutionists cannot possibly credit to the theory of Evolution), He can certainly create man how he should be from the start - instead of evolving the first poor creature into some better version of Adam!
Another thing - while I'm at it - are these words by Darwin rejected by Evolutionists?
---"Long before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day, I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered…"--- Darwin also said: "Not one change of species into another is on record…we cannot prove that a single species has changed (into another )".
While we're pulling for 'Link Books', here are some links you might like to check out and disprove for me.
http://www.creator-creation.com/evolution.htm
http://www.allaboutscience.org/dNA-double-helix.htm
www.icr.org
http://www.creationstudies.org/
and then, once you're exhausted from those (or comforted by completely ignoring them),
here's a happy familiar pro-evolution one you guys gave me. I send it right back atcha for your assurance in time of need.
www.talkorigins.org
Monday, February 25, 2008
I have discovered... The Definition to that which intrigues us All
I suppose life goes on... and yet I am still intrigued by all that I absorbed on Saturday (for I must confess, it was quite a lot to absorb).
I have to admit, I laughed out loud when I saw the comment about 'Christians purposefully going onto science journals in search of persecution', because I can imagine some Christians doing just that. It’s kind of similar to democrats who will call into Rush Limbaugh’s show, so that they can say, “Hey, I called into Rush!”. They, of course, are immediately shut up, and when they get off the air (sometimes without choice), their points are ridiculed into oblivion. And yet, still they call. Fascinating.
So, with the ‘scientists at large’ receding back into their comfortable corner, I feel more at ease talking to my normal readers. I feel I can confess the things I have learned with ease.
It is with great solemnity that I confess to having slept little the past couple of days, on the account of the definition of ‘Evolution’. Indeed it is a dreadful thing to hear in ones ears. All of Sunday, while I sat in my little pew at church, my mind was nagging me to get back to the previous debate. Even when I talked to people, it was steadily in the back of my mind. I had my last little obliterated word, and that was fine with me… But maybe there’s something deeper to it all.
Here’s what I mean. I thought of something…rather spontaneously. I was accused of not truly understanding the concept… the definition of Evolution. And honestly - I had a picture in my mind of little monkeys gradually losing hair and becoming, well, intelligent human beings. That, my dear readers, seems laughable.
So, what’s the solution? There’s always some kind of solution, no? I decided to find out what people in general think ‘evolution’ means.
So I posed the following ‘slightly controversial question’ to my endearing customers. “What do you think the definition of Evolution is?” Surprisingly, few of them asked ‘what kind of evolution’. They already KNEW that I was referring to the evolution which brought man, animals, and life’s existence in general about. And, if you fear my customers were offended or defensive, I can assure you they suffered no customer-abuse. One man put it this way, “I never shy away from a controversy.” I echo that.
So free speech reigns, my dear readers. These are directly from the mouths of average Americans, like you and I. Some of the words were penned by the customers themselves. Are you ready?
What is the definition of Evolution?
1. Where’s a good dictionary? There’s not really a definition. It’s a theory. It’s not proven. It’s the theory of evolution. It’s not the law of evolution - like the law of gravity.
2. That’s a good question.
3. That human beings were previously some other form of life. They evolved. Over one million years.
4. I think the definition of evolution is different for every person. Because everyone is constantly evolving into something different than they currently are. It also means- some of us are going backwards and are going forwards. Everyone will see it differently - like everyone’s in their own world, even though we’re co-existing together. For instance, if everyone were given a camera at a bridal party, the pictures taken would show all different angles.
5. You gotta have change somewhere in there… Um the process of like a graduated change to something… where the resulting entity that is changing is distinct from the entity that was at the beginning of the process.
6. Adaptation to accommodate environment.
7. It’s a thing we have scientific proof for. You can scientifically prove evolution.
8. Just life evolves. It gets better. It gets worse. The strongest survive. Darwinism. I don’t buy into the theory that the world is 10,000 years old - just because the Bible says it.
9. It’s a lie. Creation is the way it works. Evolution is alie. There are details - but to think that randomly chemicals can get together and build amoebas and amoebas can get together and build…whatever’s next… It ust doesn’t make sense. It takes more faith to believe in Evolution than Creation, because there are just so many gaps in Evolution. They find a “new” bone in Africa and exclaim, “That proves it!” There’s evidence that carbon dating isn’t really as accurate as they say it is. I think there’s a Creation Museum in Cincinnati Ohio.”
10. I deny to define it.
11. Things change as the environment changes.
12. Change. One word.
13. The process of adapting to one’s surroundings.
14. More towards what we would consider higher life forms.
15. Most people argue that it’s evolution vs. creation. But there are many Creationist-Evolutionists. Evolution is an adaptation - and ability for everything to adapt to it’s surroundings.
16. My definition of evolution is constantly changing.
17. Evolution is really nothing more than creation. Some people put history in it, but it’s really just creation.
18. Man evolved from Primates.
19. Change built upon change.
20. Evolution is the point at which some of us became superior to others.
21. Evolution is a scientists explanation for the existence of the planet.
22. First thing that comes to mind is change, adaption, and survival.
23. The graduation from simple to complex.
24. Animals/Humans evolving over time to best suit their climate and environment.
25. BIG BANG theory. Universe was created by atoms that compressed to a type of compression and then exploded in energy. However, it was engineered by an Intelligent Superior Being.
26. The change in an organization over a long perio dof time due to climatic or geographic changes
27. The theory that life on earth began without supernatural influence.
28. I defer to the dictionary.
29. Refer to #21
30. Stupid. Stupid is, Stupid does. There’s no way in **** that amoeba floated to land, then evolved into an iguana or something… then - into whatever.
Those were the definitions, and while I didn’t press anybody for their beliefs on the issues -- I wanted things as unbiased as possible -- one lady went a little deeper on one side of the spectrum.
I believe…
“I know evolution involves something like change - but it’s gotta be something bigger than that. Like, I believe in God - but could evolution also be possible? I know my job is constantly evolving to something different, and I as a person am constantly evolving (growing, changing) to something different. I’m just trying to figure out if I believe in evolution - like if God may be wants me to evolve to something better.”
Then, for a more precise (albeit difficult to understand) definition, I dug up a piece (yes, copy and paste! Isn’t it divine?) defining Evolution on www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/.
I drew from it, that Evolution (at least macroevolution, the piece clarifies) ‘in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. What is vigorously challenged…is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level. Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.’
This last definition seemed to be a very long way of saying that, in fact - life started with…something? And then, something made that something into a man.
So, I am intrigued. I am sitting here, thinking, hmm. Right, so they look at a chair, and tell me all about how the chair is made. They tell me how old the chair is, and what kind of wood the chair’s made from, and what has sat on that chair… and yet there still seems to be something missing.
Perhaps this is more of a philosophical question, and yet it still must be asked. I am told to believe all of this… presumably by people far more intelligent than the average person… but it is understandable to wonder… if things are being formed, what is the driving force that is forming things? Sure, the chair is there… the chiseled-out-bones are in the museum… the technical words are splashed boldly against a computer screen. But, is all of that science? After all, science is constantly changing. The definition of science is constantly changing. The world is full of possibilities. I am sure if I were to ask the question ‘why’, (why or what force caused the first atom to be created, and this perfect atmosphere of ours to take shape) I would be told that is not a question I can ask. I’m not allowed to ask that question. Science cannot answer the question of morals. All right, but is ‘why’ a moral, or a philosophical question. Could ‘why’ or ‘what’ behind the forming of this great earth of ‘ours’ be the answer to the age-old debate of ‘evolution vs. creationism’, or as one man put it, ‘creationistic evolution’. Why was the chair formed or made? Did it just come to be, and it’s just waiting to be analyzed and debated over? Or is there something more… logical. Something that science cannot explain. Only logic… man… God can prevail on this one.
You see the turmoil I am in. So I have to tie this all up for now. So here’s the big clincher. My definition of the results that evolution brings…
(These have been implied by various commenters, so I can only assume that it was commented for the benefit of the concept of Evolution.)
Evolution seems to be saying that children do not have the right to choose what they learn in school. Okay. Evolution-grounded-Scientists have the right to decide for parents and children that morals and religion do not apply to America’s children. Right. Children also do not have the right to debate the issue, because the “science that is always changing” is already decided for them.
How am I doing so far?
I conclude, my dear evolutionists - if you happen upon this in a few dusty years, that you are a machine. The idea began, it took root, and then ‘evidence’ supported itself with ‘evidence’. Little discoveries are constantly being made, but who is to say that an objective scientist will conclude the objective result? Are you not all clearly biased - and have you not already said, that although science is changing, you will not see creation (or any other possibility) in a clear light?
My dear unbiased readers, and otherwise controversially drawn passers-by, I wonder if our evolutionists really believe that Creationists purposefully seek them out in pursuit of persecution… that they purposefully pursue the path of martyrdom. If I could, I would tell my dear evolutionists that they flatter themselves. They are not our enemy. They are merely the majority.
I have tried to be objective… and I fear I have come across rather strongly biased. It is funny. One commenter demanded the answer for God - who made Him? - why does He exist? And I demanded of evolutionists the answer for evolution - what possessed it to begin? - why does it continue? Yet one very wise man once put it this way. “We in our little finite minds try to explain the infinite.”
Truly, while some believe Evolution to be mixed intricately with Creation, I ask - why believe God at all if you can only believe Him half way? And why believe in Science, if it leaves you with no purpose to live?
Perhaps when I am old, wizened, and embittered, I will return to my little blog and type to my hearts content about the fallacies of ideals and hope in a Sovereign being, or a design that was Intelligent and Intentional -- but even in the future I believe the controversy will fascinate me, and spur me on to something deeper. Perhaps a deeper…definition. Because, as many of my customers made clear, who knows the answer? Who dares to put themselves above all - ‘superior’ as it was said (even superior to God), and tell us that they know exactly what happened billions of years ago? Hypothesize, by all means. But tell our children there is but one answer?
Never.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Haha, I've had the best Saturday in years. I've got that great thing they call 'a cold', and I'm crabby, and I'm still ready for bed at 3:36 in the afternoon. But, that of course, is not what is making my Saturday great.
Here's why. Check this out. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/florida_land_of_the_delusional.php
I happened on this blog, and added my two little bits. Suddenly I found myself the target of every single commenter. It was great fun! Who cares if they're all Evolutionist and I'm a Creationist. I have my beliefs, they have theirs. Nobody changed, and nobody was converted, but I've never enjoyed a debate more in all my years. And I lost. I was severely outnumbered. But it was still amusing, how quickly all of these 'learned, higher-order, unquestioned' evolutionists began hating a little 17 year old for speaking her mind.
If you don't want to check out the link, here are a few things they said.
Is there any hope for Andria?
Andria: Go back to school before your mind turns into complete jelly.
Andria: You are part of the PROBLEM. America is going down the toilet because of people like you.
Gah! I'm really not in the mood for such flagrant, mind-destroying ignorance today. Won't someone PLEASE break out the duct tape and put an end to Andria's toxic, gaseous yapping?
Wow! This is the rudest I've been to anyone in, like, a year! Andria wins! She wins... a really nice prize. Of some kind. Or a weekend at the brain spa. It's free with the tour of the timeshares.
Seriously. I am sorry. And I'd say Andria is the real winner here. She's the one with the greatest opportunity to ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING HERE TODAY.
The world waits, with bated breath: Will Andria seize the day?
GO FOR IT, GIRL! Go for it.
For the love of all that's real or imagined... Go for it.
Another wrote:
Believe me, i fully understand what we are up against and this drive-by crea-troll Andria just isn't worth the effort.
One posed a good thought:
Take this statement by Andria:
My question for Evolutionists is - where did the speck come from? Who made the speck?
And then ask, "Who made God? Where did God come from?"
Another cynic:
I know God doesn't exist because if there were an omnipotent being capable of creating and guiding the development of living things, there'd be no excuse for the existence of people as utterly, deeply stupid -- and in this case, I don't mean ignorant, I mean STUPID -- as Donna Callaway and her wannabe butt-buddy, Andria.
Yet another:
Andria: I'll save myself and you a lot of venomous bileby having you prove that your imaginary god exists andhave it come down and smite all of us that have the nerveto question your insane beliefs. Come on, let's see this freaking god of yours. You cannot do it because all thissuperstitous crap is lodged in your deranged brain andwill forever misguide your pathetic and insane life.
A bit harsher:
I got bingo on Andria's #32 post alone! Right after I finished laughing at the first sentence, that is. Everyone else has already done the hard work, so I'll just chime in and say that Andria, you have said absolutely nothing that hasn't been said and shown to be wrong hundreds of times before, dozens of those times on this site alone. Google is your friend. Look up your "arguments" before you go spouting them off at the big kids' table.
And as for this, Whoever is doing this slamming, has clearly never tried to understand Christians., a lot of the slammers used to be quite dedicated Christians, so you can't use the "but they don't understand us" canard around here.
Here's one of those intillectuals with the uncanny how-to at poking fun:
All right, let's try logic, since apparently you all are not used to opposition.
LMAO!
Ten points to Andria for making me grin on this dull, grey day! Thanks! I take back every nasty thing I said! I take them back twice! Then I will eat crow! Three times!
"...not used to opposition."
Tee-hee.
[*shuffles off, muttering happily*]
I countered:
You guys are great! I like this one.
Mike O'Risal:As is typical for Creationists, she has no clue what the theory of evolution says and doesn't care because she's here not to discuss anything factual but to vomit forth her twisted, stupid, Medievalist, laughably asinine vision of a religion with its impotent, invisible, blood-drinking vampire of a manurepile of a deity.
Wow, ouch Mike. Did it hurt that much? How many adjectives can there be for such a sick, sadistic creature like me - coming into your wonderful world of scientific blog and stirring the bees-nest, eh?
Mike lashed out:
Andria,
It doesn't hurt me that you make up evil sky-giants in your head and worship them, no. It just makes you look like an idiot.
Unlike you and your fundamentalist brethren, scientists spend their lives trying to do something useful for humanity instead of creating sick fantasies of vengeful deities and basing mythologies on them.
There will never be enough adjectives for sick individuals who worship sick, bloodthirsty ghosts they invent. You can have your barbaric worshiping of death, but don't expect it to be supported by people who haven't sold their reason to your hoodoo spirits.
Nobody made you come in here and prove how stupid you are. Now you're bleating about the results of having revealed yourself. I think zombie Jesus must have eaten your brain.
Comments by Andria in bold quotes.
I have been brought up my entire life believing the Creationistic theory... I am a skeptic by nature,
Then why do you simply believe in the stuff you were brought up with? Isn't the burden of proof on those teachers as well?
I have tried to listen to his emphatic counter-pounding, and insistence that all fundamentals are wrong because of PROOF. I call shenanigans on this one. You're just setting up a straw man argument. Do you know what this is?
Suppose you asked someone to explain the operation of a nuclear reactor. Does it invalidate the existence of said reactor if that particular person doesn't know the math, physics and engineering and simply points to existence of verifiable theory and artifacts?
But when I asked him to please show me proof, So do you realize you are completely unfamiliar with how science works?
Have you demanded a proof of your god? Do you have such a proof to show us?
Therefore, sir, I am led to believe that evolutionists do not so much have a solid defense for what they believe, but instead have this unquestioning faith in their god-like peers.
Can you tell me how, based upon the performance of a few lay persons, you can generalize to pass judgment on the work of decades by thousands of people?
I'm not asking you to believe in their work, I asking if you can walk us all through how you can make such a leap of logic. Do you truly believe that your inference constitutes a proof of the validity of all evolutionary theory?
Or are you an intellectual coward?
Can you answer this last question. This is a challenge similar to the one you put to your customers. We are all waiting to hear. Now is your chance to convert us all.
Anyways, so I'll stop torturing you with the obvious wit of the evolutionists, and post here the few things I said that got them so riled. True, I'm not as 'old, mature, and arrived' as they are, but you have to admitt I bring up some good points.
Written by Yours Truly: Comment #15
Very interesting blog you have here. I have been brought up my entire life believing the Creationistic theory, and only recently have been challenged by one of my customers in heated debates, to be open to the theory of Evolution. I have tried to listen to his emphatic counter-pounding, and insistence that all fundamentals are wrong because of PROOF. But when I asked him to please show me proof, so I could be as knowledgable as he, he merely told me, "Well, everybody knows that creation is hogwash, and evolution is accepted by everybody!"
I am a skeptic by nature, which is the only reason why I was open to hearing this man out. And yet, the man began to footsie around (as many of my other customers have), and could not tell me why he believed straight Creation could NOT be true, except that he did not believe in God, and that evolution was just 'so accepted'.
Therefore, sir, I am led to believe that evolutionists do not so much have a solid defense for what they believe, but instead have this unquestioning faith in their god-like peers. I was fascinated reading over your blog-comments, because it seems like so many of your commenters took a lot of time to trash any body who disagreed with the way 'everybody believes', and what 'all scientists agree with'. That was all they had to say; "so and so is wrong and she's full of **** and her God is just another god, and I'm just another person following the crowd."
But, isn't it intriguing that some of these studiers of science have the courage to step out from among the throngs of popular belief, and say what they believe? I don't understand why so many people have this HATRED for anybody who doesn't bow down and believe the way they do! If the persons' opinion is so insignifant, then just let her talk! Let her say what she believes! Let her be wrong in your eyes! It takes alot of courage to go against 'what everybody believes and thinks'. At least she has more courage as an individual, than you have as an accepted evolutionist surrounded by the undying support of your unquestioning fans.
Posted by: Andria February 23, 2008 2:14 PM
Written by Yours Truly: Comment # 32
All right, let's try logic, since apparently you all are not used to opposition. Your only answers, as of yet, are 'she is wrong, because we say she is, and 'J' says she is, and my teacher in the third grade says she is'. But who decides 'the eyes of reality'? Are YOU reality? Who gave you that authority?
Perhaps you are not fighting out against Christianity, or me, or Calloway. Perhaps you are fighting against the thought that you might be wrong. Why else would you so vehemently deny anybody else's theories credence? All she fought for was establishing that EVOLUTION is a THEORY. It IS a theory, just as much as Creation is! Both are 'a priori', which means 'by faith'. Are you so scared that children will grow up and know that evolution was based on man, and not God? If Christians (and by the way, Landover Baptist Church is by no means Christianity) are just little bugs of opinions that need to be squashed, then why a dedicated sight to slamming all Christians - like they are some universal hate-force? Whoever is doing this slamming, has clearly never tried to understand Christians.
In my opinion, 'Christianity' is just a word. A word that is sorely mis-used, mis-represented, and hated before understood. What is more important, is how you believe, and you interpret God's word, and how you view life. God is not just an ideal. He IS reality. And even if you may deny it, all you have in the end - is your right to deny it. But it still doesn't make you right.
Written by Yours Truly: Comment #54
Haha, you guys are all ganging up on me. It's great. All right, I am told to understand that 'evolution' is 'highly complicated, and takes years of study, and only the best scientists can truly defend it'. I beg to differ. Sometimes the most complicated things have simple answers. And it's great cause you don't even have to be 3 to understand it!
So, since we are trying to teach our kids evolution in the second grade - when is it that they will be able to understand it? Eh? In the 7th grade perhaps? Or maybe when the graduate from high school? When do all of the complicated pieces fall into a comfortable pattern of circular reasoning so the child can rise and type on a blog - 'my! I have all the answers!'
While I am not going to put on a highly-educated front of 'knowing everything' like some on this site are apt to do, I will say that there is a primary difference between the theory of Evolution and the theory of Creation.
Creation starts with - God.
Evolution starts with - what is it again - a cell? A highly powerful speck of life-potential? RIGHT. We all know the theory. That speck became highly-intelligent human beings with the ability to think and reason and then die peacably - without worry of hell of heaven or any other such nonsense. Evolution tells man that he is responsible to no one, because man came from nothing. And better yet -- Evolution (devised by woman-hater Charles Darwin) has been around a whole 150 years! Wow - this shocks me. Here we've been around billions of years -- and all of our extensive proof and reasoning goes back 150 honkin years. That's huge!
My question for Evolutionists is - where did the speck come from? Who made the speck? I'm sure you're used to this coming from skeptics and other such annoying challengers of your methods (pardons for calling it a faith), but just for the absolute fun of disagreeing for a second - where did the speck come from? How did life come about? Man accepts the ability to breathe and think as naturally as he accepts the sun will shine the next day. And yet - it is not idealistic to wonder if an exhorbent amount of time + a speck = life and intelligence. It is, in fact, realistic to doubt.
I realize I'm barking up a dead tree, and this will only be picked apart by people who determined it was wrong before they read it, but I can't help but wonder whether the simple answer of 'yes, God did it', is more logical than 'chance brought me about, and by a miracle of nothingness, and the highly-thought-out theory of the speck, my complex brain took form and here I am'.
I am not oblivious to you who are staring at your screen, getting your buttons pushed and itching to find my chokable-neck, but why not challenge yourself? Since I'm already making you 'rightly testy' (and no, I don't shy away from a debate), how do you reason that everything so detailed, and so complex in this world - came from nothing? How do you KNOW there is not a God?
If life can come from chance (for that IS what your theory is based on), why can't chance defy death?
Tell me, if you have the answer for life, what is the answer for death?
Here's why. Check this out. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/florida_land_of_the_delusional.php
I happened on this blog, and added my two little bits. Suddenly I found myself the target of every single commenter. It was great fun! Who cares if they're all Evolutionist and I'm a Creationist. I have my beliefs, they have theirs. Nobody changed, and nobody was converted, but I've never enjoyed a debate more in all my years. And I lost. I was severely outnumbered. But it was still amusing, how quickly all of these 'learned, higher-order, unquestioned' evolutionists began hating a little 17 year old for speaking her mind.
If you don't want to check out the link, here are a few things they said.
Is there any hope for Andria?
Andria: Go back to school before your mind turns into complete jelly.
Andria: You are part of the PROBLEM. America is going down the toilet because of people like you.
Gah! I'm really not in the mood for such flagrant, mind-destroying ignorance today. Won't someone PLEASE break out the duct tape and put an end to Andria's toxic, gaseous yapping?
Wow! This is the rudest I've been to anyone in, like, a year! Andria wins! She wins... a really nice prize. Of some kind. Or a weekend at the brain spa. It's free with the tour of the timeshares.
Seriously. I am sorry. And I'd say Andria is the real winner here. She's the one with the greatest opportunity to ACTUALLY LEARN SOMETHING HERE TODAY.
The world waits, with bated breath: Will Andria seize the day?
GO FOR IT, GIRL! Go for it.
For the love of all that's real or imagined... Go for it.
Another wrote:
Believe me, i fully understand what we are up against and this drive-by crea-troll Andria just isn't worth the effort.
One posed a good thought:
Take this statement by Andria:
My question for Evolutionists is - where did the speck come from? Who made the speck?
And then ask, "Who made God? Where did God come from?"
Another cynic:
I know God doesn't exist because if there were an omnipotent being capable of creating and guiding the development of living things, there'd be no excuse for the existence of people as utterly, deeply stupid -- and in this case, I don't mean ignorant, I mean STUPID -- as Donna Callaway and her wannabe butt-buddy, Andria.
Yet another:
Andria: I'll save myself and you a lot of venomous bileby having you prove that your imaginary god exists andhave it come down and smite all of us that have the nerveto question your insane beliefs. Come on, let's see this freaking god of yours. You cannot do it because all thissuperstitous crap is lodged in your deranged brain andwill forever misguide your pathetic and insane life.
A bit harsher:
I got bingo on Andria's #32 post alone! Right after I finished laughing at the first sentence, that is. Everyone else has already done the hard work, so I'll just chime in and say that Andria, you have said absolutely nothing that hasn't been said and shown to be wrong hundreds of times before, dozens of those times on this site alone. Google is your friend. Look up your "arguments" before you go spouting them off at the big kids' table.
And as for this, Whoever is doing this slamming, has clearly never tried to understand Christians., a lot of the slammers used to be quite dedicated Christians, so you can't use the "but they don't understand us" canard around here.
Here's one of those intillectuals with the uncanny how-to at poking fun:
All right, let's try logic, since apparently you all are not used to opposition.
LMAO!
Ten points to Andria for making me grin on this dull, grey day! Thanks! I take back every nasty thing I said! I take them back twice! Then I will eat crow! Three times!
"...not used to opposition."
Tee-hee.
[*shuffles off, muttering happily*]
I countered:
You guys are great! I like this one.
Mike O'Risal:As is typical for Creationists, she has no clue what the theory of evolution says and doesn't care because she's here not to discuss anything factual but to vomit forth her twisted, stupid, Medievalist, laughably asinine vision of a religion with its impotent, invisible, blood-drinking vampire of a manurepile of a deity.
Wow, ouch Mike. Did it hurt that much? How many adjectives can there be for such a sick, sadistic creature like me - coming into your wonderful world of scientific blog and stirring the bees-nest, eh?
Mike lashed out:
Andria,
It doesn't hurt me that you make up evil sky-giants in your head and worship them, no. It just makes you look like an idiot.
Unlike you and your fundamentalist brethren, scientists spend their lives trying to do something useful for humanity instead of creating sick fantasies of vengeful deities and basing mythologies on them.
There will never be enough adjectives for sick individuals who worship sick, bloodthirsty ghosts they invent. You can have your barbaric worshiping of death, but don't expect it to be supported by people who haven't sold their reason to your hoodoo spirits.
Nobody made you come in here and prove how stupid you are. Now you're bleating about the results of having revealed yourself. I think zombie Jesus must have eaten your brain.
Comments by Andria in bold quotes.
I have been brought up my entire life believing the Creationistic theory... I am a skeptic by nature,
Then why do you simply believe in the stuff you were brought up with? Isn't the burden of proof on those teachers as well?
I have tried to listen to his emphatic counter-pounding, and insistence that all fundamentals are wrong because of PROOF. I call shenanigans on this one. You're just setting up a straw man argument. Do you know what this is?
Suppose you asked someone to explain the operation of a nuclear reactor. Does it invalidate the existence of said reactor if that particular person doesn't know the math, physics and engineering and simply points to existence of verifiable theory and artifacts?
But when I asked him to please show me proof, So do you realize you are completely unfamiliar with how science works?
Have you demanded a proof of your god? Do you have such a proof to show us?
Therefore, sir, I am led to believe that evolutionists do not so much have a solid defense for what they believe, but instead have this unquestioning faith in their god-like peers.
Can you tell me how, based upon the performance of a few lay persons, you can generalize to pass judgment on the work of decades by thousands of people?
I'm not asking you to believe in their work, I asking if you can walk us all through how you can make such a leap of logic. Do you truly believe that your inference constitutes a proof of the validity of all evolutionary theory?
Or are you an intellectual coward?
Can you answer this last question. This is a challenge similar to the one you put to your customers. We are all waiting to hear. Now is your chance to convert us all.
Anyways, so I'll stop torturing you with the obvious wit of the evolutionists, and post here the few things I said that got them so riled. True, I'm not as 'old, mature, and arrived' as they are, but you have to admitt I bring up some good points.
Written by Yours Truly: Comment #15
Very interesting blog you have here. I have been brought up my entire life believing the Creationistic theory, and only recently have been challenged by one of my customers in heated debates, to be open to the theory of Evolution. I have tried to listen to his emphatic counter-pounding, and insistence that all fundamentals are wrong because of PROOF. But when I asked him to please show me proof, so I could be as knowledgable as he, he merely told me, "Well, everybody knows that creation is hogwash, and evolution is accepted by everybody!"
I am a skeptic by nature, which is the only reason why I was open to hearing this man out. And yet, the man began to footsie around (as many of my other customers have), and could not tell me why he believed straight Creation could NOT be true, except that he did not believe in God, and that evolution was just 'so accepted'.
Therefore, sir, I am led to believe that evolutionists do not so much have a solid defense for what they believe, but instead have this unquestioning faith in their god-like peers. I was fascinated reading over your blog-comments, because it seems like so many of your commenters took a lot of time to trash any body who disagreed with the way 'everybody believes', and what 'all scientists agree with'. That was all they had to say; "so and so is wrong and she's full of **** and her God is just another god, and I'm just another person following the crowd."
But, isn't it intriguing that some of these studiers of science have the courage to step out from among the throngs of popular belief, and say what they believe? I don't understand why so many people have this HATRED for anybody who doesn't bow down and believe the way they do! If the persons' opinion is so insignifant, then just let her talk! Let her say what she believes! Let her be wrong in your eyes! It takes alot of courage to go against 'what everybody believes and thinks'. At least she has more courage as an individual, than you have as an accepted evolutionist surrounded by the undying support of your unquestioning fans.
Posted by: Andria February 23, 2008 2:14 PM
Written by Yours Truly: Comment # 32
All right, let's try logic, since apparently you all are not used to opposition. Your only answers, as of yet, are 'she is wrong, because we say she is, and 'J' says she is, and my teacher in the third grade says she is'. But who decides 'the eyes of reality'? Are YOU reality? Who gave you that authority?
Perhaps you are not fighting out against Christianity, or me, or Calloway. Perhaps you are fighting against the thought that you might be wrong. Why else would you so vehemently deny anybody else's theories credence? All she fought for was establishing that EVOLUTION is a THEORY. It IS a theory, just as much as Creation is! Both are 'a priori', which means 'by faith'. Are you so scared that children will grow up and know that evolution was based on man, and not God? If Christians (and by the way, Landover Baptist Church is by no means Christianity) are just little bugs of opinions that need to be squashed, then why a dedicated sight to slamming all Christians - like they are some universal hate-force? Whoever is doing this slamming, has clearly never tried to understand Christians.
In my opinion, 'Christianity' is just a word. A word that is sorely mis-used, mis-represented, and hated before understood. What is more important, is how you believe, and you interpret God's word, and how you view life. God is not just an ideal. He IS reality. And even if you may deny it, all you have in the end - is your right to deny it. But it still doesn't make you right.
Written by Yours Truly: Comment #54
Haha, you guys are all ganging up on me. It's great. All right, I am told to understand that 'evolution' is 'highly complicated, and takes years of study, and only the best scientists can truly defend it'. I beg to differ. Sometimes the most complicated things have simple answers. And it's great cause you don't even have to be 3 to understand it!
So, since we are trying to teach our kids evolution in the second grade - when is it that they will be able to understand it? Eh? In the 7th grade perhaps? Or maybe when the graduate from high school? When do all of the complicated pieces fall into a comfortable pattern of circular reasoning so the child can rise and type on a blog - 'my! I have all the answers!'
While I am not going to put on a highly-educated front of 'knowing everything' like some on this site are apt to do, I will say that there is a primary difference between the theory of Evolution and the theory of Creation.
Creation starts with - God.
Evolution starts with - what is it again - a cell? A highly powerful speck of life-potential? RIGHT. We all know the theory. That speck became highly-intelligent human beings with the ability to think and reason and then die peacably - without worry of hell of heaven or any other such nonsense. Evolution tells man that he is responsible to no one, because man came from nothing. And better yet -- Evolution (devised by woman-hater Charles Darwin) has been around a whole 150 years! Wow - this shocks me. Here we've been around billions of years -- and all of our extensive proof and reasoning goes back 150 honkin years. That's huge!
My question for Evolutionists is - where did the speck come from? Who made the speck? I'm sure you're used to this coming from skeptics and other such annoying challengers of your methods (pardons for calling it a faith), but just for the absolute fun of disagreeing for a second - where did the speck come from? How did life come about? Man accepts the ability to breathe and think as naturally as he accepts the sun will shine the next day. And yet - it is not idealistic to wonder if an exhorbent amount of time + a speck = life and intelligence. It is, in fact, realistic to doubt.
I realize I'm barking up a dead tree, and this will only be picked apart by people who determined it was wrong before they read it, but I can't help but wonder whether the simple answer of 'yes, God did it', is more logical than 'chance brought me about, and by a miracle of nothingness, and the highly-thought-out theory of the speck, my complex brain took form and here I am'.
I am not oblivious to you who are staring at your screen, getting your buttons pushed and itching to find my chokable-neck, but why not challenge yourself? Since I'm already making you 'rightly testy' (and no, I don't shy away from a debate), how do you reason that everything so detailed, and so complex in this world - came from nothing? How do you KNOW there is not a God?
If life can come from chance (for that IS what your theory is based on), why can't chance defy death?
Tell me, if you have the answer for life, what is the answer for death?
Friday, February 22, 2008
"You will never be your best doing it someone else's way..." - Rush Limbaugh
I think of all the things in the world that I love to do… I love to free write. I want to travel someday, and sit on the edge of a highly exotic foreign hill, and write without a care in the world. Perhaps stretched out on a rock far away, I can imagine no one will judge me there. Or, I could sit here at my humble little computer and imagine I am at the top of a hill in Greece. Yes, if I cannot have the blue-green sea and the stark white buildings come to me, I will imagine them into my living room. Sometimes, imagining is much more fun than actually having.
I like to imagine that my house is really organized. That, my friends, is truly a boon of an imagination. Every time I go to look for a lid to put on a Tupperware of cookies, none of the lids fit any of the dishes. You would think something so simple would not bother a highly-complex individual like myself, but indeed, it bothers me greatly. My dear mother, bless her heart, signed up for a ‘de-clutter your life’ class. When the day of the class came, though, she announced that it was too cold, and she’d better not risk the trip (because, you know the cold causes accidents all the time). So, that brings us up to a present-day experience. My Dad says, “Andria, put the brownies away so I won’t be tempted to eat them.” So, I shuffle over to the cupboard, and have to ravage it for a full 10 minutes before I find a two-some that will keep my brownies safe. I have the same organizational problem with socks (and I love socks!). Right before I'm headed to work, there is always one sock missing. And shoes! There are never two of the same shoe when I need them. Wow, this is opening my eyes. These problems really do not solve themselves, eh? Well, if it helps any, my college-chest is very organized.
I am decidedly sick of politics today. I find the argument in America's many issues are fascinating, because there are so many ways to see things. But today at The Shop where I serve coffee (and other delicious victuals and condiments), I had to defend myself in no less than 5 heated political debates before 10:00 in the morning. (That may have been the consequence for posting a quote by Rush Limbaugh by the cash register.)
I rather enjoy these debates, because it opens my mind to new ways to defend my opinions. I feel alive for once, because I actually have something to do besides smile and say, “Please give me all your money.” Frankly, unless I back down and concede something in one of these lively debates, those who leave my shop are wrong, and I who stay behind the counter - am right. I’d tell them that too, and it would probably be a good laugh for us both. I don’t mind being told I am wrong, or being taught new things, but I still believe what I believe. I’m not changing on that. I full well know that I have changed no democrat for the better, either. But, still, the points must be made.
Yet, how fun is it when somebody disagrees with you and then has the audacity to accuse “You’re not listening!” - but in fact is not listening himself? It’s not. Such a guy came in to The Shop today. I’ll call him Bob. I like Bob, and we’ve debated on numerous occasions . But when I countered Bob’s arguments today, he became aghast and looked at me in a bit of shock. “That’s fascism! Despotism!”, he gasped when I said I thought users of illegal drugs should be put behind bars for the safety of American people. I laughed, as I am apt to do whenever something becomes too somber, but he did not laugh. He continued to hammer his point - that minor offenders should not be subjected to our prison systems where they become gang members - as if he thought he could change my mind by convincing me that he was right, and I was too young and stupid to understand such things. I realize I don’t know everything, but I hate it when someone gets up in my face with the intention of taking the humor and the spunk clear out of me.
There are actually a couple gents that come into The Shop just to debate with me before they head off to work. This is refreshing for me, because all of their many biases and lively, jesting opinions become a virtual jump start for the cables in my brain. But after Bob I didn’t feel like debating politics with a few people, because I felt so disturbed that I had actually had my first unpleasant political discussion with someone I actually respected a lot. I felt like Rush Limbaugh without the whole ‘I can hang you up’ leverage. It was a momentary confusion, but I intend to throw aside that cloak of darkness, and plunge ahead into the unknown light. So, I don’t know all. That’s nothing new. All the more to learn then! Ah, the relief I find in these realizations of mine!! Back to the simplicities in life!
I will imagine I am asleep in bed, all curled up with my cat at my feet, and someone is reading this blog. That, I can write about freely, don’t you agree?
I like to imagine that my house is really organized. That, my friends, is truly a boon of an imagination. Every time I go to look for a lid to put on a Tupperware of cookies, none of the lids fit any of the dishes. You would think something so simple would not bother a highly-complex individual like myself, but indeed, it bothers me greatly. My dear mother, bless her heart, signed up for a ‘de-clutter your life’ class. When the day of the class came, though, she announced that it was too cold, and she’d better not risk the trip (because, you know the cold causes accidents all the time). So, that brings us up to a present-day experience. My Dad says, “Andria, put the brownies away so I won’t be tempted to eat them.” So, I shuffle over to the cupboard, and have to ravage it for a full 10 minutes before I find a two-some that will keep my brownies safe. I have the same organizational problem with socks (and I love socks!). Right before I'm headed to work, there is always one sock missing. And shoes! There are never two of the same shoe when I need them. Wow, this is opening my eyes. These problems really do not solve themselves, eh? Well, if it helps any, my college-chest is very organized.
I am decidedly sick of politics today. I find the argument in America's many issues are fascinating, because there are so many ways to see things. But today at The Shop where I serve coffee (and other delicious victuals and condiments), I had to defend myself in no less than 5 heated political debates before 10:00 in the morning. (That may have been the consequence for posting a quote by Rush Limbaugh by the cash register.)
I rather enjoy these debates, because it opens my mind to new ways to defend my opinions. I feel alive for once, because I actually have something to do besides smile and say, “Please give me all your money.” Frankly, unless I back down and concede something in one of these lively debates, those who leave my shop are wrong, and I who stay behind the counter - am right. I’d tell them that too, and it would probably be a good laugh for us both. I don’t mind being told I am wrong, or being taught new things, but I still believe what I believe. I’m not changing on that. I full well know that I have changed no democrat for the better, either. But, still, the points must be made.
Yet, how fun is it when somebody disagrees with you and then has the audacity to accuse “You’re not listening!” - but in fact is not listening himself? It’s not. Such a guy came in to The Shop today. I’ll call him Bob. I like Bob, and we’ve debated on numerous occasions . But when I countered Bob’s arguments today, he became aghast and looked at me in a bit of shock. “That’s fascism! Despotism!”, he gasped when I said I thought users of illegal drugs should be put behind bars for the safety of American people. I laughed, as I am apt to do whenever something becomes too somber, but he did not laugh. He continued to hammer his point - that minor offenders should not be subjected to our prison systems where they become gang members - as if he thought he could change my mind by convincing me that he was right, and I was too young and stupid to understand such things. I realize I don’t know everything, but I hate it when someone gets up in my face with the intention of taking the humor and the spunk clear out of me.
There are actually a couple gents that come into The Shop just to debate with me before they head off to work. This is refreshing for me, because all of their many biases and lively, jesting opinions become a virtual jump start for the cables in my brain. But after Bob I didn’t feel like debating politics with a few people, because I felt so disturbed that I had actually had my first unpleasant political discussion with someone I actually respected a lot. I felt like Rush Limbaugh without the whole ‘I can hang you up’ leverage. It was a momentary confusion, but I intend to throw aside that cloak of darkness, and plunge ahead into the unknown light. So, I don’t know all. That’s nothing new. All the more to learn then! Ah, the relief I find in these realizations of mine!! Back to the simplicities in life!
I will imagine I am asleep in bed, all curled up with my cat at my feet, and someone is reading this blog. That, I can write about freely, don’t you agree?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Obama vs. American Idol. Not much of a discussion? Oh, I beg to differ. I caught a bit of Obama in Texas tonight between commercials of AI, and was definitely impressed at what he had to say. I even detected a little Texas twang in his voice, as he said, “Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, so much.” (that was pretty much all he said). For emphasis he added, “Ya’ll certainly know how to come out.” Or something moving like that, which roused the 20,000 plus starry-eyed supporters into more violent sign-pumping. It was amazing! All the man had to say was ‘Thank you’, and people went wild!
In contrast, the popular Simon on AI got collective boos whenever he gave a bit o’ constructive criticism. Granted, with his style, he has no right critiquing anybody’s style. But at least he adds some spice to the show. Without him, it would just be ‘yo, yo, yo man’ and Paula’s white-lipped, assuring smile.
Enough with politics. The game reminds me of chess. Ever play chess with someone who pretends to be bad, but has really been playing the game for years? I've done that. I sat down, thinking, 'yeah, I can do this. Poor sucker.' I always begin with the 'Audacity to Hope', and end with a bit of reality. Check-mate! I hate hearing those words, because it means I am most likely not saying them! I've won against such master-minds rarely, but I've learned the trick to maintaining the victory over them all. Beat them once, and never play them again. The losers' way out, yes, but it feels good in a sad, idealistic way.
I wonder if this too can parallel to politics. The games, in fact, do coincide. Two opposing candidates sit down and face each other, each one with a hand on a pawn. Both have similar hopes and dreams. One takes out his opponents horse, but as a consequence loses his knight. It's a give and take game, but there's a deciding difference between the loser and the winner.
The winner sees the check mate in 3 moves. The loser is desperately limping his little pawn down the side of the board in hopes of a queen.
The winner is looking calmly at his pieces. The loser is defensive.
It's all very complicated, and while I cannot profess to be the Queen of Chess Geeks, I do know a thing or two where at least Chess and Geeks are concerned.
In contrast, the popular Simon on AI got collective boos whenever he gave a bit o’ constructive criticism. Granted, with his style, he has no right critiquing anybody’s style. But at least he adds some spice to the show. Without him, it would just be ‘yo, yo, yo man’ and Paula’s white-lipped, assuring smile.
Enough with politics. The game reminds me of chess. Ever play chess with someone who pretends to be bad, but has really been playing the game for years? I've done that. I sat down, thinking, 'yeah, I can do this. Poor sucker.' I always begin with the 'Audacity to Hope', and end with a bit of reality. Check-mate! I hate hearing those words, because it means I am most likely not saying them! I've won against such master-minds rarely, but I've learned the trick to maintaining the victory over them all. Beat them once, and never play them again. The losers' way out, yes, but it feels good in a sad, idealistic way.
I wonder if this too can parallel to politics. The games, in fact, do coincide. Two opposing candidates sit down and face each other, each one with a hand on a pawn. Both have similar hopes and dreams. One takes out his opponents horse, but as a consequence loses his knight. It's a give and take game, but there's a deciding difference between the loser and the winner.
The winner sees the check mate in 3 moves. The loser is desperately limping his little pawn down the side of the board in hopes of a queen.
The winner is looking calmly at his pieces. The loser is defensive.
It's all very complicated, and while I cannot profess to be the Queen of Chess Geeks, I do know a thing or two where at least Chess and Geeks are concerned.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Blind to Barack Obama
Have you ever had to extricate a lost, folded-up contact from the high-corners of your eye? May I be the first to assure you, it is the most painful process. My testament alone could scare the blind and wearers of glasses into a forever inferior state. Truly, contacts are ingenious inventions, but to lose the mere slip of genius in ones’ eye is… irritating to say the least.
I was on my way to the family computer tonight, pondering deeply on what I would write about (for if one were to sit down and always know what one was to write about, that would be very lame). Then, the incident with the contact happened, and I’ve just now come from rolling my eye about and pinching at my eye-ball in pursuit of the devil of a contact. I sat down with it on a victorious finger, and thought - hah! Ingenious! I shall write about the necessity for America to abolish the contact, and force laser-surgery upon all US citizens (illegal immigrants excluded) (imagine having to clarify!).
Can you imagine what a fuss the people of America could make before the Senate would finally hear us? Polls would be sent out, and the people would vote unanimously. Free laser-surgery for all. After all, what better to pay taxes for? The liberals would check the polls and immediately decide to raise taxes for the purpose of pleasing the people. Stations might be set up, and people would be requested to please step up to their booths and have their eyes zapped. And what a great way to tell the difference between the legal immigrants and the illegal immigrants! Any person wearing glasses or stumbling about as result of vision disrepair would surely be given the boot to the border!
Another thing. With better vision, Americans’ in general would be able to see our Presidential candidates a little closer. I believe that America will choose Barack Obama as the next President. I agree that on the surface, the man has a very nice smile, and he sounds very nice, and he dresses very nice. Everything about him is just… so nice. These are the things I hear, when I ask my coffee-customers why they are going to vote for Obama. But, I am a skeptic by nature. That is only his surface. What is beneath the crisp suit and the wide, white-toothed smile? The man supports everything that I morally cannot support. While I have been impressed by his rousing speeches, and his level-headed wife, I wonder if America would not do good to get the cataracts of American Idol out of the eyes, and give the future-President of America a good hard look.
Another comparison, while I am looking closer at our nations’ leaders. Hillary is a parrot. If I hear her repeat one more time, “I am so ready to be the next President of the United States! I am excited about what I can do! I will be the President!” - I will go shoot something. (most likely with a rubber band, so rest easy). The politicians of America would do good to stop telling America what they can do, and start telling America what America can do.
Since I do not support McCain with his snake-like smile and poll-seeking opinions, and I don’t believe that the conservative Huckabee has much of a chance because of his liberal background, I am forced to make a wild conclusion. I believe of all the evils, I would prefer to witness the evils of Obama in office. I would rather watch a speech made by him, or hear a talk show host exploiting his words, or read a headline with his words quoted, than I could bear watching
Hillary tell my country one more time how she can see herself leading the America she is clearly blind to.
I was on my way to the family computer tonight, pondering deeply on what I would write about (for if one were to sit down and always know what one was to write about, that would be very lame). Then, the incident with the contact happened, and I’ve just now come from rolling my eye about and pinching at my eye-ball in pursuit of the devil of a contact. I sat down with it on a victorious finger, and thought - hah! Ingenious! I shall write about the necessity for America to abolish the contact, and force laser-surgery upon all US citizens (illegal immigrants excluded) (imagine having to clarify!).
Can you imagine what a fuss the people of America could make before the Senate would finally hear us? Polls would be sent out, and the people would vote unanimously. Free laser-surgery for all. After all, what better to pay taxes for? The liberals would check the polls and immediately decide to raise taxes for the purpose of pleasing the people. Stations might be set up, and people would be requested to please step up to their booths and have their eyes zapped. And what a great way to tell the difference between the legal immigrants and the illegal immigrants! Any person wearing glasses or stumbling about as result of vision disrepair would surely be given the boot to the border!
Another thing. With better vision, Americans’ in general would be able to see our Presidential candidates a little closer. I believe that America will choose Barack Obama as the next President. I agree that on the surface, the man has a very nice smile, and he sounds very nice, and he dresses very nice. Everything about him is just… so nice. These are the things I hear, when I ask my coffee-customers why they are going to vote for Obama. But, I am a skeptic by nature. That is only his surface. What is beneath the crisp suit and the wide, white-toothed smile? The man supports everything that I morally cannot support. While I have been impressed by his rousing speeches, and his level-headed wife, I wonder if America would not do good to get the cataracts of American Idol out of the eyes, and give the future-President of America a good hard look.
Another comparison, while I am looking closer at our nations’ leaders. Hillary is a parrot. If I hear her repeat one more time, “I am so ready to be the next President of the United States! I am excited about what I can do! I will be the President!” - I will go shoot something. (most likely with a rubber band, so rest easy). The politicians of America would do good to stop telling America what they can do, and start telling America what America can do.
Since I do not support McCain with his snake-like smile and poll-seeking opinions, and I don’t believe that the conservative Huckabee has much of a chance because of his liberal background, I am forced to make a wild conclusion. I believe of all the evils, I would prefer to witness the evils of Obama in office. I would rather watch a speech made by him, or hear a talk show host exploiting his words, or read a headline with his words quoted, than I could bear watching
Hillary tell my country one more time how she can see herself leading the America she is clearly blind to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)