Minor Revision...

I just got done with the changes to the Pictures Thingy. It works a lot like the Archives do. Just a button on the main page here that opens up another window where the images are all layed out for easy access. I'll be updating soon with more images, but first I'm gonna make another pass at this darn jukebox.

d-_-b *Music is good.*

g'night,
-Day

Free to Dance...

Just a quick update to throw in amongst the larger posts. I finally got around to updating the little "Music Player" on the right. I recently have come into a great deal of music and I can't even keep up. It should settle down soon, but here are three relatively new songs I like and one old one I have loved. Enjoy...

*No, I still can't get the streaming jukebox idea up and running. (I'm about to break down and have someone else do it for me.) Hang in their though, maybe by my 200th post it'll be working properly. (^_^) Untill then, feel free to dance.

Lazy Sunday...

Last Saturday was a big day for me. I had to wakeup early (8am) so that I could get ready to go and plant trees over at the friendship center. I haven't volunteered for anything like that in a long time and even though it was about 4 hours earlier than I like to start a Saturday it was admittedly nice to get up to such a beautiful morning with a purpose of some sort. When I got there it was cold and a group of people had shown up (co-workers and HACC students) to help with the planting of what seemed like a million trees. I'm not one for yard work generally, but that is mostly because I don't have a yard and so I enjoyed the smells and sounds of nature in the brisk air. It took hours though to find success in the task and I was both tired and hungry. Still I felt as an accomplished steward of the earth for having achieved the goal.

As I got home and cleaned up I got a call from a friend to come and move some of his belongings around, a TV and an excersize thingy. So I ate quickly and rushed over to his place to help out. Since I was in the area anyway and I needed to make another delivery I thought I'd stop and do so. This delivery was my TV which, for the moment, was my last item slated for necessary removal. Do not worry yourselves scholars of Channelology, I left in deserving and capable hands.

It wasn't long though before I was aching and moaning, not for the lost of TV mind you, but for the pain rifling through my back and arms from carrying two 27" TVs, a pile of trees, and several wheel-barrel loads of mulch. Oh the pain... Hey, I'm a desk-jockey for a living! It is ok though as I caught up with an friend for a few hours that night on the phone and phones aren't heavy lifting. (^_^)

Thankfully, Sunday was full of nothing at all. (More nothing than had previously existed on a Sunday I believe.) So much nothing I was deeply bored at times. On the other hand as the hours steadily flowed by, I couldn't help but to be more observant of (thinking and feeling) the moments that passed. I was allowed for the first time in a long time to just tap into a moment that held no particular grand-ness to it. I mean we all can tap into those moments of sunsets, first snowfalls, summer rains and various important occurances in our personal lives, but taping into a plane-jane moment is not something I hear much of and not something I remember doing much. By the end of the day I was happy to have been so very bored because I realized that (even with my boredom) I was granted access to a spiritually uplifting day. (Quite the opposite by contrast of workloads to Saturday, but just as rewarding.)

And so I wondered, is this what the Sabbath is to be like? The question of Sabbath is a tough one for many Christians, myself included. Some say it is not necessary though I disagree with that while others say it has to be a particular day even though scripture says otherwise. Originaly it was a Saturday and technically, if we adhere to Jewish law, it still is. Of course, we don't adhere to the old law, but to Christ. Anyway, I'm off topic already, I have always had distraction or work to do each day. Even when I made a point to have no work, in observance of the sabbath, I still had a 'ton' of distractions and things that kept me from tapping into the point and goal of the day. These are just my passing thoughts, I'm not implying or preaching here. It's just something I noticed Sunday that I hope to find again.

Some related Scriptures...
Exodus 20:8–11
Exodus 31:13-17
Colossian 2:16
Romans 14:5-10

Happy Day-Cakes

Another question to the philosophy club that peaked my interest (though not in a very profound way) was "What are the essential "ingredients" for your happiness? What is'enough'? What is too much?" I didn't actually post this back to the group, but I enjoyed answering it none the less and thought I'd post it here.

Basic Happiness Recipe; "Happy Blue404"
- 1 cup God (Christian Brand only)
- 0.25 cup music (Preferably Techno or International)
- 0.25 cup laughter (If not clean, go by fresh.)
- 2 teaspoons of hope
- 1.5 teaspoons of focus
- 1.25 tablespoon of internal struggle
- 1 "pinch" of a comfy couch to sweeten
(*All substitutions yeild poor results. Modify at your own risk.)
Mix and let sit for 9 years before cooking. Bake at 420 degrees until crispy and tasty. Enjoy!

Mmm-Mm good! Heh, ok that was fun, but seriously their is no way to be simple about this one is their? Every question has a long and winding answer riddled with symantic holes and opinions. Bearing this all in mind...

I do not "need" things to be happy, however I do prefer them as it is easier to "feel" happy while comortable, healthy, and safe than it is while hungry, cold, and in pain. HOwever, the happiness that "things" have brought me have been faint by comparission to the happiness that I feel when doing what God commands me to do, rain or shine. Whether that means overcoming an old habit or reaching out to someone who needs it. Even moments in staring at the sky hold a new value over any toy I once played with. Admittedly, it's easy to say, but hard to explain without subjecting the reader to the event itself so I'll leave it be.

"Enough" to me is that which is necessary, no more no less. (Also known as "just enough".) While "too much" to me is that which is unnecessary. The actual dosage or amount (of whatever we happen to be referring to) depends entirely on what the situation is and requires so I don't think I can answer it rightly.

In all these things we can either take "happiness" as subjective or objective and it will always come down to personal choice as to which we choose. Happiness itself I think is predominantly seen as ambiguous or subjective concept these days. (ie; Though we may all agree that candy is good we will still likely differ on which candy and why it is good. In this same way happiness is seen among people I know.) It's not a simple matter to define the ingredients for happiness when each person has a definition of happy and a different set of likes/dislikes. Furthermore I question if many people even know true happiness. Also the old saying comes to mind that some persons are only happy when not happy which presents a problem. So, yea like I said, trying to define all this without writing a full page thesis is a trick in and of itself so I'll just speak for myself.

(GYM Lessons) Moral Makeup:

When I go to the gym during the week I don't like to watch the TV's there. Not because I don't like TV, but because I can never find a remote and they are always on some channel, I don't care for. So, I like to take some reading material that I find online. This usually has to do with Christian Evidences and Apologetics to some degree. The past two weeks I have read two very interesting works and I really wanted to share them here. My apologies if this runs long again, but when it comes to explanations putting forth a minimal effort is not enough I believe. Regardless of the size these are worth the read.

This document was written by David L. Lipe, was published by the Apologetics Press, and is called "The Foundations Of Morality". I was impressed by it's ingenuity on the topic or morality even though the work itself was only some twelve pages. The general purpose was to discuss the building blocks of ethics and morality within a culture as well as an individual. It also goes into defining the difference between secular and religious ethics. Finally it rounds off the paper by analyzing the implications of the universality and nature of morals. (That sounds more confusing than it is, but I'm crunching down here to keep from posting too much so bear with me please.)

*Some sub-topics or themes within this document that I thought were worth meditation or reflection are;

- Cut-Flowers
The cut-flowers thesis, coined by Glenn C. Graber, speaks of a child who sees a flower he wants. The child reaches down and grabs the pretty flower ripping it out of the ground, but the child left the roots and the dirt in the ground as they were not pleasing to him and did not seem necessary when all he wanted was the pretty flower. Thinking it would be so simple the child re-plants it somewhere else without the roots. Obviously the flower does not survive without its foundation and so either are morals. This thesis was created to explain the decline in morality that has been more obvious by the passing months let alone years in this country. It represents the removal of the moral foundation, which many would argue against, and then shows how it withers slowly away. These same persons however, do not see the value in the roots of the plant, even in the face of our withering flower. The document goes on in detail about the purpose and implications of this thesis today, but I'll stop here.

- Religious vs Secular Morality
A long lived debate and indeed a familiar one. The document goes on to define the two and how they work. Then pitting the two against each other in what is without question a "no contest" fight. Simply put, secular morals are generally devised of a persons choosing. This may come from outside sources through life or it may be of that individuals design somehow. In both cases however, it is a piecemeal system of what do I want to believe is right and wrong as well as what do I want to apply to my life. In essence a subjective morality. A religious morality however looks to a singular outside source, a divine source, regardless of personal desires, and then applies those morals to oneself. Keeping a single standard set by this divine source, holding it to be objective. When the comparison comes though we see that a subjective moral system is inherently faulty so long as an objective one exists...and one does. Why does it fall apart? Because, an objective one means that their is a single standard, a fact, a permanent unyielding truth that causes no conflict within itself while a subjective one means just the opposite. That each persons morals are personalizable and are somehow still accurate. Basically stating that what you believe is right is right irregardless of what that means. Allowing killers, rapists, and thieves to be free in their desires and "ethics", but that is quite unacceptable to the vast majority of the secular morality grouping when asked. So then even they believe their must be a true standard (an "objective" one) when the chips fall. Yet when the time comes to choose a standard they keep to what they believe to be right and wrong as small groups or individuals and so it remains, faulty as it is, a subjective morality for them by their own design.

- Universal Experiances: (A Moral Breakdown)
(This was new to me. Instead of going on about morals as a singular matter the author broke it down into building blocks and I was truly impressed at what it reveals, though I doubt I can accurately explain in a paragraph.) The author goes on to point out that all men feel some form of moral obligation. It doesn't matter how insane or clearheaded you are, we all feel that their is a right and wrong and generally we feel the urge to do what is right though we may act otherwise. Is what is right and wrong the same for everyone, of course not and that is the two (main) ingredients that make our morality. Why is this important? Because, we can put reason and logic to define how we come up with our actions and decisions, but we cannot explain away our base calling to hold right and wrong or our base calling to do right. Granted what actions a man takes may be wrong even though his neighbor sees it as right it is not the ultimate action that I am interested in. Instead it is the imposing conscience that each man has. Though we have learned and been taught what right and wrong are (and that knowledge may be faulty depending on the situation) the conscience itself (the urge to observe right and wrong) is consistent and active. What does this mean? Well, the author understands it to mean that their is something upon all of us (what we might refer to as a conscience) that holds a standard and a law to which we are subject. Every time a person has a chance to help someone for instance, he has the option of helping or not helping and though his decision is often made based off of what he has learned of right and wrong, he none the less feels the need to chose and then carries regret or guilt if he chose inappropriately. It is not his terms of right and wrong, but his motivator to chose (his conscience) that the author holds to be a "moral law" placed down upon us all. Of course I am summarizing while the author went into great detail in explaining and proving and citing various sources, but I have actually heard others state similar concepts before that hadn't really sunk in until now. So essentially a persons morals are made up of intellect (teachings and personal judgment ability) and conscience (some apparent external motivator), the later motivating the former to make a choice of right and wrong. This is a universal situation among mankind.

- That little voice: (Moral Law)
So this "moral law" is an un-definable external motivator. Now the author, having spoken enough on the topic to make the point correctly and clearly, approaches the connection between God and this conscience we all carry. After addressing the obvious questions and opposition to his document and then going on through a great discourse of how logically such a conscience cannot be fabricated or individualized he ends the work with this statement, "The following logical implications, therefore, may be established from the above discussion: (1) there is a moral law that man feels compelled to obey; (2) the reality of God is reflected in each person's conscience; and (3)a personal being (God) exists and urges moral obligation upon every human" and I am compelled to agree with him having found sound wisdom in what he says. I've had this fight a few times and I had never thought to approach it in this way. I may try it in the future as I would like to see what those opposing have to say. From where I sit this seems both sane and sound, but when dealing with those who don't agree with my beliefs things like sane and sound aren't always the most important thing it would seem.

(I 'really' wanted to go on, but space does not permit. Feel free to email or post here with questions or comments, they are always welcome.)

(GYM Lessons) De-Evolving Evolution

This particular document was written by Wayne Jackson, was published by the Apologetics Press, and is called "Evolution-Fact Or Theory". I was impressed by how well and how simply the author stated the matter as well as the truth of the matter within it's fifteen pages. The author actually began the paper by quoting many scientists of the past who had made comments regarding the "fact" of evolution which is widely held by today's masses to be the truth, that evolution is a fact. Later on the author quotes those very same people as they counter their original statements which is quite funny I thought. Honestly, it doesn't take much digging however to find out that what the masses choose to believe (by word of mouth or trusting in a strangers comments simply because he has extra letters after his name) is quite far from the fact they claim. In fact, as I have learned long ago, it is no more than an unproven theory. Anyway, I'd love to go into the overall of this paper, but their are too many topics I need to hit to do a true summary.

*Some sub-topics or themes within this document that I thought were worth meditation or reflection are;

1. Defining the terms
Here we have a series of terms that need to be understood properly (but don't seem to be) by the whole of our society. First is Evolution itself is defined as "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift", while most people understand the very same term to mean "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form". They are close no? Yea of course they are and no doubt that is why we had all been so confused. The catch if you look closely is the "...and usually more complex..." which is an outright lie. One so well agreed upon that it has made its way into the dictionary as a secondary definition. What would have been a better definition of true evolution is the term adaptation, "any alteration in the structure or function of an organism or any of its parts that results from natural selection and by which the organism becomes better fitted to survive and multiply in its environment" as it agrees with true evolution and yet does not share the same name. Too little, too late. The next terms are Science and scientific fact. Science is defined as "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation" and I'll note is to be done unbiased. Scientific fact is "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation". Ok so going on these last two definitions, we would make the assumption that when a person (especially a scientist) makes the claim that "evolution is a fact" we should take it to be a proven fact because (as stated in the dictionary) this information had to be gained "through observation and experimentation" and since it is "fact" it must be unwavering in its truth as no partial truths exist. Yet, this is the problem, evolution in terms of origins (being utterly unproven through scientific means) is NOT a fact nor is it very scientific to be claiming such. Quite a predicament the scientific community is in if only we weren't so quick to accept their word as true. If only we'd think things through a bit more. The confusion knows no limit in this department it seems. Even throughout the paper as I read their were multiple statements from scientists accusing other scientists of cheating, falsifying findings, and getting away with it. What's more, as I read these statements and logical assertions of the very scientists who seek the "evolution truth" I can't help but notice they are excluding, by definition, what they will find through true scientific methods. Essentially I'm saying that they have proven that they cannot in fact prove evolution as a theory of origins. It is simply out of their realm to do so. Anyway, enough definitions, lets move on.

2. Four broken links
The author moves through the four major pitfalls of the "evolution" of things. A set of topics that, again, the everyman does not really have a grasp on while making the decision whether he things evolution is real or not. These are as follows, stated briefly;

2a. Uniformitarianism: This was once the golden child of geology and has bled over into other fields of science. Boiled down to the core it states that the processes of the past are the same as they are now. y now, though it is still widely accepted, it is loosing ground against new data. Its very proponents are discrediting it as they seek data and new information. Of course if it WERE true it would mean that nothing has changed and that their is no particular reason that a reproduction of an evolutionary event is impossible as scientists can duplicate the process under controlled conditions. Yet they haven't.

2b. 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Contrary to Uniformitarianism is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It states that energy loses efficiency as it passes from one form to another through use. So that at no point can the same energy(material) be used to do the same amount of work that it had previously done. Why is this important? Well, it's important because evolution as popularly thought of requires just the opposite. An increase not a decrease in complexity, information, size, etc. The two ideas do not mix well and while evolution is called "fact" the 2nd law of thermodynamics is much more grounded and quite sound.

2c. Mathematical Probability: It has been calculated many times by many people just how utterly unlikely, even logically impossible, it is that life would find and manage the elements it needed to even effect a minor adaptation. The one mentioned in this paper was by Harold Morowitz who factored it to be "10 to the 340,000,000th power. This means one chance in the number formed by one followed by 340 million zeros". I'd say that along with many many other estimates says a lot and that is with making the assumption that creating genetic information is possible without an external source, which is impossible as noted previously.

2d. Time: When scientists discovered that they could not reproduce or even find to record a moment of spontaneous evolution as was one time the preferred theory, they moved to the opposite extreme, that of the "millions of years" per evolution event. This is an issue in that time itself does not make miracles. Whether a day or a billion days evolution in the way they propose is still utterly impossible by natural laws. Beyond that, this also takes the science out of the process as it removes all possibility of using the scientific method to verify it. Placing faith in this factor, time, is equivalent to philosophy or faith as apposed to science.

3. Evo-truth
In truth evolution as it is in reality has never been successfully tested, documented, or recreated by scientists. This is not to be confused with genetic modification or manipulation be it through breeding or other forms of tampering. I am only saying that in nature, as nature does, evolution does not occur like they would have you believe. Aren't their changes in creatures though? Sure, and yea they count for something, but all these changes are simply shifting through information already available not creating new things. While the goal of "evolution" is to trump the God card in terms of origins this merely states that things adapt or mutate. Genetically it is a sideways movement (or a backwards one if information is lost), not a forward one which adds new information to the DNA. So if you have been confused how God can exist and yet evolution is a so called "fact" have no fear, God is still in control here. You've just been lied to.

4. Mixed signals
And so the author spends a great deal of time throughout the paper, quoting both sides of the argument equally (almost entirely from scientists), in an effort to make clear the point that we have been confused, tricked, and on several occasions lied to by leaders of the scientific community. In all honestly not all the quotes were outright lies. Many, most even, were just misleading. The kind of misleading like stated above. Making comments of evolution as fact referring to the adaptation of a species while the populace assumes that they are referring to the gradual process of what is often taught as an original of life. Even though these are infact two different things altogether, the terminology for both is the same. And so whether on purpose of not, much of it is trickery.

Anyway, I've read so very much of the generally unseen counter to evolution. It bothers me to no end that a general assumption on the parts of careless masses has made this myth to a reality or at the very least into a societal truth. Am I spouting some anti-science agenda or am I backing my beliefs out of fear of truth? Proponents of evolution would say yes on both counts, but no I am not. Look for yourselves. Dig around and find out what they aren't telling us. The truth will only be visible to those who seek it.

(I 'really' wanted to go on, but space does not permit. Feel free to email or post here with questions or comments, they are always welcome.)

What's it worth...

Recently in a philosophy club the question appeared; "Is it essential to have meaning to live a worthwhile life?" It's been a while since I waded in on one of their questions but this one jumped at me so below are my thoughts.

Without hesitation I dare say yes, the reason or puropose is essential and the search for such things should be a priority to the individual. Regardless of past discoveries (be it through divine revelation or historical analysis) this search should be continued, made into a lifelong process. Many questions arrise though... why should it be so important? What is the true goal? How should one look?

I believe that the search for meaning or purpose is one that is born out of satisfaction and self-worth more than anything else. Even when we don't approach it from that perspective we are still looking for that very thing that makes us relevant to existance, which is simply self-validation, irregardless of what we end up finding. I think this self-worth and life-purpose is sorely lacking in our current age, but I don't think it is because people aren't interested. Instead I propose that A.) their are too many choices for people to try and seek validation through and B.) people are generally becoming more and more lazy as the generations pass. They are learning (as they grow up) to seek the easy and temporarily satisfying answer if any at all, and the choices are numerous. Is it wrong to take one validation over the other? I believe it is reasonable and in fact correct to say, "yes, it is wrong." Why?

Simply put, a life lived purely for itself and it's enjoyment or satisfaction is a lost one. Not ultimatly ineffectual necessarily, but certainly not a fullfilled one either. Of course I am not saying that a person who believes their life is "meant" for politics and not a religious revolution is incapable of leading a productive and eventful life. (Even effecting scores of people for decades to come.) However, if we were to measure up all forms of saught validation against one another. (From those devoting life itself to the truth and origins within their spiritual beliefs down to the people who live simply for the next video game or episode of E.R. on TV.) We realize that their IS a scale here. What is at the top and bottom of any scale? Ends, or more to the point a complete contrast, creating a defining yes and no here though we may be unable to effectivly define what they are or mean right now. So it is not unreasonable to say that some forms of saught purpose and validation are of lesser quality and certainly lesser truth than others. It is also not unreasonsable to state that not all self-discoveries themselves are equal and that not all efforts are equal as either. Then what is a worthy effort?

Again, I belive a worthy effort is one that seeks (at least) the following questions with ferver and dedication;
- Am I living right?
- How do I know that for sure?
- What am I living for?
- Why am I living for that and is that good?
- Where did I come from?
- What am I here to do, if anything?
(and consequently)
- Where can I find the answers to these questions? (From whom and how?)

Now in truth (though men have varying degrees of ability) no man has a natural insite more than another through use of his mind or heart on his own and that 'should' be kept at high regard through this search. Men, both smart and crafty alike, have handed out answers from the early days with little more effectiviness than that of breaking open a fortune cookie and reading it out to the wisdom hungry masses, which brings us to the next big question. Where to search? Though many seem to see it as weakness, I believe their is more reason and purpose in seeking the truth from a divine source than a human one.

For a time, make the assumption that a God being does exist. If only for a time take His existance to be truth, His authority to be all encompasing, His very existance beyond the boundaries and effects of time. Essentialy, that God (omin-being) is real. Now, find a man who is His equal. A man who can answer where he has been come from or why or where. If a true answer exists then truely no man can find it without God. And if, by chance, no "true" answer exists then why isa it that man seeks it from his very core, expecting to find a final answer at all. These answers, whether you agree on Gods existance or not, cannot be found without Him. Likenesses and fragments perhaps, but not the encompassing truth. I suppose a person will seek what they desire in this realm. If you desire self-satisfaction or comfort then seek something within your reach, but if you seek the truth (though it may require much of you to realize it) seek it where it lives.

Speaking of experience again (as much as one can accuratly compare himself to himself or himself to another) seek God in this quest. No other can provide the answer at the far end of the scale. No other holds such truths, but that which created those truths. Is that weakness, relying on a Divine answer? I have been told so in the past year. Scorned and attacked, but as the words, concepts, and insults fell on me I found that these truths have not crumbled. Those very attacks have fallen like feathers on steel. Their are no answers God does not hold and a precious few He would not share.