Did anyone else know that oil is not technically a finite resource? It's composed of algae and formed underground after "millions" of years. This is something i've been wondering about for a while, since discovering that coal has been forming in the area of Spirit Lake since the Mount St. Helens eruption (upon some further digging, this seems to be controversial and perhaps not as certain).
So apparently Solazyme has been testing this fuel for a couple of years now, on its own and with the US Navy, and now Japanese companies are starting to pursue the same technologies. But interestingly, oil in nature is fossilized algae, but this oil seems to be made by the algae...they feed the algae and it converts plant matter into oil that has less contaminants than what is pumped out of the ground. That's pretty amazing.
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Thursday, March 18, 2010
political apologetics
Last night i watched some West Wing from the first season, which is something that i hadn't done in a very long time. i was shocked to discover that i had seen six out of the first eight episodes. i didn't think i started watching the show until the second or third season. i'm wondering if i caught reruns later on and didn't realize that it was the first season because Moira Kelly is only in half of the episodes.
i forgot how much i loved this show. i absolutely love CJ's klutziness and ineptitude with men (which is funny because Danny's throwing himself at her). i love Toby's crankiness and Sam and Josh's sarcasm. i love Leo's authority and quiet fortitude in the face of his divorce. i love that Donna wants to buy a dvd player, but can't because the administration doesn't "trust her to make a smart investment" so she keeps the change from Josh's lunch for the same reason. i love the chemistry between Jed and Abbey, how she didn't come in right away but was instantly the perfect first lady for the president that has the tendency to get pissed off at the wrong time for the right reasons. i love how this president is pro-life and has faith despite the fact that he's a Democrat (actually, his Catholicism is probably why he's a Democrat, i'm merely commenting on the fact that most in that party are not pro-life, though i am glad to say there are exceptions), that he's a complete nerd, that everyone in the office is brilliant, but makes mistakes like the rest of us.
At the moment, i am exhausted with politics. One of the things i dislike about the West Wing is the tendency for the characters to get conceited towards whoever they're talking to, with total disregard for the person's personal beliefs, because the former "knows" that he or she is smarter, and right. i will allow that very often this attitude turns around to bite them in the butt, but not always. i'm thinking of one time where the Prez and VP are having a fight because they both feel as if the other man is slighting them, not giving enough respect. Why do men have such conceit? Why do they have to strut and make themselves look stupid in attempt to achieve the opposite?
i will never vote any party line. If i was in Congress, i would vote my conscience. i'm not good at falling in line just to fulfill the wishes of someone with their own agenda for its own sake instead of primarily doing what's right for the country and its citizens. Which of course is why i'll never be in Congress, because our government apparently isn't run that way.
The most important issue to me with always be life. i feel bad for Michael J. Fox, i do, but i will never be able to justify using the helpless in an attempt to strengthen the strong, particularly when research with adult stem cells has proved to be more promising than fetal stem cells. i know it's not popular to be pro-life, because everyone wants to feel as if they have been empowered to make whatever choice they want in order to make themself feel better, stronger, etc., but that always needs to be prefaced with not harming anyone else... Which is why i do not understand the Libertarian line on being pro-choice: if hurting others does not apply to killing an innocent and helpless baby, then what does? Punishing someone else for your own mistakes is wrong (not that i consider a baby to be a mistake).
i believe in smaller government, because government has the tendency to take away freedoms, to attempt to control that which should be up to the individual, to become a nanny state that wants to take care of its people from cradle to grave. i believe in individuals empowering themselves, not having anyone tell them "this is how you must live your life because we say so." That isn't a life. i am against socialism 100% because it penalizes the successful for achieving success and says that the individual has no right to defend one's self from those that would seek to put him or her down and keep them there. i am for freedom and capitalism because other systems subvert the right to liberty and to pursue happiness. One's happiness should never depend on the government taking money away from one neighbor and give it to the neighbor who refuses to take part in the pursuit or is less able (taking care of those less able is a responsibility of the Church and charities).
i don't believe in evolution, and if i did then i would be for Survival of the Fittest in terms of man: we are at the top of the food chain. So it makes absolutely no sense for an evolutionist to believe in protecting the environment because we would only be doing what we had evolved to do. i don't believe in global warming, but i believe in conservation and protecting the environment as long as it is not at the loss of human life and livelihood (in other words, within reason). The Bible tells us that man is meant to subdue and protect the earth.
i believe in the Constitution, in what the Founding Fathers were trying to achieve, even as i acknowledge that there were some compromises made within its lines. The Declaration of Independence stated that all men are created equal, and it's horrible how America took advantage of Native Americans and slaves (no matter what their heritage), but i cannot change that. i cannot make any reparations, i can only fight against enslaving new peoples. Even as i am proud of my German heritage, i am aware that my American grandparents' distant cousins allowed (perhaps even caused) horrible things to happen. i cannot change that, either, i can only speak out against it happening in this country as well.
i have never wanted to live in the past before, but oh how i envy how our ancestors were able to travel to a new, untamed land, and form it with their hands into something better. There is no place left on this earth that hasn't been claimed, that cannot be worked by people of all races working to improve their lives while remaining mindful of their equality, own ability to overcome problem's that their peers may fail at, protect the land they have been given, and choose to help enable their neighbors when they are able. Despite my great love for this country, in some ways i am ready to abandon it, for fear of what it is pressing towards becoming. Obama is no Bartlet, and even as i hope for deliverance i live in fear.
i do not believe in world peace. i know that sounds horrible, but it's true. i'm no xenophobe, i want to travel around the world, i don't want to wage war, but praying for one world government, for world peace, is like begging God to enable the anti-Christ. Read your Bible, things are going to be horrific once this happens.
i am not British, but i have grown up reading their literature and learning about their history (more about their history than any other foreign country, at least). There is a chance that i have some Scottish blood in me, but i do not know that with complete certainty. When i say that i am a Conservative, i will not ever apologize for that, but that does not mean the same thing to the rest of the world, or even to many in this country, that it does to one who is conservative It is important to understand the process that brought our country to the point where, what once was an outrageous idea, is now the one that is set in stone and steeped in hundreds of years of history. i am definitely no expert in the matter, but i have a bit of an understanding that the Founding Fathers were intellectuals that knew what parts of Roman republicanism worked and incorporated that with aspects of British parliamentary practices. They knew that having a king can be just as dangerous as having a dictator, and had learned from earlier colonists that socialism was a good way to make colonies fail.
So they did the unthinkable and formed a government that limited the powers of the government and empowered the rights of the individual. This didn't work perfectly, because at first the federal government didn't have enough power, and slave owners had more rights than they should have, but even the authors of a noble experiment are fallible and likely to make mistakes. The question is whether or not we have learned from those mistakes. The ideals espoused by America's Founding Fathers are still considered to be extreme by people around the world, to be a beacon of hope to the people who believe in the same dream they did. i'm sure that many consider those ideals to be liberal (in the truest sense of the world), but over time these ideals stopped being strongly espoused by many in the Democrat party and became the protectorate of the then newly formed Republican party, that is to say Lincoln's party. We were liberal enough to change the Constitution to free the slaves but conservative enough to cling to the ideas in the Constitution that work. Now we are considered to just be backwards, when in reality we are still carrying the banner in an ongoing experiment.
i do not know much about the Progressives in this country, and most of my information on them is from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who i do not always agree with but acknowledge are smarter and better informed than i am (it helps to have a staff, i'm sure). But the Progressives, who are hiding behind the labels of liberal and Democrat, are really nothing of the sort. Democrats originally were called Democratic Republicans, and held to the same ideals now considered to be conservative (some still do, of course). The Democrat party has been hijacked by people who want us to believe that they are trying something new, a noble experiment where everyone is equal and everything will be sunshine and daisies. The trouble is that it's all a lie. They are only espousing socialism, Marxism, etc, they only want to take money from the rich and keep everyone poor in order to place themselves in power, and anyone who does not fall in line will be damned. i watched the Hiding Place last week, i saw a little of what the Nazis did to those who spoke up for those who did not have a voice. You can watch Schindler's List to see a bit of what happened to the people the Ten Booms were speaking up for.
i ask you, is that what anyone wants America to become? Do we want the people with large families to be arrested? The people who believe in the same God that the majority of our Founding Fathers did to be told that they cannot teach their own children what they believe? You laugh at me, but children are already being (essentially) brainwashed in public schools and there were hints of getting children to inform on their parents even a couple of decades ago (i'm sure it's worse now). Having a large family, something which was once normal (in Austen's day, a family of eight children was *small*), is now considered to be incredible, even crazy. Now we are told that our planet does not have enough resources to sustain us and that we are selfish to love our children while the rest of the world suffers (even as governments controlled by those with similar feelings to the Progressives keep those peoples controlled and held down).
It astounds me how many people are against the war in Iraq. Did it happen for the wrong reasons? Of course it did. Were there any nukes? No, but Hussein wanted us to think that there were, he thumbed his nose at us, and lied through his teeth. The truth is that he did have weapons that he wasn't meant to and the he was suppressing a people just as the Nazis suppressed the Jews and many Christians (those termed political prisoners). Why are we saying that it was a bad thing to overthrow a tyrant such as this? Why is it a horrible thing to rebuild a country that was ravaged by its own leader? Oh, i know, it's not our place to help them rebuild, what then should we say to Japan and every other country on this planet that owes the U.S. money because we helped them rebuild. Yes, we nuked Japan, we have waged war (and not always in ways that were right), but we always try to rebuild things better than before we came.
Is this news to anyone? America stopped socialism and communism in other countries, and struck blows to them elsewhere, all to be demonized for standing up for the principles we were founded upon. Tyranny is not as easy to get away with as it once was, though in my opinion it is still far too easy. Now the Progressives are here, ready to strike at the heart of those who have defended the weak, the poor, for so long, and helped them achieve greatness. What will happen to the world if we--the Beacon for freedom--should fall? Who will stand against oppression then? There will be no one, such will be the day that the anti-christ comes to power. The world will rejoice, the Christians will hopefully be raptured, and the Jews will go into hiding. Those who stand for freedom, for the radical ideas that were espoused by the Founding Fathers, will be mocked and killed. Right now, that time seems closer than ever.
ETA: i firmly uphold everyone's right to believe and say whatever they choose, but i will never remain silent to appease those who are ignorant or have ill will. i know that many disagree with me, i mean no hatred or disrespect, and am not seeking to start a fight, but hopefully gently inform. However, i am tired of being insulted every single day i sit in class because people around me don't believe that my opinion is as valid, or smart, as theirs. i love history, i love the USA, and i pray for its people, those who are content to be led into the darkness because they do not or cannot recognize it for what it is. This battle is not about what political party one belongs to, but whether we are willing to stand against, what history shows to be a brutal and would be just as much (if not more) so were such a regime to come to power in the United States.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
~ George Santayana
i forgot how much i loved this show. i absolutely love CJ's klutziness and ineptitude with men (which is funny because Danny's throwing himself at her). i love Toby's crankiness and Sam and Josh's sarcasm. i love Leo's authority and quiet fortitude in the face of his divorce. i love that Donna wants to buy a dvd player, but can't because the administration doesn't "trust her to make a smart investment" so she keeps the change from Josh's lunch for the same reason. i love the chemistry between Jed and Abbey, how she didn't come in right away but was instantly the perfect first lady for the president that has the tendency to get pissed off at the wrong time for the right reasons. i love how this president is pro-life and has faith despite the fact that he's a Democrat (actually, his Catholicism is probably why he's a Democrat, i'm merely commenting on the fact that most in that party are not pro-life, though i am glad to say there are exceptions), that he's a complete nerd, that everyone in the office is brilliant, but makes mistakes like the rest of us.
At the moment, i am exhausted with politics. One of the things i dislike about the West Wing is the tendency for the characters to get conceited towards whoever they're talking to, with total disregard for the person's personal beliefs, because the former "knows" that he or she is smarter, and right. i will allow that very often this attitude turns around to bite them in the butt, but not always. i'm thinking of one time where the Prez and VP are having a fight because they both feel as if the other man is slighting them, not giving enough respect. Why do men have such conceit? Why do they have to strut and make themselves look stupid in attempt to achieve the opposite?
i will never vote any party line. If i was in Congress, i would vote my conscience. i'm not good at falling in line just to fulfill the wishes of someone with their own agenda for its own sake instead of primarily doing what's right for the country and its citizens. Which of course is why i'll never be in Congress, because our government apparently isn't run that way.
The most important issue to me with always be life. i feel bad for Michael J. Fox, i do, but i will never be able to justify using the helpless in an attempt to strengthen the strong, particularly when research with adult stem cells has proved to be more promising than fetal stem cells. i know it's not popular to be pro-life, because everyone wants to feel as if they have been empowered to make whatever choice they want in order to make themself feel better, stronger, etc., but that always needs to be prefaced with not harming anyone else... Which is why i do not understand the Libertarian line on being pro-choice: if hurting others does not apply to killing an innocent and helpless baby, then what does? Punishing someone else for your own mistakes is wrong (not that i consider a baby to be a mistake).
i believe in smaller government, because government has the tendency to take away freedoms, to attempt to control that which should be up to the individual, to become a nanny state that wants to take care of its people from cradle to grave. i believe in individuals empowering themselves, not having anyone tell them "this is how you must live your life because we say so." That isn't a life. i am against socialism 100% because it penalizes the successful for achieving success and says that the individual has no right to defend one's self from those that would seek to put him or her down and keep them there. i am for freedom and capitalism because other systems subvert the right to liberty and to pursue happiness. One's happiness should never depend on the government taking money away from one neighbor and give it to the neighbor who refuses to take part in the pursuit or is less able (taking care of those less able is a responsibility of the Church and charities).
i don't believe in evolution, and if i did then i would be for Survival of the Fittest in terms of man: we are at the top of the food chain. So it makes absolutely no sense for an evolutionist to believe in protecting the environment because we would only be doing what we had evolved to do. i don't believe in global warming, but i believe in conservation and protecting the environment as long as it is not at the loss of human life and livelihood (in other words, within reason). The Bible tells us that man is meant to subdue and protect the earth.
i believe in the Constitution, in what the Founding Fathers were trying to achieve, even as i acknowledge that there were some compromises made within its lines. The Declaration of Independence stated that all men are created equal, and it's horrible how America took advantage of Native Americans and slaves (no matter what their heritage), but i cannot change that. i cannot make any reparations, i can only fight against enslaving new peoples. Even as i am proud of my German heritage, i am aware that my American grandparents' distant cousins allowed (perhaps even caused) horrible things to happen. i cannot change that, either, i can only speak out against it happening in this country as well.
i have never wanted to live in the past before, but oh how i envy how our ancestors were able to travel to a new, untamed land, and form it with their hands into something better. There is no place left on this earth that hasn't been claimed, that cannot be worked by people of all races working to improve their lives while remaining mindful of their equality, own ability to overcome problem's that their peers may fail at, protect the land they have been given, and choose to help enable their neighbors when they are able. Despite my great love for this country, in some ways i am ready to abandon it, for fear of what it is pressing towards becoming. Obama is no Bartlet, and even as i hope for deliverance i live in fear.
i do not believe in world peace. i know that sounds horrible, but it's true. i'm no xenophobe, i want to travel around the world, i don't want to wage war, but praying for one world government, for world peace, is like begging God to enable the anti-Christ. Read your Bible, things are going to be horrific once this happens.
i am not British, but i have grown up reading their literature and learning about their history (more about their history than any other foreign country, at least). There is a chance that i have some Scottish blood in me, but i do not know that with complete certainty. When i say that i am a Conservative, i will not ever apologize for that, but that does not mean the same thing to the rest of the world, or even to many in this country, that it does to one who is conservative It is important to understand the process that brought our country to the point where, what once was an outrageous idea, is now the one that is set in stone and steeped in hundreds of years of history. i am definitely no expert in the matter, but i have a bit of an understanding that the Founding Fathers were intellectuals that knew what parts of Roman republicanism worked and incorporated that with aspects of British parliamentary practices. They knew that having a king can be just as dangerous as having a dictator, and had learned from earlier colonists that socialism was a good way to make colonies fail.
So they did the unthinkable and formed a government that limited the powers of the government and empowered the rights of the individual. This didn't work perfectly, because at first the federal government didn't have enough power, and slave owners had more rights than they should have, but even the authors of a noble experiment are fallible and likely to make mistakes. The question is whether or not we have learned from those mistakes. The ideals espoused by America's Founding Fathers are still considered to be extreme by people around the world, to be a beacon of hope to the people who believe in the same dream they did. i'm sure that many consider those ideals to be liberal (in the truest sense of the world), but over time these ideals stopped being strongly espoused by many in the Democrat party and became the protectorate of the then newly formed Republican party, that is to say Lincoln's party. We were liberal enough to change the Constitution to free the slaves but conservative enough to cling to the ideas in the Constitution that work. Now we are considered to just be backwards, when in reality we are still carrying the banner in an ongoing experiment.
i do not know much about the Progressives in this country, and most of my information on them is from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, who i do not always agree with but acknowledge are smarter and better informed than i am (it helps to have a staff, i'm sure). But the Progressives, who are hiding behind the labels of liberal and Democrat, are really nothing of the sort. Democrats originally were called Democratic Republicans, and held to the same ideals now considered to be conservative (some still do, of course). The Democrat party has been hijacked by people who want us to believe that they are trying something new, a noble experiment where everyone is equal and everything will be sunshine and daisies. The trouble is that it's all a lie. They are only espousing socialism, Marxism, etc, they only want to take money from the rich and keep everyone poor in order to place themselves in power, and anyone who does not fall in line will be damned. i watched the Hiding Place last week, i saw a little of what the Nazis did to those who spoke up for those who did not have a voice. You can watch Schindler's List to see a bit of what happened to the people the Ten Booms were speaking up for.
i ask you, is that what anyone wants America to become? Do we want the people with large families to be arrested? The people who believe in the same God that the majority of our Founding Fathers did to be told that they cannot teach their own children what they believe? You laugh at me, but children are already being (essentially) brainwashed in public schools and there were hints of getting children to inform on their parents even a couple of decades ago (i'm sure it's worse now). Having a large family, something which was once normal (in Austen's day, a family of eight children was *small*), is now considered to be incredible, even crazy. Now we are told that our planet does not have enough resources to sustain us and that we are selfish to love our children while the rest of the world suffers (even as governments controlled by those with similar feelings to the Progressives keep those peoples controlled and held down).
It astounds me how many people are against the war in Iraq. Did it happen for the wrong reasons? Of course it did. Were there any nukes? No, but Hussein wanted us to think that there were, he thumbed his nose at us, and lied through his teeth. The truth is that he did have weapons that he wasn't meant to and the he was suppressing a people just as the Nazis suppressed the Jews and many Christians (those termed political prisoners). Why are we saying that it was a bad thing to overthrow a tyrant such as this? Why is it a horrible thing to rebuild a country that was ravaged by its own leader? Oh, i know, it's not our place to help them rebuild, what then should we say to Japan and every other country on this planet that owes the U.S. money because we helped them rebuild. Yes, we nuked Japan, we have waged war (and not always in ways that were right), but we always try to rebuild things better than before we came.
Is this news to anyone? America stopped socialism and communism in other countries, and struck blows to them elsewhere, all to be demonized for standing up for the principles we were founded upon. Tyranny is not as easy to get away with as it once was, though in my opinion it is still far too easy. Now the Progressives are here, ready to strike at the heart of those who have defended the weak, the poor, for so long, and helped them achieve greatness. What will happen to the world if we--the Beacon for freedom--should fall? Who will stand against oppression then? There will be no one, such will be the day that the anti-christ comes to power. The world will rejoice, the Christians will hopefully be raptured, and the Jews will go into hiding. Those who stand for freedom, for the radical ideas that were espoused by the Founding Fathers, will be mocked and killed. Right now, that time seems closer than ever.
ETA: i firmly uphold everyone's right to believe and say whatever they choose, but i will never remain silent to appease those who are ignorant or have ill will. i know that many disagree with me, i mean no hatred or disrespect, and am not seeking to start a fight, but hopefully gently inform. However, i am tired of being insulted every single day i sit in class because people around me don't believe that my opinion is as valid, or smart, as theirs. i love history, i love the USA, and i pray for its people, those who are content to be led into the darkness because they do not or cannot recognize it for what it is. This battle is not about what political party one belongs to, but whether we are willing to stand against, what history shows to be a brutal and would be just as much (if not more) so were such a regime to come to power in the United States.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
~ George Santayana
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
ok, i am utterly confused
Wade through this if you can, but i will summarize for you. Creationist interviewing people to find out their opinion is wrong? Okay, i will admit that this video has no scientific merit whatsoever, and that they are apparently skewing the truth and evidence. But I haven't been able to study the research of this video's creator, either. The thing that most confuses me is: "abiogenesis is not evolution." What??? First off, what is Abiogenesis?
"The now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation." (courtesy of Dictionary.com)
"In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life." (from Wikipedia)
"Classical notions of abiogenesis, now more precisely known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat." (from Wikipedia)
Okay, so i guess that we can all agree that the classical notion (now termed spontaneous generation) has been disproved... But how is that not evolution? Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the theory of how evolution began that 1. the universe was created by a big explosion of energy and matter that came from absolutely nowhere, and 2. billions of years later, single cell life just happened to have been created out of nothing? That was what i recall my high school biology textbook said, at any rate. More than that, the book said that it happened on its own.
Now, maybe some scientists are making organic matter from inorganic compounds in a laboratory, i don't really care, because you know what the proves? It proves that evolution would have to be guided by intelligence, not that it can happen on its own in a vacuum devoid of God.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Morality vs. Analyzing Nature? (a.k.a. my first college essay) ~ NSU post #7
This was written for my English Composition class. It was double spaced and indented and all that good stuff but the formatting doesn't exactly translate over to the blog format. Still, i've attempted to give it some semblance of it's formatting polish.
I agonized about whether i should write this or not. My teacher seems to have no perception of how one's faith is the very thing that shapes their worldview. But i always knew in the back of my mind that this essay had to be written and i have no qualms posting it here. I'll let everyone know what grade i got...
I dropped out of high school because I was bored with meaningless assignments that were given just to keep the students busy. I was overworked enough without inane tasks that did nothing to expand my knowledge; the busy work did not help me learn, it only inhibited me from living life. Extra work is often just a cover up for the fact that the teacher has nothing of consequence to teach or doesn’t care to even try (this was especially evident in my Spanish class). The human mind is not a bucket to pour knowledge into but a sponge designed to absorb. I detest the fact that the public school system tried to dump meaningless junk into my brain but did not expect me to retain any of it so long as I passed my tests.
After learning things the hard way I decided to no longer accept anything merely because I have read it or am informed that it is true: I will not abandon reason in any area of my life, I will not allow anyone to think for me (1 John 2:27). There is one tool that I predominantly use to measure everything by: the Bible, my weapon along with the faith God has given me (Ephesians 6:10-18). I do not use the Bible because it is a nice "story," but because this book has proven it to be true, a valid document of historical and scientific significance as well as one that promotes spiritual and intellectual growth. "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right" (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible does not need to be defended because "the word of God is full of living power. It is sharper than the sharpest knife, cutting deep into our innermost thoughts and desires. It exposes us for what we really are" (Hebrews 4:12). Because I have found the content or my assigned reading to often be offensive and/or misguided when compared to Scripture, I intend to debate and clarify the issues that I have read about over the past two weeks and will use the Bible and common sense as my guide.
Gary Snyder asks in from The Etiquette of Freedom "Do you really believe you are an animal?" (15). He asserts that it is a mistake for human beings to think they suddenly became smart enough to invent language and society, and that as such we are no better than animals. And yet he recognizes that nature is beautifully complex (16) and observes:
God created man, animals, earth, and the universe in six days (as is detailed in Gen. 1-2). While it is true that believing this requires faith it is not faith without reason: it is merely my theory of choice. The Theory of Evolution breaks several basic scientific rules and has been disproved numerous times: it is always being adapted to fit new discoveries while the creation account provided to us in Genesis has never been invalidated nor modified once. I am aware that other Christians may believe in Evolution or the thousand-year-day theories of God guiding Evolution, but in my research of Evolution vs. Creation I have found the Creation Theory to be much more plausible and that it requires less faith than believing in Evolution.
With the knowledge of God’s command in Genesis 1:28-30 comes the responsibility to protect life on this planet. Loving and caring for the earth is not a desire exclusive to liberals or tree huggers: all of us are charged with caring for the world God gave us. I agree with Aldo Leopold's warning in Thinking like a Mountain (149-150) though it is not God who has used the pruning shears (150): it is our careless actions and the instincts God gave animals. They cannot reason and protect themselves, they are incapable, and as such we are meant to protect them.
Nature is also not meant to be worshiped as detailed in Terry Tempest Williams' The Erotic Landscape (28-30): we must worship the One who gave us nature. He created Earth to shelter us, to connect us to Himself, and remind us of our responsibilities (in chapters such as Ps. 8). Still, I am just as puzzled as Williams when it comes to denying our feelings and losing contact with Nature. While she searches for the sexual side I suppose I search for the religious (30): though I would never phrase it that way. I do not practice a religion, I live a faith, and I often wonder how anyone can see the world through any other context but faith and truth: it is not a concept my mind can comprehend.
Thoreau comments on this when he notes: "By a conscious effort of the mind we can stand aloof from actions and their consequences; and all things, good and bad, go by us like a torrent" (51). I do agree that the Human Race is caught in a rapid succession of cause and effect caused by our own actions and apathy, yet Thoreau sadly does not seem to find the same answer I have. He seems to have searched for truth in other places. Tom Wolfe's O Rotten Gotham is similar in this respect: Wolfe seems to believe that Humans are animals that merely react and that we cannot think for ourselves (57-59). No one calling the police when a girl is being raped in plain view (58), cutting others off in traffic (61), it's just a reaction to behavioral sink, right? Wrong:
The way we feel about these feelings, temptation, and sin is also similar to what Ursula K. Le Guin relates in The Creatures in My Mind: "And if I had any courage or common sense, I kept telling myself, I'd step on the poor damned creature and put it out of its misery" (81). But instead she ignored it; she turned away and waited for it to slowly destroy itself, to suffocate to death (82). All humans are the same way: we tell ourselves that it doesn't exist, that we're helpless to initiate change. We're fine without God, right? "It was a responsibility that would not act. It was guilt itself" (82). She asks: "Is it my fault? Did I build the cage?" (82) and concludes:
All of these essays seem to state a belief about both nature and faith without reason and I struggle to comprehend it. To me faith is everything; I am who I am, I know what I know, because of faith. In my mind no opinion can be formed without considering what God commands in His Word. And yet one of the things I love about being an American is our freedom of speech: freedom to have and state an opinion that is contrary to what others believe is a beloved gift. I do not mind if others disagree with me as long as I have the chance to be heard as well. I inwardly debated with for several days on what to write here... Should I take the advice of my uncle who said: "In college the teachers want you to contradict what they say"? Do I accept the contradictory statements of my teacher (Ms. Penney Hills) when she said "The teacher is meaningless, is trouble," and "Take a chance: you have to step into the river of life"? Do I compromise my beliefs and reason, play it safe, or take a chance and state an opinion... even if it's not what she wants to read?
"What is the pill which will keep us well, serene, contented?" Thoreau asked this question one hundred and fifty years ago then concluded that it is Nature who will heal us (53). I disagree; if such were the case Nature would have healed all of us thousands of years ago--before we started polluting our planet and fighting world wars--and we would have utopia. I have traveled near and far in this country I call home and though I still haven't seen half of it I know that it is not Nature that heals me. It is not where I am physically that makes me content but where I am spiritually. Even though Satan seeks to devour me (1 Peter 5:8) "I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from His love" (Rom. 8:38a) except for my own sin (Rom. 3:23). I thank God every day for providing a way--for all of us--to reach Him (Rom. 6:23) and am convinced that there is only one answer to the world’s problems and questions: Jesus (John 14:6). I respectfully conclude that no "should" has been included: this is just my opinion.
Works Cited
please excuse the lack of hanging indents Anderson, Lorraine, Scott Slovic, and John P. O'Grady. Literature and the Environment: a Reader on Nature and Culture. Longman, 1999.
Le Guin, Ursula K. "The Creatures of My Mind." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 81-83.
Leopold, Aldo. "Thinking like a Mountain." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 149-150.
Snyder, Gary. "from The Etiquette of Freedom." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 15-16.
Student's Life Application Bible. New Living Translation. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1997.
Thoreau, Henry David. "Solitude." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 48-53.
Williams, Terry Tempest. "The Erotic Landscape." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 28-30.
Wolfe, Tom. "O Rotten Gotham." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 54-61.
I agonized about whether i should write this or not. My teacher seems to have no perception of how one's faith is the very thing that shapes their worldview. But i always knew in the back of my mind that this essay had to be written and i have no qualms posting it here. I'll let everyone know what grade i got...
I dropped out of high school because I was bored with meaningless assignments that were given just to keep the students busy. I was overworked enough without inane tasks that did nothing to expand my knowledge; the busy work did not help me learn, it only inhibited me from living life. Extra work is often just a cover up for the fact that the teacher has nothing of consequence to teach or doesn’t care to even try (this was especially evident in my Spanish class). The human mind is not a bucket to pour knowledge into but a sponge designed to absorb. I detest the fact that the public school system tried to dump meaningless junk into my brain but did not expect me to retain any of it so long as I passed my tests.
After learning things the hard way I decided to no longer accept anything merely because I have read it or am informed that it is true: I will not abandon reason in any area of my life, I will not allow anyone to think for me (1 John 2:27). There is one tool that I predominantly use to measure everything by: the Bible, my weapon along with the faith God has given me (Ephesians 6:10-18). I do not use the Bible because it is a nice "story," but because this book has proven it to be true, a valid document of historical and scientific significance as well as one that promotes spiritual and intellectual growth. "All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right" (2 Timothy 3:16). The Bible does not need to be defended because "the word of God is full of living power. It is sharper than the sharpest knife, cutting deep into our innermost thoughts and desires. It exposes us for what we really are" (Hebrews 4:12). Because I have found the content or my assigned reading to often be offensive and/or misguided when compared to Scripture, I intend to debate and clarify the issues that I have read about over the past two weeks and will use the Bible and common sense as my guide.
Gary Snyder asks in from The Etiquette of Freedom "Do you really believe you are an animal?" (15). He asserts that it is a mistake for human beings to think they suddenly became smart enough to invent language and society, and that as such we are no better than animals. And yet he recognizes that nature is beautifully complex (16) and observes:
Like imagination and the body, language rises unbidden. It is of a complexity that eludes our rational intellectual capacities. All attempts at scientific description of natural languages have fallen short of completeness, as the descriptive linguists readily confess, yet the child learns the mother tongue early and has virtually mastered it by six.Yes! God gave us this gift and no other species! Man was created in the image of God and animals were placed under the authority of Man (Genesis 1:26-31). He is the One who sets us apart as greater than the animals, not man themselves. The instincts my body implements to keep itself alive and the mind that plans, dreams, and grows for tomorrow were given to me by God. He knows "what I am going to say / even before I say it" and "made all the delicate, inner parts of my body / and knit me together in my mother's womb" (Psalm 139:4, 13). Nature is so very complex that it screams out loud that it has been created by someone or something greater than us (16).
Language is learned in the house and in the fields, not at school. Without having ever been taught formal grammar we utter syntactically correct sentences, one after another, for all the waking hours of the years of our life. Without conscious device we constantly reach into the vast word-hoards in the depths of the wild unconscious. We cannot as individuals or even as a species take credit for this power. It came from someplace else… (15-16)
For the truth about God is known to them instinctively. God has put this knowledge in their hearts. From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see His invisible qualities--His eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatso-ever for not knowing God. (Romans 1:19-20)
God created man, animals, earth, and the universe in six days (as is detailed in Gen. 1-2). While it is true that believing this requires faith it is not faith without reason: it is merely my theory of choice. The Theory of Evolution breaks several basic scientific rules and has been disproved numerous times: it is always being adapted to fit new discoveries while the creation account provided to us in Genesis has never been invalidated nor modified once. I am aware that other Christians may believe in Evolution or the thousand-year-day theories of God guiding Evolution, but in my research of Evolution vs. Creation I have found the Creation Theory to be much more plausible and that it requires less faith than believing in Evolution.
With the knowledge of God’s command in Genesis 1:28-30 comes the responsibility to protect life on this planet. Loving and caring for the earth is not a desire exclusive to liberals or tree huggers: all of us are charged with caring for the world God gave us. I agree with Aldo Leopold's warning in Thinking like a Mountain (149-150) though it is not God who has used the pruning shears (150): it is our careless actions and the instincts God gave animals. They cannot reason and protect themselves, they are incapable, and as such we are meant to protect them.
Nature is also not meant to be worshiped as detailed in Terry Tempest Williams' The Erotic Landscape (28-30): we must worship the One who gave us nature. He created Earth to shelter us, to connect us to Himself, and remind us of our responsibilities (in chapters such as Ps. 8). Still, I am just as puzzled as Williams when it comes to denying our feelings and losing contact with Nature. While she searches for the sexual side I suppose I search for the religious (30): though I would never phrase it that way. I do not practice a religion, I live a faith, and I often wonder how anyone can see the world through any other context but faith and truth: it is not a concept my mind can comprehend.
Thoreau comments on this when he notes: "By a conscious effort of the mind we can stand aloof from actions and their consequences; and all things, good and bad, go by us like a torrent" (51). I do agree that the Human Race is caught in a rapid succession of cause and effect caused by our own actions and apathy, yet Thoreau sadly does not seem to find the same answer I have. He seems to have searched for truth in other places. Tom Wolfe's O Rotten Gotham is similar in this respect: Wolfe seems to believe that Humans are animals that merely react and that we cannot think for ourselves (57-59). No one calling the police when a girl is being raped in plain view (58), cutting others off in traffic (61), it's just a reaction to behavioral sink, right? Wrong:
But remember that the temptations that come into your life are no different from what others experience. And God is faithful. He will keep the temptation from becoming so strong that you can't stand up against it. When you are tempted, He will show you a way out so that you will not give in to it. (1 Corinthians 10:13)We don't have to react badly or stand by and let bad things happen: that's just an excuse. It's just like Thoreau said: we separate ourselves from our actions, refuse to take the blame, on purpose (51). We don't want to take responsibility because we don't want to admit that the world is messed up, that we feel helpless to change it. "...What we fear most is our capacity to feel, and so we annihilate symbolically and physically that which is beautiful and tender, anything that dares us to consider our creative selves," writes Williams (29).
The way we feel about these feelings, temptation, and sin is also similar to what Ursula K. Le Guin relates in The Creatures in My Mind: "And if I had any courage or common sense, I kept telling myself, I'd step on the poor damned creature and put it out of its misery" (81). But instead she ignored it; she turned away and waited for it to slowly destroy itself, to suffocate to death (82). All humans are the same way: we tell ourselves that it doesn't exist, that we're helpless to initiate change. We're fine without God, right? "It was a responsibility that would not act. It was guilt itself" (82). She asks: "Is it my fault? Did I build the cage?" (82) and concludes:
My imagination makes me human and makes me a fool; it gives me all the world and exiles me from it. The gull stood waiting for the dog, for the other gulls, for the tide, for what came, living its life completely until death. Its eye looked straight through me, seeing truly, seeing nothing but the sea, the sand, the wind. (83).I ask myself the same questions often. Do I live fully? Is there more to life than this headlong rush that we all surrender to? What are we doing wrong, what am I doing wrong? "I don't understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I don't do it. Instead, I do the very thing I hate...But I can't help myself, because it is sin inside me that makes me do these evil things" (Rom. 7:15, 17). And so I continue to wonder: how does one form an opinion without belief? How does one measure the world without faith and reason?
All of these essays seem to state a belief about both nature and faith without reason and I struggle to comprehend it. To me faith is everything; I am who I am, I know what I know, because of faith. In my mind no opinion can be formed without considering what God commands in His Word. And yet one of the things I love about being an American is our freedom of speech: freedom to have and state an opinion that is contrary to what others believe is a beloved gift. I do not mind if others disagree with me as long as I have the chance to be heard as well. I inwardly debated with for several days on what to write here... Should I take the advice of my uncle who said: "In college the teachers want you to contradict what they say"? Do I accept the contradictory statements of my teacher (Ms. Penney Hills) when she said "The teacher is meaningless, is trouble," and "Take a chance: you have to step into the river of life"? Do I compromise my beliefs and reason, play it safe, or take a chance and state an opinion... even if it's not what she wants to read?
"What is the pill which will keep us well, serene, contented?" Thoreau asked this question one hundred and fifty years ago then concluded that it is Nature who will heal us (53). I disagree; if such were the case Nature would have healed all of us thousands of years ago--before we started polluting our planet and fighting world wars--and we would have utopia. I have traveled near and far in this country I call home and though I still haven't seen half of it I know that it is not Nature that heals me. It is not where I am physically that makes me content but where I am spiritually. Even though Satan seeks to devour me (1 Peter 5:8) "I am convinced that nothing can ever separate us from His love" (Rom. 8:38a) except for my own sin (Rom. 3:23). I thank God every day for providing a way--for all of us--to reach Him (Rom. 6:23) and am convinced that there is only one answer to the world’s problems and questions: Jesus (John 14:6). I respectfully conclude that no "should" has been included: this is just my opinion.
please excuse the lack of hanging indents
Le Guin, Ursula K. "The Creatures of My Mind." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 81-83.
Leopold, Aldo. "Thinking like a Mountain." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 149-150.
Snyder, Gary. "from The Etiquette of Freedom." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 15-16.
Student's Life Application Bible. New Living Translation. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1997.
Thoreau, Henry David. "Solitude." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 48-53.
Williams, Terry Tempest. "The Erotic Landscape." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 28-30.
Wolfe, Tom. "O Rotten Gotham." Anderson, Slovic, and O'Grady, 54-61.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)