If it’s Broke, fix it! Thought 1.

The creation account in Genesis.  Any belief other than a “24 hour” 6 day creation week and one “24 hour” rest day is broken!  How?  Exodus 20:9-11.  Let’s fix some broken thought:

Exodus 20:9-11  Six days you shall labor and do all your work,  (10)  but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.  (11)  For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

All OEC (old earth creationists; progressive creationists, day age theorists, gap theorists, etc.,) claim the 7 days during creation week are not regular days in a regular week.  Those days are, for the sake of argument here, “indeterminate amounts of time.”  For example one might say,  “Well Genesis just tells us God took six ages to do his work.  They weren’t actual days like we know them.”  They say this so Genesis can seemingly be compatible with the big bang theory and evolutionary science.  A failed theory to be compatible with another failed theory.  More broken thought.

An exegetical reading of Exodus tells us we should work for six days and rest for one.  Why?  Verse 11 says it’s because, during creation week, in six days God created everything and rested on the seventh.  If the days in Genesis are indeterminate amounts of time…then one of the Ten Commandments is telling us we must work for 6 indeterminate periods of time and rest for 1 indeterminate period.  That’s a broken interpretation.  But, if the days in Genesis are actual days like we know them today then this passage in Exodus makes sense.  It’s the only way it makes sense.

DNC Strategy: Attack an Informed Citizen

Apparantly the DNC midterm election strategy involves finding the opposing parties most villified individual and telling everyone, “Let’s stop her.”  That’s it.  No promoting their stand on the issues, no defending their position on anything.  Just, “Don’t Let Sarah Palin Win.”  Sarah Palin?  Win what?  She’s not running for anything.  AND, according to them, she’s stupid!  She’s just a dumb ol’ rednecky citizen person!  What’s to fear?  Why not try something like, “Don’t Let The Republicans Win.”  Or, “Don’t Let The Tea Partiers Win.”  Heck I’d be all for, “Don’t Let Clear Thinking Win.  We Did Great in 08, Let’s Do it Again!”  But Sarah Palin?  Is the DNC THAT afraid of her and her magical witchy powers of persuasion?  Wait…O’Donnell is supposed to be the one with the witch powers…*shrugs*  We’ll see how well the “attack Sarah Palin” strategy works for the DNC tomorrow.  It’s done quite well so far.  Just ask Joe Miller, John Koster, Carly Fiorina, Paul Gosar, Susana Martinez, Rick Perry, Mary Fallin, Tom Emmer, Terry Branstad, Sean Duffy, Rand Paul, Kelly Ayotte, Michael Grimm, Christine O’Donnell, Nikki Haley, Allen West, and Pam Bondi.  Her endorsements before their primaries were disastrous in all of their victories.  heh  All in all Palin has put out 56 endorsements.  38 are winners, some of which were way behind the dems but caught up in polls quickly, and only 11 were losers (7 were counted in the “upcoming/no primary” category).  Now that I think about it….I guess I CAN see why the DNC is afraid of her.

Allergic to Research

Christine O’Donnell is crazy!  She dabbled in witchcraft in her rebellious teen years.  She’s a nut job!  Oh, and Meg Whitman is a terrible person!  Firing someone for no reason and traumatizing her like that.  That’s just WRONG!

Believe or not, people are actually saying stuff like that.  Granted they’re all liberal dip switches but still.  It’s….sad really.  It’s almost like they’ll believe anything they hear without question.  There’s a word for people like that.  Puppet.  The left “news sources,” and I use that term lightly, print it, the puppet absorbs it, doesn’t make sure it’s legit, then spits it back out for other puppets to repeat the process.

Christine O’Donnell.  Yes, she said she dabbled in witchcraft as a teen.  Yes, she said it was stupid.  No, she’s not, and has not fooled with it since.  Does that make her a crazy nut job?  Or a rebellious teen?  Granted that’s subjective, but let’s compare this level of crazy (which got TONS of mostly left leaning and cannibalistic republican media attention) to say, I don’t know, Rep. Hank Johnson’s comments from March of this year.  He was voicing his opposition to stationing 8,000 US Marines on Guam.  He stated, and I quote:

“My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.”

The media attention was comparatively nil.  I’d call that crazy and if this amount of crazy is ok in Congress I don’t see why we should be worried about someone who was rebellious in her teenage years….What’s that?  That’s not why she’s crazy?  It was was her rant on not masturbating?   That makes her a nut job huh…ok, let’s take a look at a few quotes from our lovely friends on the left, you tell me who’s crazy:

Sheryl Crow: “I propose a limitation be put on how many squares [sic] of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don’t want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.”

John Conyers, talking about the HC bill which he VOTED FOR but never read:  “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill … What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

John Kerry and his disrespectful remarks about our troops: “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Nancy Pelosi, 2nd in line to POTUS, on the economy:  “Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs.” That’s quite a feat seeing as how there are only approx 307 million Americans……in America.

Bill Clinton, never the racist…he can’t be, he’s a democrat:  “African Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do.”

And finally, Barack Obama, who NEVER exaggerates:  “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died – an entire town destroyed.” Actually, only 12 people died.  Makes you wonder how many of those “created/saved” jobs are real and imaginary.

So please, liberals, enough with the “she’s crazy” business.  She’s nowhere near as crazy as some of you loonies.

Now on to Meg Whitman.  She’s a bad person for firing Nicky Diaz and traumatizing her.  Poor thing.  This is actually pretty cut and dry so here are the facts:

On Diaz’s application she checked “yes” for the question “can you legally accept employment.”  She wasn’t legally able to accept employment.  She lied.  She told Whitman years later.  Whitman fired her.  The end.

If Whitman had not fired her, she would be in trouble.  She followed the law.  Diaz lied.  How on earth is Whitman the villain?!?  So please, liberals, enough with the “Shame on Whitman” idiocy.

Feds Subpoena Chuck E. Cheese

The FTC has subpoenaed CEC, the parent company of Chuck E. Cheese because, get this…their advertising targets children.  I for one am shocked!  I always felt their slogan, “Where a kid can be a kid” was confusing at best.  Add that to the creepy anthropomorphized animatronic mouse and 10 thousand square foot game room and Chuck’s house just screams “I’m designed for the 30+ demographic!”

CEC is just one of 48 companies being subpoenaed by the FTC as a follow up to their July 2008 120 page report titled, “Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents: A Review of Industry Expenditures, Activities, and Self-Regulation.”  The study was brought on by a congressional request that the FTC look at food and beverage marketing to children and adolescents because of “Concern about the dramatic increase in childhood obesity in the United States.”  According to the report, $1.6 billion was spent on advertising targeting children and adolescents in 2006.  That’s 17% of the more than $9.6 billion marketing budget targeting all audiences that year.

One of the “methods” used by food and beverage is “Packaging [that] promotes the company or food product website, where entry of a code found on the package might enable the young consumer to participate in a contest, play a game that features the product, or receive “points” to redeem for premiums.”  Quick, someone with kids answer this question for me, who is the purchaser of said product?  The “young consumer” or the parent/guardian/older working relative/friend of the “young consumer?”  You can hardly blame the company or it’s marketing department.  A simple “No, not buying that” can’t be the solution.  We need more studies into the evil practices of evil companies and their evil goals of making evil money.

The study goes on to list the many ways in which a companies advertising targets young children and adolescents, enticing them to buy….wait, children and adolescents can’t buy the products….hmm.  Moving on…

In November 2006 the Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB) established “The Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative.“  The initiative, which 13 of the top food and beverage companies (“estimated to account for more than two-thirds of the food and beverage television advertising expenditures directed toward children“),  joined is designed to eliminate direct advertising (via tv, radio, print, and internet) to the 12 and under crowd or retool the advertising to promote healthier foods and beverages.  Personally if McDonalds wants to advertise their new 4 pound cheeseburger and lard covered fries by putting a free Spongebob Squarepants Halloween costume in it and telling kids it’ll make ‘em poop sunshine I say go for it.  That marketing scheme will not contribute to the childhood obesity problem.  The mom or dad too pansie arsed to tell their kids “no”, on the other hand, is very much the problem.

The report also “suggests” improvements that companies should adopt.  “Companies should continue and increase efforts to improve the nutritional profiles of their products – especially those marketed to children and adolescents – through product innovation and reformulation.”  Again I find myself repeating…myself…it does not matter what the company is advertising or who that advertising is targeting, the INDIVIDUAL buying said product is the ONLY person responsible for the consequences, good or bad, of that purchase and subsequent consumption.  Common sense 101.

Guilt by Association

For the life of me I can’t figure out why people some people insist on showing animosity, hatred, disgust, disrespect, etc., toward an entire political group because of the actions or beliefs of individuals within that group.  Every group has or has had, within that group, people of questionable standards.  Or no standards at all for that matter.  NO exceptions.  But don’t assume for one second that just because I associate with a certain group that I agree with the actions or beliefs of idiotic person(s) also in the group.  They don’t represent the entire bunch.  I see stuff like, “Republicans are a bunch of hypocrites,” or “Republicans are racist!”  I’m sorry, but how dare you assume I’m any of those things just because of my political affiliation!  This is one of the biggest problems with party politics whether it’s the republicans, democrats, libertarians, independents, etc., that can’t, or won’t, see past that letter next to someones name and find out what THAT PERSON believes or stands for.  Don’t sit there in your little bubble of self righteousness and claim that “your” party is king and the only one fit to lead while claiming the other parties are garbage whilst sticking your nose up at them.  You may find this a bit of a shock but every party has some bat crap crazy nutjob runnin’ around actin’ a fool and saying some idiotic things.  Parties do NOT run this country, people do.  So look past a persons party affiliation and find out WHAT THEY STAND FOR.  Then you can make a judgment on that person.  It’s important to pay attention to who you’re voting for and not just go down the list looking for the R’s or D’s.  Learn about the candidates and make informed decisions.  There’s no way to keep corruption out of government if you’re voting blind.  Open your eyes.

We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. – Abraham Lincoln

Libreality

I thought I’d take a few moments today to share a little slice of the liberal mind with you.  A lot of things have been going on in the world of politics lately from SB1070, lifting travel restrictions to Cuba, Crosses on Utah’s highways being deemed unconstitutional, the beginning of what may be the proverbial “death panels,” Sheryl Crow being an idiot, Rachel Maddow being an idiot, Obama being o.k. with a Mosque being built almost on Ground Zero, and Nancy Pelosi…well, being an idiot, just to name a few.  Here are my thoughts on Liberal Reality:

I’m not going to take a lot of time discussing SB1070 as I already have, twice(1)(2).  By now you should know what it is and how it’s progressed and where it is now.  What I would like to show you is a little unfair word play that politicians in general like to use to get you hatin’ on someone else.  This isn’t exclusive to any one particular party but for this example I’m using Harry Reid from one of his comments on immigration on August 10th this year.  Reid is upset that progress on immigration reform is being blocked by Republicans.  Reason being most Republicans are against granting amnesty to the 11+ million illegals already here and the Democrats plans for reform include a path toward amnesty.  By simply stating that Republicans are to blame for holding up reform and leaving out why, those in support of reform immediately have a negative attitude toward Republicans.  Reid further stated, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK.  Do I need to say more?”  Personally I think he needs to leave race out of it.  Maybe, before he digs his election grave with his tongue, he should ask someone like, I dunno, Marco Rubio why on earth he is a Republican.  Oh wait.  Heck, ask these guys too.  Democrats always seem to paint their party with different colors of race and then insinuate that you can’t be a true (insert race other than white here) unless you’re a Democrat.  You see it all the time.  A black guy say’s he’s a Republican and black Democrats call him a sell out.  Stuff like Harry Reid’s comments only fuel that type of racist attitude.  This is about right and wrong.  It’s wrong to let people enter this country illegally and let them get away with it.  It’s wrong to try to reward law breakers by granting them free citizenship while those that chose to obey the law paid, a lot of times with more than just money, to enter legally.  Republicans aren’t against immigration, we’re against illegal immigration.

Did you know there’s a Communist Party USA?  Yep, head over to www.cpusa.org and check it out (as of this blog their page was not loading, hopefully it’ll be up soon).  One of the issues the CPUSA wants to see resolved is the lifting of the travel ban to Cuba.  Something Obama is chipping away at.  Granted this would not, “end the longtime economic embargo or the ban on U.S. tourists visiting the island.”  But it’s still a small step forward in a direction, in my humble opinion, we should be avoiding.  Any policy change that would encourage flow of money into the Cuban government while those nutjob Castro brothers are still breathing air is a bad idea.  As senator Robert Menendez put it, “Promoting travel and widespread remittances will give the regime a much-needed infusion of dollars that will only allow the Castro brothers to extend their reign of oppression and human rights violations.”  I think the key part of this is realizing that as long as the Castro brothers have any power, the embargo should remain.  This sentiment rings true with many other politicians as well like Mike Huckabee.  In 1998 Jeb Bush was quoted as saying, “There is no reason to reward Fidel Castro for no efforts on his part.  We should be strengthening the embargo, not weakening it.”  Personally I’m siding with these guys and against the communists.  Just sayin’.  Here’s a few other quotes on the pro side of maintaining the embargo:

“Yes, especially at a time when Moscow is using Cuba as a footstool to taunt the United States, we should do all we can to maintain and enhance the pressure on the Cuba regime.”  Aug. 11, 2008 – Chuck Baldwin

“My administration will press the Cuban regime to release all political prisoners unconditionally, to legalize all political parties, labor unions and free media and to schedule internationally monitored elections. And, the embargo will stay in place until those terms are met.”  June 20, 2007 – John McCain

“The goal of our policy in Cuba must be the promotion of democracy and human rights. I support sanctions that target Fidel Castro’s regime but help the innocent Cuban people, allowing trade for food and medical supplies that help ease the horrible burdens they suffer. Full sanctions should not be lifted until Castro and his brutal regime are gone. At the same time, along with our allies, we must increase our support and assistance for dissidents and democracy advocates inside Cuba who are struggling to be free.”  Jan. 29, 2004 – John Edwards

“Unilateral concessions to a dictatorial regime are counterproductive, helping to secure a succession of power and repression instead of a transition to freedom. They will only embolden those who cling to power at the expense of the Cuban people. We must not weaken our policy on Cuba until the Castro regime is dismantled, all political prisoners are freed and Cuba transitions to free and fair elections.”  Aug. 21, 2007 – Mitt Romney

One of the news headlines that caught my eye today (18th) read, “Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Utah Memorial Crosses Along Highway.”  For some quick background information on this you can read the full article here.  Basically some atheists got mad and pitched a fit because they thought that putting crosses up would “imply that the trooper who died there was a Christian.”  My question is…so what?  Implying that someone was a Christian in no way conveys a state preference for Christianity.  IF the implication was arrived at, it was convey that there was a personal preference for Christianity which is perfectly allowed by and protected by the Constitution.  Seeing a cross on the side of the road brings one thought to a drivers mind; “Someone died there.”  I guarantee they are not thinking “This state has a preference for Christianity.”  Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff had this to say:

“When someone driving sees that white cross, what goes through their mind? Someone died here, and not Jesus Christ. The context of the cross on the side of the road, means death,” he said. “What else would you put up?”

Good question.  What else would you put up?  Any symbol that has any attachment to any religion, no matter how remote, is going to be rejected now.  I suggest we use corn dogs as the symbol for “someone died here.”  No religious connotation there and that should appease the atheists.  Crazy jackwagons.  I smell an appeal coming.

Democrats and Liberals denounced Sarah Palin as a crazy whacko when she used the term “death panels” to describe health care rationing that anyone who actually read the bill saw in the bill.  Which would explain why the dems didn’t see it…they didn’t read it.  Heck, Pelosi went as far to say that “We have to pass the bill so so that you can, uh, know what is in it.”  Say what?  Anyway, I digress.  Today, this article caught my eye:  “ObamaCare Rationing: FDA Considers Denying Leading Cancer Drug.”  Take a read through for yourself.  It’s hard to sum up in a nutshell as I am not that well versed in medical medicalnessess stuffs, but basically due to the new reforms the FDA could deny this drug based on “cost effectiveness” which is not something they are supposed to be looking at.  “Hmmm, this drug only helps extend life for a month at the most, it costs a fortune…yeah, it’s not worth it.”  This is what a lot of people are worried about.  It’s a very slippery slope.  Seems crazy Sarah wasn’t as crazy as the loony left made her out to be.  She just actually read the bill.

I saw Sheryl Crow in the news twice over the last week or so.  One was a news story about her demanding that only recycled toilet paper be used at her concert.  While reading around I stumbled upon an article in 2007 where she says, “I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don’t want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.”  Personally I think a great policy is to wipe till there’s no more brown.  Just sayin’.  I don’t really have anything to say about these stories, I mean, if she wants to go bat crap crazy with the environmental nonsense that’s her business.  The news story that got me was this one.  Double standards are nothing new to liberals but this one amuses me.  Her song is titled “Say What You Want” and at the same time she wants Sarah Palin silenced, thus unable to say what she wants.  Irony is fun, kids.  You know the difference between you and me Sheryl?  I’d fight to defend you’re right to say idiotic things.

Rachel Maddow.  Not a fan of hers, though I must say I thought she was excellent in this video.  But I digress.  Again.  Rachel Maddow tried, and failed rather humorously, to demolish the Arizona administration on the 12th by claiming they wanted to privatize all the prisons in the state so when they passed SB1070 they could fill the prisons with federal detainees, thus bringin’ in lots of money for “shareholders and everybody.”  Shame on Jan for….wait, she vetoed the bill to privatize the prisons…before she signed SB1070.  Did Rachel correct herself?  Nah, of course not.  It’s not in her nature to be honest.

To be, or not to be.  That is the question!  It very much is the question when talking about whether a mosque should be built near Ground Zero.  On Saturday the 14th I read an article deceptively titled “Obama Supports Plan for Mosque Near Ground Zero.”   I personally believe Obama does indeed support the building of it, but according to his very words, the only thing he was really supporting was the “right” for it to be built there.  He said Muslims:

“…have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.  That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

I’m not an Obama supporter, not by a very long shot.  But he is right here, they do have the right to build it.  But the question isn’t whether they have the right, the question is SHOULD it be built there?  No freakin’ way!  Obama did clarify what he said since Republicans all over the place were screaming “Obama wants to build the mosque at ground zero!!!”  Calm down fellow repubs, pay attention to what he actually said!  That way the dems can’t come back with claims of us fear mongering and overreacting.  Officialy Obama refuses to give a yay or nay, which is pretty par for the course with his voting record when he was in the senate.  It’s just my humble opinion that I believe he’s for it.  He’s shown a propensity to support Muslims and Islam so it wouldn’t be a surprise.  He didn’t so much as give a nod (other than the traditional presidential proclamation) for the National Day of Prayer but hosted an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan in the State Dining Room.  Maybe it’s just me but it seems he’d be cool with the mosque on GZ.

Finally, Nancy Pelosi.  She wants to investigate the opposition to the building of said earlier mosque at GZ.  She claims the opposition to the mosque site is being funded and wants to look into it.  I can state right here and right now that nobody is paying me to say the following:  “I am against building a mosque near ground zero.”

“I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded.” – Nancy Pelosi

Every polls show the majority of Americans being in opposition to it and this includes people from both sides of the political aisle along with Muslims and non Muslims alike.  Even Howard Dean and Harry Reid voiced opposition to it.  Something tells me madam Pelosi is seriously out of touch with the American people.  Or she’s completely senile.  Both are believable.

So there’s the news in a nutshell.  There’s plenty more out there but come on, do a little reading for yourself!  Farmville isn’t the only thing out there people.

The Unobserved Hourglass

An hourglasses function is very simple in that it measures a certain amount of time.  That amount of time depends on a few aspects of the hourglass itself such as size of the glass bulbs on each end, how narrow or wide the neck is, and the material inside.  It is commonly understood that an hourglass will empty from top to bottom consistently in the amount of time it was designed to measure.  A 3 minute hourglass should empty in 3 minutes every time.  Comparatively, in geology, the dominant view of the effects of time on the earth is described as being slow, gradual, and unchanging since the beginning of time.  A slow river has always flowed slowly, has always eroded at the same rate, and has always had the same affect on it’s surroundings.  This view is called “uniformitarianism” and is often explained with the phrase “the present is the key to the past.”

I began with the hourglass description because uniformitarianism views geological time in a similar way.  If you had a 10,000 year old hourglass and today it emptied in 3 minutes, tomorrow it empties in 3 minutes, 20 years from now it empties in three minutes, then 10,000 years ago it probably emptied in 3 minutes.  This type of view of time is often used by geologists to date geological formations such as the Grand Canyon.  Uniformitarianism’s opposite is “catastrophism.”  This view states that sudden catastrophic and short lived (geologically speaking) events (some possibly global) affected a lot of the geological formations on earth.  Some scientists that hold to uniformitarianism have accepted that there “may” have been some catastrophic events in the past that could have had an affect on earths geology but the “slow and gradual” view is the dominant one.

I have big problems with uniformitarianism and it’s methodological assumptions.  Going back to the hourglass let’s posit a scenario:

3,000 years ago someone makes a 1 hour hourglass and buries it in his back yard without keeping any account of it’s construction or purpose.  1,000 years later someone comes along and finds it.  He then decides to take it apart and remove some of the sand so it can be used as a 30 minute hourglass.  He too keeps no account of it’s construction or purpose.  The hourglass is lost and buried again and sits for another 1,000 years before it is rediscovered.  Now it is taken apart and more sand is removed so as to work as a 15 minute hourglass.  No account of it’s construction or purpose is made.  Again, the hourglass is lost until 1,000 year later (today) it is again found.  Under the view of uniformitarianism it would be assumed that this is a 15 minute hourglass, has always been a 15 minute hourglass, and will always be a 15 minute hourglass.  He would be correct in saying that the current amount of sand falling at the current rate can only empty from top to bottom in 15 minutes so it is assumed that this amount of sand falling at this rate could only empty from top to bottom in 15 minutes 3,000 year ago.  The problem is that the hourglass was unobserved by him.  He has no idea what else could have affected this hourglass.  And according to the methodological assumptions of uniformitarianism, he can’t assume anything else affected it.

There are 4 assumptions to uniformitarianism (posited by Lyell and expanded by Gould):

1. Uniformity of Law – Natural laws are constant across space and time.
2. Uniformity of Methodology – If some event in the past can be explained by current processes, do not try to explain said event with an unknown cause.
3. Uniformity of Kind – Past and present causes are the same type, have the same rate, and have the same effect.
4. Uniformity of Degree – The circumstances of a geological event have never changed.

I want to take a quick look at a couple of these assumptions and share my thoughts on them.

Uniformity of Law:

It is said that you cannot meaningfully study the past unless you assume unchanging natural laws.  I would argue that it would be more accurately stated that you cannot meaningfully study the unobservable past unless you assume unchanging natural laws.  In a 1965 article in American Journal of Science titled, “Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?” Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

“The assumption of spatial and temporal invariance of natural laws is by no means unique to geology since it amounts to a warrant for inductive inference which, as Bacon showed nearly four hundred years ago, is the basic mode of reasoning in empirical science. Without assuming this spatial and temporal invariance, we have no basis for extrapolating from the known to the unknown and, therefore, no way of reaching general conclusions from a finite number of observations.”

While I agree that without uniformity “we have no basis for extrapolating from the known to the unknown” it begs the question why these assumption of past events are commonly taught to us as scientific facts.  They cannot be facts simply because we were not there and we did not see how it happened.  I can accept that it is a scientific assumption that the 3,000 year old hourglass has always been a 15 minute hourglass but to call it fact would be false.

Uniformity of Methodology:

This assumption was set to prevent the inevitable infinite number of possible scenarios that one could conjure to explain an event.  I understand it’s purpose but it has the same flaw.  The unobservable past is unobservable.  In the hourglass scenario that volume of sand flowing at that rate can only empty in 15 minutes.  “It was used to keep track of time in 15 minute intervals.  That is a sufficient description and no unknown cause of it’s operation is necessary.”  I can accept that it is commonly accepted that this hourglass was designed to keep track of time in 15 minute intervals based on the current flow of the current volume of sand but to say that it’s a fact would be false.

You should be able to see my point by now.  Uniformitarianism cannot produce facts about the unobservable past.  Only assumptions that become commonly accepted and I believe it’s intellectually dishonest to present these assumptions as facts.  The unobserved hourglass cannot be a “3,000 year old hourglass meant to measure time in 15 minute intervals” but it could possibly be.  We know it’s not.  But without the written history of it there is no way to reveal it’s truth.

The scientific community may look down on catastrophism but some geological evidence compels us to legitimize it’s relevancy.  The Genesis Flood, while more often than not scoffed at by the “educated” members of the scientific community, would have been a catastrophe of massive proportions affecting the geology of the entire globe.  This throws a wrench into slow and gradual changes that are commonly used to extrapolate back to the unobservable past.  The Genesis Flood however, according to Scripture, is not in the unobservable past but took place in the observable past and was recorded.  If present observable causes can be extrapolated to explain events in the unobservable past, if there is any evidence today that supports the occurrence of the Genesis Flood then why can that observed cause not be used to explain Earth’s geological history?  Science is supposed to be the search for truth.  Not the search for ways to legitimize ideology.  Evidence does indeed point to supporting the Genesis Flood.  Without going into great detail, a detailed study of fossilized quadruped trackways in Coconino sandstone from Grand Canyon supports the idea of a massive flood.  If such a global catastrophe did happen, why is it so unreasonable to posit that the Grand Canyon, given the effects of such an event, could have been formed in a time span much much less than millions of years?  The evidence is there.  If the truth is buried under water instead of time…why search in the other direction?

Novel Notes Part 8

Nothing to report in regards to the story but I’ve done a little updating to the map.  Sorry there’s nothing new.  I was sick for a few weeks and things are moving pretty slow.

Cellphones and Corndogs

Cellphones and corndogs.  What?  You don’t see the connection?  It’s quite simple when you lay it all out.  See, when you talk on a cellphone the thing in your hand is close to your mouth.  When you’re eating a corndog the thing in you hand is close to your mouth.  I conclude that talking on cellphones whether hand held or hands free should be illegal.  Hmm, ok maybe I should explain a little.

Virginia is working on passing a law that would make talking on a hand held communication device while driving a motor vehicle illegal.  I totally agree but personally I think it needs to go a step further.  This same law would allow for using hands free devices and I don’t believe it should.  Why?  Well, cellphones and corndogs.  I’m curious as to why they want to make it illegal to use hand held devices but not illegal to preoccupy that same hand with any other object or device.  What separates the hand held cellphone from say, a corndog?  The conversation of course.  No one talks to a corndog.  If the point of passing this law is to make roads safer or free of dangerously distracted drivers (or at least lessen the numbers) I think they are missing one key cause.  The conversation.  The conversation on the phone, and not the phone itself, is the culprit.  A 1996 University of Utah study showed that there was no difference between hand held and hands free devices when looking at how distracted the drivers were.  The study showed similar driving patterns as shown by drivers intoxicated at the .08 limit.

Both hand held and hands-free cell phones impaired driving, with no significant difference in the degree of impairment. That “calls into question driving regulations that prohibited hand held cell phones and permit hands-free cell phones,” the researchers write.

A more recent article (2005) confirms that it’s the conversation that is the distraction.  Not the item in your hand.

Strayer and his colleagues have been down this road before. In 2001, they found that even hands-free cell phone use distracted drivers. In 2003 they revealed a reason: Drivers look but don’t see, because they’re distracted by the conversation. The scientists also found previously that chatty motorists are less adept than drunken drivers with blood alcohol levels exceeding 0.08.

Feel free to check out some more studies that confirm what these two had to say.  The point I’m trying to make is this:  if you want to make roads a safer place to drive by passing a law with the intent of creating less distracted drivers, only banning talking on hand held devices while allowing hands free devices is pointless.  You’re defeating the entire purpose behind a bill like this.  The conversation is the problem!  Banning hand held devices and permitting hands free devices will not solve the problem.  They both need to be banned.

Information and God

Over the years I’ve read a few arguments for the existence of a Creator God and I’ve also seen the counter arguments.  The Design Argument, Cosmological Argument, and Ontological Argument are all quite impressive but none of them can be used to logically prove or disprove the existence of a Creator God.  I will leave it up to you to learn more about the different arguments as this post is not intended to be an attempt at logically proving Gods existence.  I do not believe that to possible or necessary.  Johann Georg Hamann once said, “If it is fools who say in their heart, ‘There is no God,’ those who try to prove his existence seem to me to be even more foolish.”  For the Christian it is not a question of whether or not He exists, we know His existence to be established and proof is not needed.  For the unbeliever who seeks proof, our belief seems foolish and without substance.

Try proving to a blind man that roller coasters exist.  Try explaining to him the feeling you experience while riding one.  He could be standing 10 feet from it and not believe it’s there.  You could explain that what he’s hearing is, in fact, the roller coaster and the voices he hears are other people riding it and still he may not believe it’s there.  It’s only when he rides it himself and experiences the roller coaster first hand that he can state that it’s existence is established.  The unbeliever is like that blind man.  As believers I don’t believe it’s our job to try to logically prove Gods existence (and as a point of fact Colossians 2:8 warns us to be wary of such philosophy)  but to point blind men in the direction of a roller coaster and suggest they at least ride it.  But before we begin pointing I’d like to share a quote from Jeremy Campbell’s book, “Grammatical Man: Information, Entropy, Language, and Life.“

“Evidently nature can no longer be seen as matter and energy alone.  Nor can all her secrets be unlocked with the keys of chemistry and physics, brilliantly successful as these two branches of science have been in our century.  A third component is needed for any explanation of the world that claims to be complete.  To the powerful theories of chemistry and physics must be added a late arrival: a theory of information.  Nature must be interpreted as matter, energy, and information.”

I think one of the best ways of pointing to the proverbial roller coaster is to examine the third fundamental entity of nature – information.  I will only be touching on the topic as it can become very detailed and take quite a while to fully cover.  I would highly recommend Werner Gitt’s book “In the Beginning was Information” along with Mark William Worthing’s “God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics.”  We will barely scratch the surface today so I encourage you to continue that particular journey on your own.

First we must understand that information is not a property of matter.  In other words, you can’t get information out of a rock, for example.  Where does information come from?  What causes information to exist?  The causative factor that brings information into existence is volition, or an act of our will.  If we are sitting in a room together in complete stillness and silence we can state that the room is devoid of any information.  Let’s say that I’m aware of an impending explosion inside that room and then tell you of the danger and suggest we leave.  At that moment information is present.  Information only arises through an intentional, volitional act. (Gitt, 48)

The next thing we need to know about information is that it can effect the material entities.  Every manufactured item you can think of would not exist were it not for information.  Information is the driving force and beginning of all material existence and none came into existence through any form of self-organization of matter.  Matter and energy are also prerequisites of life.  But in order to distinguish between the animate and inanimate you need information.  What separates living from non-living is the information carried within the living organism.  Next we’ll discuss us, man, the most complex of all living organisms.

Inside our bodies information is constantly being sent a received every second of every day.  Our lives cannot begin without first the information needed to begin it.  There is always a sender and a recipient and there are 4 possible transmission combination between sender and recipient:

1. Intelligent being to Intelligent being
2. Intelligent being to System made by Intelligence
3. System made by intelligence to Intelligent being
4. System made by intelligence to System made by Intelligence

Now, there are 3 types of transmitted information:

1. Copied Information.  Simply put it’s identical to already existing information.
2. Reproduced Information.  Similar to copied information and in fact they are often synonyms.  An musician can reproduce another artists song.  It’s neither an exact copy nor is it something newly created.
3. Creative Information.  This is the greater of three as it involves creating something new.  It requires as it’s original source, a volition and  intelligence.

It is this creative information that we need to focus.  Every piece of creative information represents some mental effort and can be traced to a personal idea-giver who exercised his own free will, and who is endowed with an intelligent mind.  In other words, new information can only originate in a creative thought process. (Gitt, 113)  This includes the first living being.  The origin of life.  Any theory that attempts to explain the origin of life without also explaining the origin of the information required for that life to exist is invalid.  It is also invalid if such a theory attempts to search for the required information within matter, ignoring the fundamental law of information.  When life began it had to have as it’s causative factor a willful act by an already existing source of information or intelligence.  I cannot prove to you that the existence of information is solid proof enough to acknowledge the existence of God but I believe it is a very strong argument for it.  Evolution fails to explain how life originates.  The Bible makes it quite clear.  In the beginning God created…

The roller coaster is this way, give it a ride