Audio Time Traveling

I'm not a competitive minded person for the most part. I always shyed away from such things as a child and as an adult. I guess that is part of why I was never intentionally athletic. Granted, some sports that are very popular around here bore the life right out of me, I do have a few I love to watch or play. Even then it is not enjoyed for the competition side of it all.

Anyway, I recently discovered my car radio has a second set of programmable FM station buttons. Not expecting to find much for them I programed a group of stations I expected never to listen to, but as is often the case I can't seem to find a decent song on the main set of station I programed so I defaulted to these new ones. Some very good stuff I remember from days gone by and road trips as a kid. Listening to songs of the 70's or 80's as I did whatever I did while on the road. It is honestly a nostalgic thing hearing those songs again. A comforting surprise to have that new set of stations to turn to.

So while I was driving the other night I came across a station that had a game on (here's the tie-in) and at first I sarcastically thought, "Oh great." Then it settled in for a moment and I was smiling. It was a Hershey Bear's hockey game being broadcast and man I was a happy camper as I listened. Of course I don't care much about who they were playing or if they were winning, but I did care about nostalgia. I could hear the announcer in the stadium just behind the radio broadcasters talking. I could hear the crowd go nuts when the Bear's get close to the net. In my mind I was back in time. Both in the memory of actually being their, but even more so of the memory of riding in the car with it playing. At the time I found it so comforting even while I didn't much care about the game itself. It had an element of excitement to ride home tired in the night while the game continued on and so as I drove the other night (and again tonight) while it played I had a nice trip down memory lane.

No big revelations or fights to be had there, just a memory.

Foresight

I love the AiG site as you know and one of it's major efforts in the past several years has been the creation of a creation museum which it seems many people find comical. That wound aside, they had a large budget and had managed to effectively meet the requirements originally laid down. The good news is that they have since taken another poll and realized they had to expand the building and parking lot to meet the needs of the populace. Easily doubling the original size estimate.

This is awesome news to creationists and bible believers everywhere and I hope you share my enthusiasm. (^_^) Still, the need now exists for help if they are to meet these new requirements. This creation museum will serve as a wonderful example to anyone willing to look. If you are interested in backing the museum please consider donating to the cause there. If not at least take a minute to browse the online tour of the museum and see what it is about.

Article

Museum Info

Museum Tour

On the Cobb

So I was reading another article tonight. This one about Cobb county and their fight about evolution in the schools. It is about a biology textbook that had a sticker inside the cover which read, “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” Such is a truthfull and highly appropriate sticker and yet the people have been loosing their fight it seems. As I read though it dawns on me, the claim of evolutionists here is that religion be seperate from schools. I don't agree of course, but let's go with it for a second and see what happens. To seperate religion and science (which is the supposed goal here) we have to define them. (A small step often overlooked, but very essential to the process.)

Religion: A belief in a deity/creator and the consequent decisions and actions that follow accordingly to that deity.

Science: The observation and investigation through hypothesis followed by empirical testing which seeks to understand and prove a topic or problem.

Now looking at these definitions, how is it that an evolutionist/atheist can count the removal of religion and God in any real sense? Let me put it this way, a belief or claim in "no God" is a religious belief not a scientific one. So to say that religion must be removed from anything means that no claim at all can be made that refutes or presses any kind of origins claim OR other form of spiritual related topic OR any topic that even touches the fringe of a deity related issue be it through philosophical or scientific means.

"Why not?" Because science cannot prove such a thing. Yes, it can hypothesize, but that is all it can do in that it cannot determine as scientific fact that any deity or consequent actions are false.

"Ok, but how does that relate to atheism being a religion?" Like this, if a person makes a claim on God (in this case that God doesn't exist) then they are taking a side on decision of deity, period. To take a side at all (let alone one that holds action to follow such as no worship, no divine law, no salvation, etc.) means that a decision has been made that falls under the category of religious decision. This is not and cannot be counted as science in that science cannot lay such a claim. It cann't even hypothasise on it because that leads to a decision. To say that that the design of the world seems random indicates that a decision is being made that presses against God existance while a statement that says the desgin of the world cannot be random is a statement indicating that a decision is being made which agrees with a designer, aka God. And so while I read this article (and others of late, from both camps) I find it absurd that people (both scientists and layman alike) rally up behind the claims of "no God" and call it science. This really couldn't be farther from the truth.

...so much for "science", the savior of many.

No Secret (1)

As I sat and watched this blatant pandering I spotted an error about every third sentence. Logic errors, deception errors, classification errors, etc. I only made it about 20 minutes into this two hour video before having enough to set up shop against it. The problems are in plain site though I fear many people wouldn't see them because while the speakers reveal subtle and basic truths it confuses the issue at nearly each turn making what is a designed and governed system into a do it yourself mind over matter scenario. If you were to take it at face value it might seem legit, but a bit of thought can go a long way regardless of what you previously believed.

An example taken from the first 20 minutes of the video; Attraction: Think and it will be. The point made was that we shape our world (physical and chance outcomes) by the mental vibes we put out. People who think negative put out those vibes and consequently the world is shaped into negative things for them and vice versa. They took plenty of time to make this point I thought, but failed to back it up and failed to veil the truth enough to make the sale. The truth being that this is a matter of perception not a sci-fi concept of mind over matter, nor is it something that would lead to each man to a personal deity hood.

So, in this issue of "attraction" it has been said that we attract (or create with our vibes) our world and the deception is this; We do create our perceived world with our mind, but not the way they claim. If I am always moody and thinking the worst, I will almost certainly see the worst in all things because that's what I'm looking for and vice versa. This does not mean that we create our world, but that we create a view of the world around us and so we tend to see what is in that view. Temperamental in traffic? Guess what, each time you hit traffic and start whining your more likely to notice and remember bad traffic. When you look back over the weeks then you'll see all the times traffic occurred and somehow will overlook all the open lanes you found. You'll lose the balance because of your perception and vice versa if you look for the good in things. It is our perception which allows us to be different in our world, thus changing the world yet this is clearly not what has been presented in the video.

Essentially this is a self help concept and a rather deceptive one at that considering it's foundations and approach. It is a theory of perception dressed up as science fact which is backed by little more than opinions. (Certainly not proven or backed within the time I had watched, but I will soon sit through the entire thing.) Mostly compiled from claims of philosophers, metaphysics, and those "everyman" persons who claim it worked for them.

Between the promises (wealth, health, and power), the focus of the promises (personal gratification), the method implied (outward mental waves changing the world to suit), and the manner in which it is exposed (scandal and confusion) this 'should' be as obvious a mistake as Scientology. I only bring it up on the fact that, like Scientology, their are thousands upon thousands who are not guarded against these things. Self serving and rebellious individuals seeking personal gain and personal glory.

No Secret (2)

A prologue of “The Secret” in dissection...

"The Secret has existed throughout the history of humankind. It has been discovered, coveted, suppressed, hidden, lost and recovered. It has been hunted down, stolen, and bought for vast sums of money. Now for the first time in history, The Secret is being revealed to the world over two breathtaking hours."
Is it just me or do I hear more of a sales pitch than anything here. "Let's play on the general populaces weakness and prone nature to things of controversy! Let's not back up any historical claims either so that they don't focus on this part of the pitch."

"A number of exceptional men and women discovered The Secret, and went on to become known as the greatest people who ever lived. Among them: Plato, Leonardo, Galileo, Napoleon, Hugo, Beethoven, Lincoln, Edison, Einstein and Carnegie, to name but a few."
More (in)validation, this time by way of name dropping. Why? Because people who are too lazy to research (which is most people) will think that if these people did it it must be real and it must be worth trying. A simple tactic that sadly works quite well in the general populace. I should mention I have found no evidence of this claim being true, as it is stated. While these people have certainly held optimism in their lives and have had success they have not known "The Secret" as presented.

"Fragments of The Secret have been found in the oral traditions, in literature, in religions and philosophies throughout the centuries. For the first time, all the pieces of The Secret come together in an incredible revelation which will be life transforming for all who experience it."
Point of fact, this is a deceptive statement. While it holds a truth (that people throughout history have chosen to think good thoughts and have a good perspective in life) it dresses that truth up to be more than it really is. Instead of saying that they held an optimists perspective and it benefited them they play into that truth with an addition that suits them. Precisely that such an attitude allows a person to physically change the world to suit themselves by way of mind waves. Tricky indeed.

"Some of today's greatest teachers will be presented in The Secret and will impart this special wisdom that has been known by so few. They include some of the world's leaders in the fields of business, economics, medicine, psychology, history, theology and science. Each of these teachers is living proof of The Secret; each of them a walking marvel of achievement and success..."
"known by so few"? Yet just a moment ago they were happy to play on "fragments...found in the oral traditions, in literature, in religions and philosophies throughout the centuries". Please lets be careful when we're pedaling snake oils. And what is this "They include some of the world's leaders"? Well that's one way to make a safety net that covers most realms people are interested in. It really seems like they want us to believe based on what they say others have done. "Special wisdom"? Far from it. "living proof"? Don't get me started.

"Included are; 'Miracle Man' Morris Goodman, who tells his awe inspiring story of how he recovered from paralysis by using The Secret. Dr. Denis Waitley, who used various aspects of The Secret in training Olympic athletes and Apollo astronauts to reach new heights of human endeavor. Best selling authors and philosophers including Bob Proctor, John Assaraf, James Ray and Joe Vitale, explain how they have created lives of phenomenal success utilizing The Secret. Doctors in the fields of medicine and quantum physics explain the science behind The Secret."
How many miracles happen per day that are not ascribed to Him who makes miracles? That one man listed does not give glory appropriately is no sign that he himself has made a miracle. Let's please be careful as to what glasses we use in life. Let's also be careful as to what we define as miracle. "Doctors in the fields of medicine and quantum physics..." Doctors and Quantum physics? First off Doctors are out of their element here and their testimony should carry the appropriate weight. Second Quantum Physics is far from a perfected and flawless science often enough as full of problems as swiss cheese is of holes and as such should carry the same weight as well.

"The Secret reveals amazing real life stories and testimonials of regular people who have changed their lives in profound ways. By applying The Secret they present instances of eradicating disease, acquiring massive wealth, overcoming obstacles and achieving what many would regard as impossible."
Interesting wording, "by applying The Secret". By applying any ideal or system to what is already happening in life we can see patterns, this holds true for so very many things. I've even seen video games that carried over into life if a person was willing to apply its values in the real world. This applied ideal however is not equal from one to the next (ideals and applications are not equal in validity). The ideal that must hold up under scrutiny, not whether it applies in life since nearly every ideal can be fitted to a life application on some level. So this statement, while at face value holds truth to it, is simply a sales point. Hoping to pull in the hopeful.

"The Secret reveals how to apply this powerful knowledge to your life in every area from health to wealth, to success and relationships."
What can you promise to the general populace that will guarantee to perk up ears? Personal wealth, personal health, personal power and even personal relationships that are to your likening. What heart of man holds no greed that does endeavor to succeed. And so all who hold no greater value than themselves, with eyes wide, look to this "special wisdom" created by men. Overlooking the grand design and all that it holds. Lost to a deception that even deceives its creators.

"The Secret is everything you have dreamed of... and is beyond your wildest dreams."
The Secret is only...a wild dream.

Random Notes (#84)

If you have the time and a decent connection I wanted to post up the following videos. They are from the AiG site (a personal favourite) and are incredible. Each is essentially a speaker giving a talk on a topic. Their are many such videos on the AiG site that are not anti-science or solely theology, but instead a truth vs. fiction approach to topics. I was watching a few of these this week and was so glad I did I think they are about 10 minutes a piece but they are very worth it. More can be found on the AiG site. AiG Videos (If these individual videos aren't working properly just open up the AiG Videos page and choose from there.)

Ear Design
Part1
Part2

Eye Design
Part1
Part2

I also strongly recommend the two part astronomy video on Creation Astronomy.
Part1
Part2

Case of the Jollies?

So it's Christmas time again...already.

"What!? It can't be already!"

Oh, but it is. Fa-la-la and all that jazz.

How's every one feeling about Christmas? Good I hope. It is a time of year that is a celebration after all. Full of warm and fuzzy things. Loving family or friends, whichever you got. Maybe even a bit of eggnog, cookies, and a few snowflakes if you're lucky. A time to put up santas and snowmen and talk about being prepaired for Christmas morning gift giving. When people spend hours upon hours joyfully (or begrudgingly) wrapping present after present and shoving it all under leaky pine tree (or plastic if that's more your style). Everyone tuning in to that atmosphere of good times or, for those not into the good things of the season, quietly sitting alone at home or brooding while surrounded by insane family members.
Sound like Chirstmas to you? Yea, me to, but not for much longer.

"Say what now?"

That's right, I've been at odds for a VERY long time with Christmas and Easter. Not the premise or concept, but the way it plays out.

As a child, not interested in God stuff I saught the things listed above and ANY chance to eat candy while opening gifts. What kid wouldn't after all. As an adult however I find that when people say, "reason for the season" I feel my heart dip a little. Truly, I don't see the aforementioned reason very much on those days. I know that in many of the hearts I am surrounded by on those days Christ is present and accounted for, but I have always asked myself, "is this it?"

Christmas is the birthday of Jesus, a unique gift from God and quite literally the best thing that has EVER happened to my life. Easter is the remembrance of the culmination of Gods long term efforts to get mankind out of the trouble we have always walked into. A blessing counted above anything else I can mention. Yet on these days what do I do? I do what everyone else does. That has made me sad for several years honestly. What to do about it though is not a simple question or at least not easily answered. The truth is God didn't say "celebrate these two days" nor did He say "celebrate them by doing this thing instead of whatever you want". And so I have no real direction to take nor can I make an authoritative statement about it. All I can say is I am not ok with it as is.

While it's a bit late this year to come up with a plan, I hope to have a plan by Easter and then also one for next Christmas. A God I care enough about to devote myself to and to think of all the time is also one I would gladly give up my holiday for. For me, if indeed He is the reason for the season, let my day be lived accordingly I think.

I'm not demanding or attempting to guilt anyone, this is my opinion and I know I am no ones judge on this. Heck, He never asked for it so their is no call for others to agree and even the choice of days is full of controversy. So let each decide for themselves on this.

Open I's Blind 1

Ok, I'm concerned and a bit agravated, forgive me if that shows in the length or tone of my post here. I only hope for consideration and attention (possibly conviction), that it might offer some kind of insight or, failing that, just allow me to vent.

In the past few days I have seen nearly seven strong Christians shy away from Biblical evidences in favor of faith and I think I need to talk about it, not directed at persons, but certainly open to view. To do so I'll just break this into a few parts. I hope they are worth your time.
_______________________________________

Defining terms-
Faith: Belief (by way of choice) in something that cannot (or has not) been proven.
Proof: Something that removes all doubt (and choice) as to the factual nature of a matter.
Evidence: Something that leads to a conclusion, but does not speak of whether the conclusion is a proof or not.

So "evidence" can and does exist apart from the scary idea of proof which people tend to think removes faith, a concept I agree with. But why is evidence such a bad word to many Christians? Why shy away from them as so many seem to do when evidence and proof are so very different? Why draw that line in the sand when you already in fact hold reasons for your faith, which we all do? (Personal evidences.) I can think of at least three reasons that could possibly hold water in the minds of Christians. (That doesn’t mean I know them all, but these are what I can think of.)
_______________________________________

1.Science and Philosophy, "the bullies": Well it is no shock that the term science carries a great deal of weight in our society. So much so that millions gather behind it's flimsy walls. It is also no shock that the term philosophy carries a good bit of weight in a slightly different aspect. Both are weapons used against us every day, slinging "evidences" labeled as "proofs" while the unschooled masses huddle behind them chanting and cheering. (It really bugs me as you can see.) We were practically raised in such an environment and it isn't getting better. Is it a shock then that I might say we have been bullied on a very personal level by this setup? I think not, even if we don't want to admit it. So think back to your school days and those bullies that roamed the halls. Being older now, more mature, why were you afraid? Why did you avoid it when you could? At the time it made sense, they were a powerhouse and you were not, or so it felt. How about now? Is the view different as an adult, not under their thumb anymore? It is for me. I can see that I had nothing to fear. Had I stood up and fought I would have likely been hurt, but I would have stood and for the right thing. Maybe I wasn't strong enough to take them on, but I could have been kinder/smarter towards it or I could have bulked up by putting effort into it. The point being that cowering to bullies and allowing the evil to overtake the good, by falling to intimidation is a mistake and as adults we aught to know that. Don't be overwhelmed, you're not the only one learning to fight these bullies and you're not going to get hurt, or if you do it will be a proud wound you bare. We are not in high school anymore, this intimidation is not an excuse for our aversions.

2.What if...?: The question may arise to a believer who confronts the idea of evidences, "what if I don't find them (evidences) or even worse, what if I find solid opposition?" I ask how deep your trust is if you are unwilling to face your beliefs and of all beliefs, one in a perfect God. I mean by it's own wording a perfect God who wants you to believe isn't going to leave you lacking for reason. Believe me here if you can, I have stepped out on this particular ledge many times and while my heart skipped a few beats I found that my faiths foundation is quite secure today. No sword of man has ever come close and I say that with upheld hands. Their has never been a trouble presented or a question posed that went unanswered. True, all are evidences and not proofs so in the end the choice (faith) remains in the hands of the discerning, but evidences are so very strong for God and all He has done. Our fears, unfounded as they may be about this, are not a good show of loyalty or trust I think. Fear not, seek with a loyal heart and He will not fail you, but instead strengthen you.

3.A "whole" faith: I have heard lots mention the idea of a "child’s faith" as a fallback of sorts, because they didn't want to investigate further. The reasons for such a halt might have been fear or just as easily it might be that their interests are more geared to prayer or outreach. That much is not for me to comment on as each has a focus and I am not one to judge one mans gift as less than another. What I will comment on however is that this is a bad fallback to use. The faith of a child is not one that does not seek answers, but instead believes without question, holding hope and trust and love. This is an acceptable faith up until we see that we are to be ready at any given moment to account for our faith and stand for what is right. A person without answers cannot and a mature faith is one that contains (among other things) a reason. Did Jesus and the disciples combat stupid ideas that approached the people of that time? Certainly, as did the patriarchs before them. Did they have to understand the problem and the solution? Yep, and in depth.

Continued next blog...

Open I's Blind 2

...Coninuted from above.

An essentialy silent faith may be very strong, but it may very well serve less also. Yet to not be silent we must be able to deal with the evil world around us. An unknowing faith would not be capable while an understood faith can and so it is important to understand and seek reasons or at least be able to back up your own decisions. "But then what of a child’s faith, these words came from Jesus after all?" It did indeed, but I am not arguing against the "faith of a child" I am suggesting we complete the picture of faith. A child contains innocence, hope, trust, vitality, and love. If Jesus wasn't turning a blind eye to the darkness then should we really choose ignorance about our belief? Where in this model of faith is the room for understanding removed? It isn't and so I beg Christians to not use this as their reasoning for a halted understanding.

Maybe this side of our new life is not for everyone. I think that is fair to some degree. What bothers me is the perception that the only route worthwhile is the perception of unreasoned faith. It is no doubt the cornerstone so to speak, very important, but it is not one capable of combating the wiles of this world outside itself (and often it leave the defenses down). A job we are called to be ready for and one that sits waiting for us to approach it. What bugs me more than this is that many Christians mock our own evidences. Be it from peer-pressures or just a poor understanding, they defeat us every bit as much as the churches who have assimilated the theory of evolution and other such secular claims. Get off the fence my friends, we cannot play both sides. If when I do it it is disrespectful to God, then when you do it it is no less such.

Lastly, a faith that understands itself and is ready for the very real opposition is not a lesser "faith" necessarily. No matter what I grow to know, I do not know such a proof as to reveal God by my hands, consequently removing my faith. None exists to my knowledge and even if they did I had already chosen God through faith. If one day the evidences fall short and man finds a proof of Gods non-existence I will fall back to my cornerstone so called reasonless faith in comfort, refusing defeat. However, that has not happened this day nor will it the next. In the meanwhile, evidences (not proofs) are readily available and in fact hard to miss. We all see these things and say "that is Gods work", but why shy away from the understanding of your own words? When you say these things you are correct! Knowing why only sweetens the pot and strengthens the faith, not to mention helps you in sharing.

Well that didn't serve much as of a vent for me... Hope it mattered to someone out there...

Chitchat Archives 12-14-06

Some excerpts from a continuation of the conversation I have had recently. While the first round went well, it has fallen back to some of the more defensive statements such as;

-God punishing for his own design.

-We are puppets/pawns in a game.

(Both of these are essentially the freewill vs judgement argument.) So here is an excerpt of my response I wanted to share. It is not all inclusive obviously, but to do so would be an overload. Sometimes it is best to make a starter argument that is in understandable terms and hopefully raises other questions. Just throwing a ten page thesis of theology at someone is a poor way to help them gain understanding I think.

__________________________________________

Why a system of punishment at all? Because God does not want puppets, but instead wants us to choose Him willingly. So God gives free will for this purpose. He hands us laws and the will to break them if we choose to. He didn't 'make' us choose to turn away however. (No different than any law system man has built since. To say otherwise (that we are puppets) actually raises some difficult questions for the "divine puppets argument".)

So when we break a law in the normal world what happens? We are found guilty and punished. Any judge who is a good judge will not be able to let murders, thieves, or rapists go when they are guilty right? In this way God is also not able to overlook sin (law breaking) and instead must find us guilty when we have broken the law. Just as a good judge must punish a guilty criminal so to must God then punish us for our crimes. And we have all committed crimes against Him. Their is thankfully a way to remove past criminal records so to speak, but it must still be chosen willingly or our dirty records will hold up in God's court to condemn us when we die. (Mercy comes equally with Justice in a God.)

Why such severe punishment as Hell? Well, God's laws are open to view and scrutiny, but to choose to ignore it means we break that law and so we are guilty and deserving of a punishment. Since upon death we find out that God actually exists we no longer have time to mend our ways, unlike a criminal in the court of man, because their exists no aftermath time for it. Since death is the point of no return the decision must be made prior to it. So this place of "no going back" is a permanent (timeless) one often referred to as eternity. In the real world we call this a span of time in jail or whatever, but when "time" is replaced with "timelessness" so to is a length of punishment replaced. (If that was confusing let me know.)

Of course, to say that we are guaranteed punishment from birth is a mistake as we are instead given a choice (or choices) to make. To follow and care about the commands or not.
__________________________________________

I then went on to apologize for laughing at an argument he raised. I didn't mean it as an offense to him really. I was actually laughing at the person who wrote the article he was speaking of and the argument they put forth. It was lacking and instead of being calm I laughed out loud. I think I offended him and so I had to explain myself. Obviously I need to be more careful in person. Online it is not a problem that I laugh or roll my eyes as no body can see me, but in person these things will kill a conversation in a hurry. Lesson learned I hope.

Chitchat Archives 12-12-06

I recently had a decent conversation (which I hope continues) with a friend of mine. He asked 5 or so questions (sparked by TV shows he recently saw I think) and the conversation didn’t last long enough to cover ground so I wrote him an email about my thoughts on the topics. (I think my friend considers himself and atheist, but I not a strong one. That might just be how I see it though.) Anyway, I thought I’d post some of my thoughts up sorry if it gets long…

Q. Did dinosaurs roam the planet with man? What wiped out the dinosaurs?

A.To say that man never walked with dinosaurs is definitely not accurate if only because their are still dinosaurs walking/swimming today. The real question is when did they get wiped out by comparison to mans existence and then what did it. As for the devastation of the dinosaurs, I do believe in the flood and geological morphing recounted in the Bible as well as many other texts from other cultures that back it. Even within the ranks of archeology their is support for such a devastation to dinosaurs as opposed to the fiery meteor approach. It is also a solid premise in terms of geology as has recently been discovered. So instead of saying we didn't exist apart I would say that between ancient texts and the lack of solid backing in the "dating methods", man and dinosaurs did and in fact still do roam the earth. Both survivors of a once apocalyptic event.

Q. Is the earth millions of years old or is a “young earth” possible? (Dating methods, etc..)

A. Ever notice how very different the time-lines are from scientist to scientist? Their is a good reason. It is very inaccurate for two basic reasons. Reason 1 is that all calculations are based off of what is going on now. The chemical makeup of things, atmospheric conditions, and so on. Simply put, the world didn't grow in a peatry dish and so science can't be accurate in its tests without recreating what was really there then. They can't do that because they don't know. They might be able to guess what a tree is composed of but they can't guess what it went through over its life and then the years of its death for instance. Reason 2 is much like using the "align" command in CAD. We've all lined up something in two spots and then zoomed out to realize that the farther we get from our aligned points the more off we are in accuracy between the base map and the aligned mapping. It's the same with gaging things. A subtle difference in sample A might cause it to read as 1000 or even millions of years younger than it's neighbor all because of a near imperceptible chemical difference. Of course their are other dating methods also, but they fail in much the same way.

So for my two cents I don't trust any time-line given, because in my researching I have seen numbers (for the beginning of all things) that range from 5 trillion years to 10,000 years. While the later number is what choose to believe (based on other things) it is not something I can trust while the "science" is so random.

Q. Evolution, is it real? Is it trustworthy?

A. I don't subscribe to evolution basically for 5 reasons and I'll just list them briefly...
1. If we go back to the start of evolution we would need to see one cell sparked into life (which is bordering on the impossible) and that cell would need to hold all the dna "blueprints" for all things we see today (which is far more impossible). This is very unrealistic in real world terms while evolution requires that a simple life form grows in dna information and then chooses it's information based on it's needs as time progresses. I say this is impossible because the scientific community has already discovered empirically that dna does not evolve, it does mutate and degenerate of course, but nothing is ever added to it unless from an outside source. So a one celled amoeba as we know it today is not a candidate for evolution as we are often lead to accept. They simply don't hold all the information and can't create more info, unless an outside source was there to grant them said info or better yet create fully functional life forms, which would in turn skip the need for evolutionary process altogether. In this way evolution in terms of "man from fish" and "fish from amoeba" is false. Evolution in terms of adaptation however is a proven fact as it only states a change in dna, a lateral or backwards shift, as opposed to the spontaneous creation of additional information.
2. The "missing link" as they call it. It is not one creature that is needed, but an observable and testable set of missing links. While every now and then you'll read an article claiming to have found a missing link the truth is that their exists no middle state of evolution, to date. All the strange creatures (for the most part anyway) are the way they are for a reason. Fish that walk on land or fly. Birds that dive and have walk. Mammals that fly by way of sonar in the dark. These are all oddities but all are functional in their environments. Yet their is not in between to be found for them or the regular birds, fish, etc.
3. Mathmatically it is ridiculously improbable. It is actually mathematically more probable that a deity made everything than it is that something can spark on it's own in that way and survive to lead into what we know.
4. The agenda driven nature of it's proponents in the scientific community. Granted all other groups/communities have agendas, but science (by definitions and principle) is not supposed to and yet that is very much what has been revealed over the last several decades. Only that which is desired is exposed to the public and so the public who want another way accept it as a fact when it isn't more than a theory to date.
5. The principle of evolution is that of another creation style, it was born for that very purpose, but to do that it needs a start, a creation of some sort and evolution does not answer that. It only supposes that we are reduced to animals when we clearly are not. Since nothing can't evolve into something, their must be something to allow for evolution to occur, but even the "Big-bang" is a weak attempt to do so when scrutinized. Most debaters don't even bother with it anymore in conversations. So it can't even account for it's own existence and I find that to be a large flaw in it's construction.

Reason #6 would be faith in God's Word over anything man can generate. Simply put a belief in the Bibles account of creation and lack of support for evolutionism.

Random Notes (#76)

Some days, most even, I wake up and I am tired. I don’t usually whine about it but I certainly don’t enjoy it. Time is a valuable resource and I can rest within the walls of sanctuary after I die. Now is for being awake. Still, a tad more sleep would probably be helpful.

Anyhow, even when I wake up tired and drag myself around the apartment to get ready for work. Even as I drive to work rain or shine feeling utterly un-inspired to have the job I have. Even as I repeat this morning process over and over, I can’t fail to notice how the day shifts, every day. At some point each day I come to realize how important and worthwhile the day is and I think it is important to do that. A spark of life pops back into the picture.

Sometimes it is a passing conversation or an article containing some previously unknown information. Other times it is a call to arms, be it a battle or a hug. Each day contains many moments, moments we miss and learn to not check for. Moments that we aren’t prepared for sometimes. Moments that define who we are in the world. Are we “salt and light” or are we just another shadow passing by, unaffecting the world aside from adding to the blanket of darkness already present?

It’s these moments that I wake to each day. I don’t wake to an alarm clock or coffee. I don’t wake to 8:30 traffic patterns or a morning radio show. I don’t even wake to the static shock I almost always get hit with at my desk. No, what wakes me up deep down is the sight of these moments to change the world even if only in a 10 foot bubble around me.

Nothing wakes me up like being awake spiritually. Granted my eyes are still heavy and my body would love nothing more than to curl up under my desk for a few more hours, but my spirit is alive. That is far more important to me than being on caffeine highs or getting an adrenalin rush. A spirit alive is an everlasting high...