God Bless Our Boys (and gals) in Uniform
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Friday, November 09, 2007
Read this GRAPHIC (caution) blog I did entitled “Flying Nuns”, make sure you read the comments section zeroing in on this:
Just because someone is in Muslim does not make them a terrorist. Let's show a little tolerance and judge by their heart, and not the cloth on their backs.
This “have a little heart” thing will get people killed. While not all Muslims are terorrists, most (almost all) terrorists are Muslim. And it is this fact that must limit where these people work. Simple enough. The Boy Scouts have a theory, if you want to not have gay men taking advantage of young boys, keep them from being Scout leaders. I think the saying goes like this, “if you don’t want sodomy, keep the sodomites out.”
Same thinking here. If you don’t want planes blown up, keep Muslim terrorists out. If you want to drastically reduce the possibility of Sharia-law holding women/men from allowing male Muslims onto planes without being checked, or having Sharia-law abiding people from assisting them in any way, … keep them from airport jobs.
Glenn Beck Making Us Laugh
This is the thing, you have to watch the first video… followed by the second video to really get the most out of it. You just have to really laugh at the liberal zaniness out there! That’s why I ma going to put the tag below that says “Crazy Dems,” and “Crazy Liberals.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Global Warming "Greatest Scam in History"
I agree, it’s the biggest scam in history… and many people whom I work with have swallowed it hook-line-and-sinker. I guess it all fits in with their “spirituality” and forms an imagined connection between them and something bigger, the earth.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
A very interesting documentary on the alternative rock scene in
Lamarck, Haeckel, and Darwin (a motley crew)
In Class Debacle
I think the professor was just using a bad example possibly due to lack of sleep. It sounds like he is supporting or making an argument for Lamarckism, which was rejected many years ago, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
Let’s define what Lamarckism is by looking to a couple dictionary definitions:
Random House Dictionary
- the Lamarckian theory that characteristics acquired by habit, use, or disuse may be passed on to future generations through inheritance.
American Heritage Dictionary
- A theory of biological evolution holding that species evolve by the inheritance of traits acquired or modified through the use or disuse of body parts.
Simple enough. Now let’s throw in an encyclopedia definition:
I - again - extend the benefit of the doubt that the professor was just "thought tied" or tired from his teaching schedule when he mentioned what seems to be an outmoded theory. Now let’s watch some students interact with the professor and then the professor making his impossible claim. Take note the audio is horrible, turn down the volume a bit; and there is a small blank spot at the beginning of the clip:
Darwinian Evolution & Lamarckism
Charles Darwin added this Lamarckian theory to his sixth-edition of The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life (yes, Darwin was a racist) to make the argument for the Giraffe’s neck getting longer. I have debated this issue with evolutionary minded university students over the years, so when I heard the professor mention what can only be described as Lamarckism… well… I couldn’t resist.
Lamarck Shown Wrong…
How was this theory attributed to Lamarck finally disproved? Well, PETA would have been very upset about the methods used. A guy named after a month (August) started to cut off the tails of rats and breeding them and low-and-behold, every rat born to tailless rats had… can you guess… yup, tails.
This is key:
The genetic variance is already present in the parent population, then, through environmental changes one aspect of the species is isolated (like a drought, cold, heat, rainy season, and the like). So the environment didn’t make peoples skin light or dark, that aspect or variation was already in the parent population’s gene pool. The lighter skinned people did well in colder climates and didn’t get burned easily or get skin cancer. The darker skinned persons in colder/less sunny areas tended to get rickets and osteoarthritis due to the lack of sun/vitamin-D (which is why we fortify milk and other products with it in order keep instances of the above from happening). They did much better around the equator. The DNA didn’t change because of the environment or outside forces. The population – parent population – already had the variances in them; they were just isolated from the parent population.
Let’s take resistance to antibiotics as another example:
No new genetic information was added to the person's DNA, in fact -- if anything -- the person lost some specificity of coding in the process. Lamarckism and Darwinian evolution demand that there be an increase in genetic material as well as an increased ordering of this new material. Which may explain why such an ardent evolutionist like Richard Dawkins rejects Lamarckian theory as well as
What is really happening with micro-evolution is the following. Using a “bear” graphic we can see that genes make up whether the bears have short, medium, or long hair. As these bears wonder into climates that change with the seasons, the short-haired bears may not survive a freezing winter. Similarly, the same goes for wolves, the short-haired Canis Lupus (wolf) died out in
See below an old response to a skeptic many years ago:
Species & Speciation
Species is not well defined. Example: Canis Domesticus (say, a, German Shepherd) and Canis Lupus (wolf) are classified as two separate species. But they can interbreed (i.e. a Wolf and a German Shepherd). But a
and a Great Dane cannot breed, but they are both Canis Domesticus (the same species). The arctic hair cannot breed with the Chihuahua hair, but both breed with the Dakota hair. Evolutionists recognize certain bowerbirds as distinct species even though they often interbreed. Florida
Or consider the case of two different kinds of squirrels separated by the
Grand Canyon. The Kaibab squirrel inhabits the north side of the canyon, while the Abert squirrel inhabits the south side. It seems evident the two descended from one original population. Rarely, however, can squirrels from both populations come together, and thus there is no interbreeding between them. And, for some time biologists have disagreed as to whether the squirrels had reached the level of two separate species.
Look, you could go to
Galapagos Islandsand get a pair of finches and bring them back to a laboratory and just let them have sex. After a few generations you will have small beaked, medium beaked, large beaked finches. The information is already in there genome, nothing new was created, specificity was lost if anything. Now if you simulate a drought, like on Galapagos, so that the seeds become hard and more beak strength is needed to open them, then of course the larger beaked finch will survive. A creationist came up with the survival of the fittest twenty-four years prior to . After all the other “parent” finches die off, you are left with only large beaked finches in the laboratory. This is not evolution; no new information was gained in the process. There are limits to its change, strep-throat may change into a flesh eating virus, but it loss specificity to get to that point or already had the information in its genome. It’s still strep-throat. Darwin
That finch didn’t turn into a dinosaur; that dog didn’t turn into a cat; that ape didn’t turn into a man, etc.. The genetic barriers wont and don’t allow it. You can post all the sites in the world, but you will never be able to find one proof of macroevolution in the fossil record or in the living world. All we have ever seen is what evolutionists’ call “subspeciation” (variation within a type), never “transpeciation” (change from one type to others). The primrose is a prime example of my point. The alleged new species of primrose that de Vries thought he had “discovered” were not new species at all but rather mere variations of the same species.
This “sport” (a certain primrose that de Vries created), with it’s doubled chromosome [no new information was added, it merely doubled the information that was already there], is still a primrose. Stickleback fish may diversify into fresh-water dwellers and salt–water dwellers, but both remain sticklebacks. One fruit fly may breed on apple trees and another on hawthorn trees, but both remain fruit flies. Speciation is a means of creating diversity within types of living things, but macroevolution is much more than diversity.
Macroevolution requires an increase of the gene pool, the addition of new genetic information, whereas the means to speciation discussed above represent the loss of genetic information (how so?). Both physical and ecological isolation produce varieties by cutting a small population off from its parent population and building a new group from the more limited genetic information contained in the small population. A large population carries genetic reserve, a wealth of concealed recessive genes. In a small group cut off from the parent population, some of these recessive traits may be expressed more often. This makes for interesting diversity, but it should not blind us to the fact that the total genetic variability in the small group is reduced!
The appearance of reproductively isolated populations represents microevolution, not macro-evolution. Vertical change – to a new level of complexity – requires the input of additional genetic information. Can that information – the ensembles of new genes to make wrens, rabbits, and
trees be gleaned from random mutations? Hawthorne
Thus far, there appears to be good evidence that the roles mutations are able to play are severely restricted by and within the existing higher-level blueprint of the organism’s whole genome.
To go from one-celled organisms to a human being means that information must be added to the genetic messages at each step of the way. Mechanisms for the loss of genetic information cannot be used as support for a theory requiring vast increases of genetic information.
Speciation is actually akin to what breeders do. They isolate a small group of plants or animals and force them to interbreed, cutting them off from the larger gene pool to which they belong. A century of breeding testifies to the fact that this produces limited change only. It does produce the open-ended change required by Darwinian evolution. Some think, as do I, that the extinction of the dinosaurs occurred because they didn’t have the genetic diversity to adapt to environmental changes.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Democratic Costume Party
Another SNL Skit
Stolen from a friends blog (thanks Kimba). This friends web-site would be me in Bizarro World (to anyone who hasn’t seen the Justice League cartoons or read the comic books, I am sorry for making this useless comment).
Monday, November 05, 2007
I got an e-mail about Obama with this photo of him not placing his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. In fact, the video below shows it isn’t the Pledge of Allegiance, but in fact it is the National Anthem. One must keep in mind though that he should have still had his hand over his heart during this “rendition” (massacre) of the Anthem.
The U.S. Flag Code does state however that:
“During a rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed all except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.”
This being said… these guys and gals are flying all over the country, staying up late studying responses to possible questions, memorizing speeches, and the like. They are tired and jet lagged. Not only are the all of the above, but they constantly have cameras on them 24/7. So a slip up may be caught here and there… in other words I want to extend the benefit of the doubt to Obama. There has been a lot of misleading e-mails about him, like him not being sworn into office on a Bible, that was a false e-mail. Obama has led the pledge in front of the Senate, he has never been filmed either not saying the pledge or not putting his hand over his heart. This says a lot. Not this one instance where he might have genuinely forgot.
It is interesting to note though that all the other candidates aren’t tired enough to show respect to Ol’ Glory, and there wasn’t a big stink about them not wearing a flag lapel pin. So the real motive may be in fact that his churches influence is kicking in. Remember, Obama goes to a church that is deeply involved in Liberation Theology. So I do believe (via his churches influence) that Obama may in fact be somewhat “anti-American,” but I am going off of public speeches by his pastor and the churches statement of faith.
Below is the video of the event, and underneath that is a YouTuber mentioning Obama not respecting the Pledge. He is wrong, but the Red Skelton bit is amazing!
Obama doesn’t place hand over heart during the National Anthem
Red Skelton on the Meaning of the Pledge – Very Moving, and Prophetic!!!
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Crazy 9/11 Truthers Across the Pond
These guys are nuts. I just wish these crazies were trying these answers with Christopher Hitchens! I wish I was there to refute their crap!