Is Evolution True? Let’s Vote?
On January 03, 2008 in In the News, Science Related
Sorry, but that’s now how we determine what is and is not true, and certainly what is and is not Science. A recent article from www.livescience.com suggests that 61% of people feel that Evolution is true. Is this how we determine what is true and what is not? I don’t think so, or else truth would be nothing more than a relative term reflecting the mere emotions and opinions of the greater majority. 51% of people disagree with 49% that water-boarding is torture, therefore it’s truth that water-boarding is not torture? I certainly hope we don’t start enforcing this as a device to decide other things.
Unfortunately, like practically every other article on the subject, we’re not given the definition of “Evolution”. 9 out of 10 times we’re talking about a scientific process, but unfortunately, there variants of the term that do not qualify as “scientific”, since they cannot be tested, reproduced, or verified by alternative sources. These are the form of Evolution that are not scientific, regardless what your voters think.
If I tell you that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, how do you know if I’m telling the truth? Well, you could expose a culture of bacteria to some antibiotics and check up on them later. The culture will be smaller, and then begin to repopulate with the new strain that is now resistant. That is Science. Now, if I tell you that some 4 billion years ago lightning struck a mucky soup on the earth and life sprung forth, how would you test that? You can’t. It’s not observable, it’s not repeatable, and it certainly isn’t mathematically plausible, so why do we call it Science? And why do we teach it with Evolution?
Proponents of Evolutionary theory often times release their cry that the Scientific Method is of sacred nature, and should always be used in science. Shoot, even Livescience mentioned this.
“The introduction of ‘non-science,’ such as creationism and intelligent design, into science education will undermine the fundamentals of science education. Some of these fundamentals include using the scientific method, understanding how to reach scientific consensus, and distinguishing between scientific and nonscientific explanations of natural phenomena.”
Survey: 61% Agree with Evolution
http://www.livescience.com/history/080102-evolution-teaching.html
Oddly enough they refuse to use the Scientific Method when it comes to Evolutionary theory. Many bogus claims are made, such as life from non-life, deer-like creatures becoming whales, dinosaurs becoming birds, and fish scales becoming teeth. None of these claims are valid when investigated within the Scientific Method - it cannot even touch them, because they’re not observable!
Wikipedia states that the Scientific Method “consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”
So how do we observe the metamorphosis of scales becoming teeth? Or deer becoming whales? The whole theoretical tree comes crashing down when the Scientific Method is involved. None of it is observable, it’s all guess-work based upon a tooth here, an ear-bone here, etc. So why do they have this double-standard?
They claim that Intelligent Design and Creation-Science are both bad for business. They feel that it will “undermine the fundamentals of science education.” But is that really true? Or is it the opposite? I cannot speak for Intelligent Design, but I can speak for Creationists (since I am one). When Christians view the world, we view it as a very complex created object. With innumerable lilliputian devices showing the magnificient work of our Creator.
When we view the World, we feel the overwhelming desire to know why our Creator did something a specific way, and how our Creator did it. We want to know when it happened. If we learn more about the creation, we in turn understand more about the Creator. It is the passion for the Creator that drives a Christian to study the creation.
“Speak to the Earth, and It shall teach thee.”
Job 8:12
The Bible encourages Science. This is why when Evolutionists came across the Human Eye they brushed it aside as a blunder of evolution, since the blood vessels are in front, and not behind as they are with an octopus, or some other creature. They stop studying it, they threw it aside because that’s just how Evolution did it. Turns out, they were wrong. Read “Is our ‘inverted’ retina really ‘bad design’?” at AnswersInGenesis.org.
Why is the teaching of Naturalistic Origins so sacred to Evolutionists? How many medical miracles have come by the understanding of Evolution? Zero, nada, zip - that’s even the view of Evolutionist Phillip S. SKell who had the following to say:
“I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”
Philip S. Skell
“Why do we invoke Darwin?“, The Scientist 2005, 19(16):10
This is from an Evolutionist who feels “Darwin’s theory of evolution offers a sweeping explanation of the history of life.”
So while Evolutionists are busy playing in the dirt trying to find ancient broccoli, Scientists like Raymond Damadian are pioneering scientific advances such as the MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) that will save innumerable lives. Dr. Damadian is also a Creationist - be sure to thank him the next time you need the life-saving services of an MRI.
So what is Evolution good for? It doesn’t help us in any way at all, by the admission of Evolutionists themselves. It doesn’t explain anything with any degree of certainty. As Dr. Skell put it, it’s nothing more than a narrative gloss brought in after the fact.
LiveScience finished their article off with the following:
“The bottom line is that the world is round, humans evolved from an extinct species and Elvis is dead,” Weissmann said. “This survey is a wake-up call for anyone who supports teaching information based on evidence rather than speculation or hope; people want to hear the truth, and they want to hear it from scientists.”
All I can say is this, Screw the Scientists, listen to the Science. The Scientists are going to tell you whatever they need to bring in that check, even if it’s B.S. Meanwhile, Scientists out there like Raymond Damadian are saving lives, advancing our medical understanding, and doing REAL Science - so if you’re going to pick a scientist to listen to, pick one who offers testable science, and not some fairy-tale.
Link Summary
I Live in the Past - So do You!
On January 02, 2008 in Science Related
As I was driving home from New Years break in Florida, I started wondering in my thoughts. That car that just passed me, I didn’t know that it was passing me until after it had already passed me. And I didn’t really know that it was now in front of me until after it was already in front of me. Sound weird? That’s because it likely is, but let me explain.
Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, unlike my ‘96 Chevy Cavalier which travels at about half the speed of smell. The sun is 93,000,000 miles from the earth, meaning it takes the light about 8 minutes to arrive here from there. So when you look up at the Sun, you are actually seeing it as it was 8 minutes ago, not as it currently is. So if the Sun were to theoretically explode, you wouldn’t see the explosion until 8 minutes after the fact.
The Moon is about 250,000 miles from the Earth, much closer than the Sun. The moons light travels 186,000 miles closer to the earth in a second, meaning we see the Moon as it was just over a second ago, but again, not as it presently is.
It’s a little hard to think of, but let’s try to bring it a little closer to home. Ever seen a man on his house down the street hammering a nail into a board? You see him drop the hammer, only to hear the crack of the nail a second later. It’s almost like a bad movie where the audio and video aren’t really sync’d up. The speed of sound is variable, but on a dry day the speed of sound may be recorded at just over 1,000 feet per second. That is much much slower than the speed of light, which is to thank for the image of the man working. So the image of the man working arrives much sooner than the sound of the man working.
Even the sounds we hear are mere recordings of the past. The very near past, but the past none the less. When I was sitting in the car with my wife, I merely heard her words as they were recorded in the compressed and rarefied air between us just moments after the vibrations of her voice shuffled the air molecules towards me. I didn’t actually hear her as she spoke, but merely after the fact, again.
You see, I live in the past. The very near past, but the past none-the-less. I don’t even see the letters on this computer screen as I type them. For they show up after I’ve already typed them. And I’m not authoring this article as each proceeding sentence comes to mind, since I must first think of the words to write, send commands to my fingers to type, which in turn send electrical impulses to the computer to insert a specific character in a certain location, only to change the image on my screen which then needs to reflect it light back to my eyes, which translate the light into an image that my brain can understand.
Everything I enjoy is already gone by the time I enjoy it. Or is it? Is there anything that I enjoy that is in the present, the technical present that I’ve never been able to see, hear, taste or touch? Are my thoughts present? What is the speed of thought? How do we begin to measure such a thing or quantify the rate at which we understand ourselves.
I’m such a geek, I know.
Whales descended from Deer-like critters?
On December 20, 2007 in In the News, Science Related
This just in, CNN is smoking crack! Okay, so I did my daily surfing of the tubes and found that CNN has published a new article, “Whales may have descended from small deer-like critter.” Brilliant, I mean, absolutely friggin’ brilliant! To be honest, I was already convinced of the relationship. I mean, deer are heavy, and so are whales. Not to mention they both have faces.
So on to the article itself. The earth-shaking discovery came by way of our brilliant Dr. Thewissen, an anatomy professor at Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. Now, you may be thinking that this is all a bunch of crap, but this was published in the journal Nature - it has to be true.
Now, I wasn’t convinced until I heard the irrefutable evidence put forth. Are you ready for this? “The key finding connecting Indohyus to the whale is its thickened ear bone, something only seen in cetaceans.” Yes, kids, you see, this deer-like critter had a fat hearing-bone, so that means she had whale babies.
I feel so bad that these people go through years of schooling, spend dozens of hours working on tests, and all they can give us is “This thingy has a big ear bone, so it must be connected to this other thingy.” I mean, that’s like me saying “A fat man robbed me!” and then somebody else saying, “Hey, I know a fat man…let’s go arrest him!”
Another thing, do these “scientists” feel that the ear bone refused to evolve while the body evolved as wildly as they suggest? I mean, the body tossed on several tons, the tongue became as heavy as an elephant, their nose moved up to the top of their head, their respiratory disconnected and then reconnected in a completely different configuration, their hooves feel off and they grew fins. I mean, come on, all of this happened and the friggin’ ear-bone didn’t change a single bit? You’ve got to be kidding me! Get a brain, people. Dag’um!
Top Left: First Drawing from initial findings. Bottom Left: Initial findings…seriously. Top Right: More complete findings. Bottom Right: More realistic drawing from complete findings.
This crap reminds me of the Pakicetus findings many years ago. They found a couple fragments of the skull, a tooth or so, and drew this elaborate picture of a wolve-like creature swimming in water, hunting down fishies with its webbed-feet. (The darkened bones of the skull represent what was actually found)
For more on whale-evolution, you can check out the following articles:
- The Overselling of Whale Evolution
- A Whale Fantasy from National Geographic
- Refuting Evolution, Chapter 5 “Whale Evolution?”
Link Summary
Synthetic DNA and New Life Forms
On December 18, 2007 in In the News, Science Related
Rick Weiss of the Washington Post wrote an article on the 17th called “Synthetic DNA on the Bring of Yielding New Life Forms“. I heard about it this morning via an email from a long-time friend.
So the basic underlying story is that Scientists are fiddling with the core-components of DNA, and creating their own instruction-lists. They feel that this may soon lead to creating fuel-alternatives, medicines, etc.
The other possibilities (which they mention too) are that we could all just kill ourselves on accident too. I can see it now, some intern is working in the underground laboratory moving the green vile over next to the yellow vile, reaches for the blue vile and “shhhhh-plat!”. The blue vile dropped and shatters! As the nervous interns hand begins to tremble he calls out to his manager, “Mr. Dorlofenchronichalder! (because smart people have hard names), I dropped the blue vile!” “Vat!? You zropped ze blue vilez? Zvun! Zvun for your live!” 24 hours later, everybody’s dead!
Okay, so forgive me for going on a “we’re all going to die” rant - I just watched “I Am Legend” a couple nights ago. The story in that movie was basically that we have engineered malaria to carry a cancer-killer and make everybody immune to cancer. The end result, well, wasn’t pretty. A small quote in the WashingtonPost made it very clear, “The danger is not just bio-terror but bio-error.” Ding ding ding! Don’t drop the blue vile!
What makes this article so interesting to me is how they constantly refer to DNA in terms of software and operating systems. I’m a software-engineer by profession, so I’m naturally interested when I hear of these analogies and comparisons.
My experience in software-development makes me a bit worried about “noobs” fiddling with an operating system of which they know little-to-nothing about. I mean, our biosphere will end up being one big crappy myspace! People bio-engineering analogous animated-backgrounds which make the foreground text impossible to read. Sixteen automatically-playing songs with 92 animated images of tinker bell saying “thanks for the add!” I mean. MySpace is a developers nightmare because it gave idiots the ability to submit their own basic code. And it all blew up. The collateral damage was enough to make me get faint. And now we’re going to do this with DNA!? Run for the hills!
Among other question, people may also wonder if we’ve gotten smart enough to “Play God”. I don’t thiink we have. I mean, I can write a program in any number of languages. I can use C# (c-sharp), PHP, VB.NET, Java, Python, etc, but that doesn’t mean I’m equal-to-or-greater-than the creators of those languages. By far. Without them first creating the language, I can’t use it. Without them first making available tools to learn the language, I can’t use it. Without them providing example of how the language is used, I can’t use it. Without them providing a compiler to build the code into an application, I can’t use it.
So there’s no telling what is going to happen with this technology if we actually figure it out well enough to do anything. Then again, I suppose we don’t need to figure it out real well, seeing how dropping the metaphorical blue vile could kill everybody in 24 hours.
My prediction, we’re all going to die. Because these idiots who couldn’t cure dandruff want to create new life-forms. What ever happened with “learn to crawl before you can walk.”
Link Summary
Human Evolution is Accelerating?
On December 17, 2007 in In the News, Science Related
So I opened my internets today to find some more silly articles. The subject of the day, “Accelerated Human Evolution.” This is being talked about all over the place. I read it first on CNN, then after consulting the Google, I read it on Reuters.
So what’s the skinny? Basically ze car iz going faztur! Not sure why I said that in a false German accent, but you get the idea. We humans are apparently “evolving” faster than ever before! Unfortunately, we’re not really given much insight as to what they mean by “evolving”.
Have you ever considered that word before? Seriously. I mean, let’s consult dictionary.com and see what we come up with. The first definition is “any process of formation or growth; development.” If that were the definition, would Human Evolution be Accelerating? Yes. I mean, after all we’re experiencing exponential population growth.
The second definition is “a product of such development,” which also is correct. The third is a “change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.” Is that true too? Certainly. I mean, you ARE different from your parents, who are also different from theirs. Still, no biggie.
Fourth definition states “a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.” That qualifies - I don’t know about the “peaceful” part, but it certainly qualifies.
So as I’m looking down these definitions, I don’t see any problems. If Reuters and CNN lived by the law of Dictionary.com, all would be well. But when they say “evolution”, they don’t always mean unequivocal things like “Getting smarter, and making pretty things.” Not at all, they mean goo-to-you-by-way-of-the-zoo. But they get that nonsense mixed in with the non-nonsense by saying things like “a product of development” or “change in gene pools of populations.”
It’s this equivocal language that makes people believe the nonsense that birds and banana’s are related via a common ancestor. Nobody disputes that things change with time…it’s the type of change that is in need of more scrutiny. But anyway, I’m getting slightly off-topic. Back to what CNN and Reuters had to say.
CNN was embarrassingly empty, probably because they didn’t want to post some of the silly things that Reuters did.
Reuters states that “Many of the recent genetic changes reflect differences in the human diet brought on by agriculture, as well as resistance to epidemic diseases that became mass killers following the growth of human civilizations.” I agree that we have some big differences as a result of out diets changing. One of which haunts me as I write this - Wisdom teeth. Our softer-diets causes to smaller jaws which now have less room for my wisdom teeth! Today, a large percentage of the population has to have their removed. That’s not a good mutation though.
What about that other thing they mentioned - that “resistance to epidemic diseases” thing? They continue in the next paragraph with “Africans has new genes providing resistance to malaria.” So wouldn’t that be a beneficial mutation that has set us on the path of super-humans?
Evolution-propaganda gets very redundant over the years. I’ve only really spent about 5 or 6 years reading the material religiously, and have noticed a trend. Evolutionists really only have a few key elements that they boast about. One of which is this “malaria” resistance. Reuters made this sound so wonderful, didn’t they? But they failed to tell you more about this gene that protects Africans from Malaria. The gene causes another condition called “Sickle-cell anemia”. You’ve probably heard about it if you’ve taken any biology class.
Carriers of this gene have about 50% normal hemoglobin, and 50% sickle-celled hemoglobin. Because of this, the malaria germ leaves them alone. But does this constitute as a beneficial mutation that will drive human evolution into perfection? When you consider that 25% of the carriers children can die from sickle-cell anemia, and 25% are indeed capable of getting malaria -”beneficial” hardly seems like the right word to use.
So if this isn’t convincing, what other evidence did Reuters give us? “In Europeans, there is a gene that makes them better able to digest milk as adults. In Asians, there is a gene that makes ear wax more dry.”
So, if you guys continue to evolve rapidly, someday you can be milk-guzzlin’ maniacs with the super-human ability to produce dry earwax! Oh the day this happens, oh how we humans will conquer the Universe!
Link Summary
Politicians are Truly Stupid
On December 14, 2007 in In the News
So I hear that the UK is going to ban Samurai Swords because in the years between 2003 and 2007, there were a whopping total of 4 deaths caused by Samurai Swords. So, the solution is to ban the object! After all, how could people kill each other without Samurai Swords?
Responses on the video shared other suggestions for things that need to be banned, including (but not limited to) scissors, marbles, and bears. Afterall, they all have caused deaths too.
While you’re at it, UK, ban McDonald’s.
It’s ridiculous decisions like this that make me feel completely hopeless when it comes to government. I mean, if you take away all of the guns, 1 man with a gun can control 50 men without one. Imagine how long a bank robbery would last if everybody in the bank was carrying a fire arm? Imagine how many school-shootings would result in dozens of deaths if the teachers carried fire arms and were required to take training.
You may think I’m joking, but I am 100% in favor of giving every sane adult a fire arm, and teaching them how to aim.
Link Summary
Arrogant and unreachable, but certainly not stupid.
On December 13, 2007 in Bible Reading
I’ve been reading through the Book of Matthew lately and I’m seeing the stories almost twice-as-detailed as ever before. This happens every time I begin through something I’ve already read, and it’s cool. Makes you feel like you should read it again for even more clarity, and then again, and again!
So I’ve been going through this time and really following the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Chief Priests. Today I’m really only going to make reference to the Chief Priests, but you’ve got the Book, you can check out the others for yourself.
Story kicks off in the 21st Chapter of Matthew. Verse 14 and on, “And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.” The “he” being Jesus. “And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David’; they were sore displeased, and said unto him, ‘Hearest thou what these say?’ And Jesus saith unto them, ‘Yeah; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou has perfected praise?’”
So these guys GOT TO SEE “wonderful things that he did” and yet they were still “sore displeased.” Freaking morons, man. Reminds me of the die-hard Atheists who claim that if they could see a miracle, they would believe. That’s rubbish, we have collaborating historical references from multiple sources giving account that tons and tons of people heard of the miracles, saw them happen, and still hated the man doing them.
But like I said in the title, these people weren’t stupid - just prideful. Jesus gives these fellas a little quiz later in verse 28: “But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father?”
Pretty simple, even though the first son first refused, he later actually did the work. So the obvious answer is the first. Let’s continue in verse 31, “They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, ‘Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.’”
Whoa, whoa, whoa…Jesus, what did you just say? The publicans and harlots are going to get into the kingdom of God before these guys? Those sinners before these guys!? Christ goes on to explain why in verse 32: “For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.”
So the quiz wasn’t over yet. He still had another parable for them, and they had another opportunity to open their eyes. Verse 33: “Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country.”
Okay, so a dude builds a wicked-awesome garden, a vineyard, and a sweet tower to snipe noobs from…let’s continue:
“And when the time of the fruit drew near, the sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.”
So the owner of the land and garden and vineyard and sweet-noob-sniping-tower sent servants to collect the fruit, and the husbandmen who were entrusted with the creation killed the servants. So God, I mean, the owner of the stuff, sent more Prophets, I mean, servants, and the People, I mean - dang it, I keep getting these words mixed up…the husbandmen killed all of the servants that were sent.
“But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.”
Sound familiar?
“When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?” Jesus asked. And those prideful, yet not stupid, chief priests and scribes answered “He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.”
So just in case the guys didn’t see the obvious correlation here, Jesus helps them out once again in verse 43: “Therefore I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.”
Now we see the genius of the listeners in verse 45: “And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.” What!? Jesus was talking about them? Surely not so (sarcasm)!
So instead of coming to their wits, they decide in verse 46 to “lay hands on him”, but they “feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.”
So these just shared with them how God sent prophets, and they killed the prophets, so God sent more prophets, and they killed them too, so God sent his Son, and they killed him. The immediate response from the chief priests and the Pharisees was…..at no surprise….to kill him.
Idiots. Some people could have The Messiah himself staring them down face-to-face, preaching eternal truths and pointing directly to them, and they still are too prideful to listen.
Mommy backs show ridiculous Evolutionary flexibility
On December 12, 2007 in In the News, Science Related
I read an article on CNN today talking about how phenomenal it was that a woman can go big-belly during gestation and not tip-over when she tries to walk. This extraordinary (sarcasm) demonstration is the product of millions of years of evolution. You see, women evolved the ability to balance their weight to offer more mobility from predators as they blah blah blah, you could finish these crap-stories yourself I’m sure.
So I decided to take just a moment tonight and see what other websites were saying about this same “discovery”. I ran over to livescience to see what they were saying only to get a slightly more wordy version. I won’t go into detail about what they say, since it doesn’t really differ from CNN, but I wanted to bring up one comment on the livescience website.
Before I repost the quote here, I want to share with you all something that Walter ReMine, the author of The Biotic Message, wrote some years ago. “Evolutionary theory is structureless, and predicts virtually nothing. It adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape.”
Basically, any observation made can fit into the Evolutionary framework in one way or another - making the base-theory itself rubbish. Monkey is big, beneficial adaptation to fight predators; Monkey is small, beneficial adaptation to avoid predators. Blah blah.
So onto the statement made on the livescience page: “Early human women lived very strenuous, active lives, and pregnant females were forced to cope with the discomfort of childbearing while foraging for food and escaping from predators,” Lieberman said. “This evolution of the lower back helped early woman to remain more mobile during pregnancy, which would have been essential to survival, and appears to have been favored by natural selection.”
They go on to say that our “cousins”, the chimpanzees don’t have this same “adaptation”. They still carry their young while prancing through the forest on all fours - well, that is until we see one occasionally walking on their two back feet, which immediately becomes even more evidence for Evolution!
Anyway, so this difference helped the Moms when they were “escaping from predators” and thus was “essential to survival”. But the chimps don’t do it, and they still have moms today…so, did I miss something here? Did the chimps and their ancestors not have predators for the last couple million years? Their moms got to sit aside and watch the bipedal-primates get chased by predators?
Seems kinda stupid if you ask me. You can spin this crap anyway you like. You could say the chimps were better equipped because they could still climb trees whereas the bipedal monkeys couldn’t, and thus had to figure out other ways of escaping predators. Yet the bipedal-monkeys were advanced because they had this useless advantage called “bipedalism”.
See what I mean? This is all a bunch of play-doh nonsense. You can fit it and mold it anyway you like.
Link Summary
Evolution balances the Baby-bearers?
On December 12, 2007 in In the News, Science Related
Baby-bearing Momma’s are an enigma? Well, according to some super-genius scientists on CNN.com’s recent article, “Evolution keeps pregnant women upright.“
You know, these little false-attributions just make me giggle. Say, Mr. Scientist, does evolution keep me upright when I walk down a hill, adjusting my weight backwards so as not to skid down in a violent belly-flop-fashion?
Since when do we attribute common-sense to some non-material force of the mysterious past that cannot really be tested? Aren’t scientific-claims suppose to be testable, etc? How the heck do you test statements like, “Evolution gave you a gum-ball”?
“That’s a big load that’s pulling you forward,” said Liza Shapiro, an Anthropologist at the University of Texas. Um, yeah…so is the Beer-gut on my Uncle Rodney, big deal!
Allow me a moment to cast my lot into the mix and share how I think women are able to carry a child, and do so without attributing it to some super-mysterious force of the non-observable past.
As your body changes, you adjust to the changes. This isn’t simply a rule of body-changes, but a rule of practically everything. At one time you couldn’t swim, yet you slowly learned to move your arms and legs in a motion that kept you afloat. At one time you couldn’t ride a bike, or hit a baseball, but as you continued to endure the attempts, you slowly acquired the ability.
It’s seems ridiculously obvious to me, as it should to anybody, that a mother can carry a child for the same reason I can carry a backpack. When a new influence is introduced into your environment, you adjust to accommodate it. If a fire breaks out, you stop walking and start crawling. If the room becomes flooded, you stop standing and start swimming.
This seems like another stupid attempt to attribute a common-sense accommodation to an unobservable force.
How do you think they would feel if I answered the question with “God did it.” Because that is essentially what they’re doing, but with their god instead of mine.
Back to Blogging - Again.
On December 12, 2007 in Uncategorized
I used to write a lot, until my server crashed one day. Apparently, the server crashing triggered an unspecified quantity of apathy that had been resting within my mind. So after the issues were resolved, my desire to blog never seemed to recover.
Lately I’ve been coming across so many issues that I would love to discuss, but have not had a place to do so with the freedom I used to have. So I decided to buy www.SampsonBlog.com and start blogging again.
That’s it for now. I’ve still got some more customization to do to this layout before I hit the ground and take off!
