tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76731715319613245322024-03-13T22:22:19.852-07:00Arguments for Reasonacce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.comBlogger111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-16791898179243424282019-12-11T18:56:00.001-08:002019-12-11T18:56:18.226-08:00YOUTUBE REWINDIf you're not aware already, youtube rewind kinda fell flat again this year. Pewdiepie summed it up perfectly when he said that he would have reservations about being in the next one if they asked him. Here's my two cents on the subject.<br /><br />Basically, if Rewind is to be good in 2020, or any year for that matter, it needs to address things that actually are happening during the year on the platform. Sure, a list video of a few categories of things is good for selling your platform to advertisers, but at the same time, Michael from VSauce who now does the Red series Mindfield wasn't even mentioned. As a person who pays for Red, a nod to that service in general would've been neat. An actual skit like we had in years prior would've been neat also. <br /><br />Let me set a stage here, for an example. Youtube wants to appeal to its audience, as well as its advertisers, so go in strong. Opening scene is something like Michael Stephens saying "What is a rewind? What makes it good? What if we look to some creators to answer this question for us?" Then some artsy cutaway to Tom Scott and Matt Gray sitting on a park bench (or on Pewd's steps or something), discussing how analytics are important, but so are reviews, like the ever-popular meme review, and because this is a year in review, maybe we should take a look at this...<br />
<br />
and then someone pops in with a pie, maybe Numberphile or ViHart, and reminds us about Pi day and some of the big videos associated with it, and with educational channels in general, as Smarter Everyday or Nile Red or 3blue1brown or Backyard Scientist do things in the background. Know what else is fun to learn?<br /><br />Then The Licc plays, and the camera cuts to an auditorium, where Adam Neely, Boyinaband, 331erock, and a bunch of other music youtubers are all doing musical things, in a concert-like fashion around a room or something, a few seconds of the same theme from each of them, maybe with some animated channels contributing something as the music plays and TheOdd1sout's character dances with Weebl's or Savlonic's animated avatars, among others. <br /><br />Then this would transition seamlessly into some Kpop band saying 'but can you do this' or whatever and busting into synchronized dance, as the dance and beauty channel icons do their thing, the camera cutting around etc. <br /><br />Then, to cap all this off, Lindy Beige runs in with a tank and tells us some neat thing about some historical battle thing, as an epic rap battle between Dan Bull and someone else ensues in the background. <br /><br />Obviously, this is tilted somewhat in the direction of channels I watch, but I bet you'd be 100% more likely to actually watch and enjoy Rewind if it were done like this with bigger and smaller creators all mashed up into a visually entertaining and solid sounding set piece, that actually reflected various trends throughout the year. Obviously, there could be Crab Rave or whatever as part of the backing track, and Mr Beast could be planting each cut like a tree, or slapping it up on a billboard, or whatever.<br /><br />As pewds points out, Rewind could also have had a moment of silence to remember some of the creators who are no longer with us. There's so much potential that was just lost this year. Let's hope Youtube figures out what makes it great before it hangs itself with the short end of rope it has left...<br />
<br />acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-30145666480407421442019-05-23T06:04:00.001-07:002019-05-23T06:04:02.833-07:00ELECTRICAL CONUNDRUM<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
I have a weird electrical conundrum.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fcLs2d-oCm4/XOaZMWfWqFI/AAAAAAAApFM/sleEt10wpv8Ln14zw5gN1geRGiQBsTqeACKgBGAs/s1600/20190522_224749.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fcLs2d-oCm4/XOaZMWfWqFI/AAAAAAAApFM/sleEt10wpv8Ln14zw5gN1geRGiQBsTqeACKgBGAs/s320/20190522_224749.jpg" width="180" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
One correction, the outlet tester read Hot/Ground Reverse, not Hot/Neutral reverse.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T1H_OrB7R2Y/XOaZMfybx2I/AAAAAAAApFM/ugOSQ2gHI88VOijyJiTv6NW2GoUOt9lTwCKgBGAs/s1600/20190522_224801.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T1H_OrB7R2Y/XOaZMfybx2I/AAAAAAAApFM/ugOSQ2gHI88VOijyJiTv6NW2GoUOt9lTwCKgBGAs/s320/20190522_224801.jpg" width="180" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tOkvqSfjxXA/XOaZMTvvzsI/AAAAAAAApFM/drqjW_igK7MmoPc6NVrPyQDN0B87oLPZQCKgBGAs/s1600/20190522_224804.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tOkvqSfjxXA/XOaZMTvvzsI/AAAAAAAApFM/drqjW_igK7MmoPc6NVrPyQDN0B87oLPZQCKgBGAs/s320/20190522_224804.jpg" width="180" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tx7xzQJCVSo/XOaZMYqQKKI/AAAAAAAApFM/FvCHqkQqe9EP4MwbiLFg6hg4pNZu_qwjQCKgBGAs/s1600/20190522_224809.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tx7xzQJCVSo/XOaZMYqQKKI/AAAAAAAApFM/FvCHqkQqe9EP4MwbiLFg6hg4pNZu_qwjQCKgBGAs/s320/20190522_224809.jpg" width="180" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Clarification: Hot/Ground reverse only happens when the bulb is in when the 1 switches are in the named positions. It happens any time regardless of switch position if I plug in a light, for example.<br /><br />The outlet tester doesn't seem to pull enough amperage to create the fault though, just enough to light the LEDs. Same thing if I plug in a power strip, if it's empty it'll light up the off/reset switch, but if I plug a light into the power strip then the off/reset switch light goes off and the outlet reverses</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ANL1-gezPLM/XOaZMQKV0PI/AAAAAAAApFM/YO4QkRsxim4hUo1C1MykCodZxdzM8iypQCKgBGAs/s1600/20190522_224811.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="900" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ANL1-gezPLM/XOaZMQKV0PI/AAAAAAAApFM/YO4QkRsxim4hUo1C1MykCodZxdzM8iypQCKgBGAs/s320/20190522_224811.jpg" width="180" /></a></div>
<br />acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-14015106466621571942018-12-10T09:38:00.001-08:002018-12-10T09:40:52.167-08:00How Youtube Rewind should've goneIf you haven't seen Youtube Rewind this year, you didn't miss out on much. Here's how I think they could've made it better.<br />
<br />
First, a man in a grey hoodie stands where Will Smith was, and he turns around to reveal it's Tom Scott. "See this button?" He holds up a generic button. "This will start the youtube rewind. It's a lot of power for one person-"<br />
<br />
From off-screen, PhillyD jumps in and hits it, saying "LET'S JUST JUMP INTO IT!"<br />
<br />
Once the button is hit, Bill Wurtz style graphics and a short song transport us back to the beginning of the year, where we open to a shot of Ricky Berwick arguing with Ninja about who can be Tracer, maybe in TikTok response style. Cut to one side, and it's Cody's Lab about to do some serious science, with AvE trying to convince him to do the wrong thing, Big Clive trying to convince him to do the right thing. There's an explosion, and when the dust settles it's Report of the Week giving us a review of the restaurant that was knocked down by the explosion, saying "They weren't joking when they said it would knock your socks off."<br />
<br />
The camera pans once again to Computerphile/Numberphile/Standup Maths/3Blue1Brown and a few other channels arguing about the various maths and sciences behind what just happened, and then the shot pulls away to reveal this was all on a monitor hooked up to a computer that Linus Tech Tips was testing some overclock function. Linus gets a phone call though, and looks down at his phone and says something as we pan to the phone and see Laowhy86 or Serpentza calling to ask him about a colab on cheap chinese electronics. The camera then pulls away from the phone, and we're with them now, and we pan back just a bit to reveal a drone. Time-lapse of the drone brings us back to Casey Neistat interviewing Jake/Logan Paul about something in NYC or whatever, when we look behind them and see Mr Beast and his advert to sub to Pewdiepie, from which Pewdiepie jumps and is immediately accosted by Markiplier/JackSepticeye/etc. The camera, while keeping them in frame, pans slightly and there's Marzia waving as she fades away.<br /><br />Then it fades to black and there's various big animators doing animated things to the various big music channels playing music for them that matches up. Starting perhaps with Life is Fun.<br />
<br />
Anyway, that wouldn't be all of it, but it would've been a damned sight better than what they came up with.acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-6347900932689101282018-06-29T06:00:00.000-07:002018-07-04T12:12:40.456-07:00Mythical Jesus?Hello, and thanks for tuning in.<br />
<br />
Today I'm gonna respond <a href="https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/12/04/mythical-jesus-the-fatal-flaws/" target="_blank">to this article.</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>My lengthy posting in which I explained why the “mythical Jesus” claim has no traction among scholars (<a href="https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/12/02/why-the-mythical-jesus-claim-has-no-traction-with-scholars/">here</a>)
drew (predictably) an attempt to refute it from the “Vridar” blogsite.
</i></blockquote>
I have discussed a bit before why this sort of analysis fails, because it only exists as a second-hand report in every case, and every case draws from the same works that went on to become the bible. There's no extra-biblical accounts of Jesus as we would expect.<br />
<br />
If I wanted to find information on other people alive at the time, I can look in multiple places for it. I don't have to confine myself to just one book to justify my reasoning. <br />
<br />
For example, if I wanted to find information on Pontius Pilate, I can look at the Pilate Stone. I can find that he was mentioned by Tacitus and Philo, and I can even find mention of him in other apocryphal works not associated with the bible. <br />
<br />
We don't have anything like this for Jesus. The only mentions of him we have are in copies of stories alleging to be from earlier. Considering all of these stories claim he was an incredibly well-known fellow with a trial that had every single person in the crowd calling for his death, we would expect someone other than the authors of the gospels to have written about him at some point doing the things attributed to him.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>I don’t think it succeeds, but readers will have to judge for
themselves. </i></blockquote>
I certainly did. Again, there may well have been someone he was based on, who had similar philosophies and what not. If I told you that Paul Bunyan was a real person just because he's probably based on Fabian Fournier, would you accept that as accurate? No, I don't think so.<br />
<br />
The fellow in the gospels named Jesus is not the same guy as he's based on. There may indeed have been some fellow he was based on, but that's where the connection ends.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i> I’ll content myself with underscoring a few things that
remain established from my posting.</i></blockquote>
Well, they would remain established, if you had other historical data to represent it. Currently your assertion is just that the Jesus of the gospels is based on someone who lived then, not that it's actually their life story.<br />
<br />
That's like if I said that Fabian Fournier was literally Paul Bunyan and therefore everything attributed to Paul Bunyan actually happened in the real world.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>I focused on three claims that Richard Carrier posits as
corroborating his hypothesis that “Jesus” was originally a “celestial
being” or “archangel,” not a historical figure, and that this archangel
got transformed into a fictional human figure across several decades of
the first century CE. </i></blockquote>
I guess we can agree on that, I don't believe some guy ascended into heaven or and came back to earth or whatever. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>I showed that the three claims are all false,
which means that his hypothesis has no corroboration.</i><br />
<ol>
<li><i>There is no evidence of “a Jewish archangel Jesus”. All known
figures bearing the name are portrayed as human and historical figures.
Furthermore, contra Carrier, Paul never treats Jesus as an archangel,
but instead emphasizes his mortal death and resurrection, and mentions
his birth, Davidic descent, and Jewishness, cites teachings of Jesus,
and refers to his personal acquaintance with Jesus’ siblings.</i></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
Again, I agree with you, but that's because Paul's entire narrative is that Jesus appeared to him after he died in a blaze of light. I don't think this happened at all. I don't think some ancient dude even appeared to him. I think he hallucinated or lied or something, to give his story embellishment, so that he could explain his change of heart or whatever. <br />
<br />
Harry Potter is probably based on someone, but I bet you he never appeared to J K Rowling and used magic in real life for her. Just because he's based on someone doesn't he was real.<br />
<br />
Same with Paul. Believing he's not some celestial being, but also believing he came back from the dead in a blaze of light and appealed to some old guy to change his ways also is equally unbelievable.<br />
<br />
If you don't believe that part of Paul's story, what makes you believe the rest of it?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ol>
<li><i>There is no example among “all the savior cults” of the Roman period
of a deity being transformed into a mortal being of a given time and
place (such as he asserts happened in the case of Jesus). Carrier
claims a pattern, but there is none.</i></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
Sorry about the numbering, Blogger isn't preserving it for some reason. I do agree though, a lot of myth at the time involved gods taking human form, and many stories were made up about those gods. Zeus allegedly became a swan once. It's almost like people can make stuff up and share stories and things.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ol>
<li><i>From earliest extant Christian texts (Paul) to the NT Gospels,
“Jesus” is a genuine human figure. To be sure, Paul and other early
Jesus-followers believed also that Jesus had been raised from death and
exalted to heavenly glory. They also then ascribed to him a back-story
or “pre-existence” (e.g., drawing on Jewish apocalyptic and Wisdom
traditions). But for Paul “Jesus” wasn’t simply a “celestial being”.
And for the Gospel writers, he wasn’t simply a bloke.</i></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
So which one is it? You claim the Gospel writers and Paul were both talking about the same guy, even though you admit here they clearly seem to be talking about two different people. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ol>
</ol>
<i>My posting was intended simply to illustrate, especially for
“general” readers outside the relevant fields, why the “mythical Jesus”
view is regarded as bizarre among scholars in the relevant fields,
scholars of all persuasions on religious matters, and over some 250
years of critical study. </i></blockquote>
Again, I'm not saying there wasn't some guy it's based on. Kinda like Uncle Sam, lots of people believed for a long time, and perhaps still do, that he was based on a real person. We are fairly certain he wasn't, even though <i>lots of people alive at the time wrote to the contrary.</i> <br /><br />If it's this difficult to determine the origins of some myth that we literally have good documentation for in modern times, what makes you think people two thousand years ago acted much different?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>It is a sad and desperate move for “Vridar” to
dismiss this fact by impugning this huge body of scholarship as either
gullible or prejudiced, when the only “crime” is a refusal to endorse
the “mythicist” notion. </i></blockquote>
I think the main takeaway is that, at least in my case, I have some agreement. I think Jesus was a mythical figure <i>because being based on someone doesn't make a character real.</i> Jesus is a character just like any other.<br /><br /> Just like when Joseph Smith claims the angel Moroni visited him, it doesn't mean he did. We have exactly the same kind of story for Moroni visiting Joseph Smith as we have for Jesus visiting Paul.<br /><br />I can use your argument to explain that Moroni is real also, since Joseph Smith claims it, therefore it must be true. People wrote about Joseph Smith in his own lifetime, after all. There were at least 15 other people we can confirm who also have accounts of interacting directly with and observing Moroni. <br /><br />According to you, the simple fact that some texts exist confirming his existence means that he was, in fact, real. In fact, this means we actually have more 'evidence' for the existence of Moroni than we do for Jesus, and it's exactly the same kind of evidence.<br /><br />Are you going to tell me that Moroni was based on someone, and completely dismiss the mythicist notion, I wonder?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The scholarship that I point to has been shaped
by the critical impulses from the Renaissance and “Enlightenment,” all
texts, whether biblical or Christian or whatever, subjected to the same
critical tests and procedures. In what other subject would a solid body
of scholarly judgement be treated to such foolish disdain?</i></blockquote>
Steady state universe, flat earth, geocentrism, anti-vaccination, homeopathy, the historicity of prometheus actually getting fire from the gods, and so on. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>So, ignoring the various red-herrings and distortions of the
“mythicist” advocates, the claims proffered as “corroborating” their
view have been shown to be erroneous. </i></blockquote>
Not really, though. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>And this is why the view has no
traction among scholars. </i></blockquote>
Scholars also claim he was a mythical figure because <i>he is only loosely based on someone who probably lived.</i> Most people, yourself included, seem to accept that whoever Jesus is based on didn't do miraculous things, or anything even out of the ordinary. The fellow in the works of literature appear to be someone completely different to the person he's based upon. The fellow he's based upon doesn't appear to have done most of the things attributed to him in the gospels, like cursing a fig tree, or turning water into wine, or raising himself and others from the dead, or healing blindness and disease, or being tranfigured, or feeding the multitude, or walking on water, or causing the oceans to still, or so on.<br /><br />I mean, people did believe that famous people, gods in human form, demigods, and others could perform these actions, though. We do have accounts of that also, like people seeing Pythagoras calming the seas, for example. That doesn't mean he did it, though. It just means people wrote about him doing it.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i> There’s no conspiracy. It’s not because
scholars are gullible or lazy. The view just doesn’t stand up to
critical scrutiny.</i></blockquote>
Yeah, that's why there's no mythicists at all in the <a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory" target="_blank">academic</a> <a href="http://www.mythicistmilwaukee.com/mythicistmilwaukeeblog/" target="_blank">community</a>... acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-64783127620638061152018-06-27T06:00:00.000-07:002018-07-04T12:12:36.589-07:00God works in mysterious waysHello, and thanks for tuning in.<br />
<br />
Today I'm going to respond to <a href="https://www.joelosteen.com/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" target="_blank">this blog post</a> from the venereal... I mean, venerable Joel Osteen<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<span class="at4-visually-hidden" id="at-63bf48d5-710a-4834-b7ec-511656c3eb7f"></span><br />
<span class="at4-visually-hidden" id="at-63bf48d5-710a-4834-b7ec-511656c3eb7f"></span><br />
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<i>The Scripture says, "The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord"
(Psalm 37:23). </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
The scripture says a lot of things, but I'm glad to know that you think anything done in your god's name is good. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<i>God is strategic. </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Well, he's got to be. It's not like he knows everything and can do anything, right?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<i>Before you were formed in your
mother's womb, He laid out a specific plan for you. </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I've heard this one before. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<i>Nothing happens
randomly—not just the good breaks, the promotion, the times you see
favor, but even the closed doors, the disappointments, and the betrayals
are a part of God's plan. </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
So all the good and bad in life is, in fact, at the behest of god? Most people won't admit that, but Joel will. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<i>It may not make sense; it wasn't fair, but
God wouldn't have allowed it if it wasn't going to work for your good.
</i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
You just told me that people whose cars blow up and kill them is part of god's plan. Childhood cancer that kills children before they're old enough to speak. Gout. Morgellons disease. Cystic fibrosis. <br />
<br />
You're telling me these things work for our good? I bet you're not gonna justify that, are you?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<i>If you don't understand that, you'll be frustrated when things don't go
your way, upset because somebody did you wrong, bitter because the door
closed. </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I'm sorry, little Johnny, but you have to understand. God gave you this cancer that's gonna kill you soon, but don't be frustrated. It's for your own good, Johnny. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<i>In reality, these were ordained by God as setups to move you
into your destiny.
</i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
That's right, little Johnny, god ordained you with the holy cancer, to move you through an incredibly painful existence, because that's your destiny. Praise god, abuser of children, maker of wretches, deliverer of pestilence and strategic evil monger. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>We can't comprehend the wisdom of God. </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fvoLmsXKkYM/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fvoLmsXKkYM?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">You hear that, lads? </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">We just can't comprehend god's wisdom when he allows this stuff to happen.</span></div>
<br />
If we can't comprehend his wisdom, then why's he gotta be strategically causing children to suffer abuse, or old men to be shot, <i>for their own good, for their own destiny.</i>You are not a pleasant person, Joel.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>He can plan out generations
and take mistakes, betrayals, and closed doors and somehow weave them
all together to work for our good. </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
How exactly did a bullet to the head work for the old man's good? How does abuse work for the good of those children? <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>When God told Abraham that he and
Sarah were going to have a baby in their old age, Abraham tried to help
God out by sleeping with Sarah's maid and having a son named Ishmael.
</i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
God can do anything, and that's why he makes you cheat on your wife I guess. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>But God said, "He is not the promised child." </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I mean, god could've also just made the servant barren, or made Sarah to be fertile, but I guess that wouldn't work for some reason.<br />
<br />
What part of being a slave worked toward the good of the maid, again?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>Ishmael was in one sense
considered a mistake and caused problems in the home. </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Mysterious ways... <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>Surely that was
not in God's plan. And yet amazingly, it was descendants of Ishmael who
came along at the right moment and kept Joseph, Abraham's great
grandson, from dying in the pit when his brothers betrayed him (see
Genesis 37). </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xDl0JhZZ8bg/Wy-bXzsTWPI/AAAAAAAAm4c/DlTkJbiCMhENA9PljBGjLrWLBY7S4n5cgCLcBGAs/s1600/800px-Judith_mit_dem_Haupt_des_Holofernes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1111" data-original-width="800" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xDl0JhZZ8bg/Wy-bXzsTWPI/AAAAAAAAm4c/DlTkJbiCMhENA9PljBGjLrWLBY7S4n5cgCLcBGAs/s320/800px-Judith_mit_dem_Haupt_des_Holofernes.jpg" width="230" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">What door did god open for Holofernes?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It's a shame god didn't have the power to, you know, close up the pit, or destroy the slavers like he destroyed Sodom and Gomorroah and Jericho and the Midianites and... well, let's stay on topic I guess.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>The mistake of Abraham became the setup for the saving of
Joseph, who helped save the rest of their family. That's how amazing God
is.</i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
God is so amazing that he couldn't just, you know, tell us who his chosen person was before some jerks tried to put him in shackles. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>
</i><i>A while back Victoria lost a ring that had been in her family for
several generations. </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Ain't that a shame? I hate losing things too. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>For months we looked everywhere. </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Did you really, though? Did you look at the bottom of the Marianas trench? I think you're engaging in hyperbole here, Joel. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>Late one night,
three years later, we were driving home on a rural freeway. </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Dang, Joel is just like us. He doesn't even have <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/televangelist-54-million-jet-hell-donate-jet/story?id=55553432" target="_blank">54 million dollars for another private jet</a>. He has to drive, <i>like some commoner.</i>Maybe god will do some good in his life and get him another jet soon.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>I was going
about seventy in a sixty-five speed zone.</i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Don't worry, I'm sure god will protect you. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i> Victoria kept telling me,
"Joel, slow down or you'll get a ticket," and sure enough, I got pulled
over. </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Rend unto Caesar! <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>When Victoria searched the glove compartment, she couldn't find
the insurance card, so she ended up pulling everything out. </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Dude, you gotta keep that stuff with your owner's manual. That makes it very easy to find!<br />
<br />
How much stuff does Joel keep in his glove box, anyway?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>Reaching way
to the back, she felt something way down in a crack, and finally pulled
it out. </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I didn't know this was one of <i>those</i> kinds of sermons. This might get racy. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>It was the long lost ring! </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
PRAISE JEEBUS <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>And she ended up finding the
insurance card right on top of the pile. It was like God caused her to
overlook it.</i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
It's a shame he didn't just make you go the speed limit and, I dunno, not cause your wife to lose the ring in the first place. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="wgt-padded-article" id="blog-main">
<div class="right half">
<div class="addthis_responsive_sharing" data-title="Blog" data-url="https://www.joelosteen.com:80/Pages/Blog.aspx?blogid=13389" style="clear: both;">
<div class="at-resp-share-element at-style-responsive addthis-smartlayers addthis-animated at4-show" id="atstbx" role="region">
<div class="note_body">
<div class="rich_text">
<i>
</i><i>Sometimes what we think is a setback is really a setup for God to do
something great. God even knows how to turn our mistakes around for our
good.</i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
You do realize there's no mistakes if god does everything, right? You do realize he caused your wife to lose her ring just so you could get a speeding ticket, right? You've got your causality backward. He didn't cause you to speed so you'd find the ring. <br />
<br />
More to the point, though, you probably didn't even get a ticket for only going 5mph over. Was this also god's doing? Again, if he works to make these things happen, then nothing is an accident, and every thing that happens is because <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/an-irishman-s-diary-aid-and-the-great-famine-1.1785604" target="_blank">god strategically makes it happen</a>.<br />
<br />
Thanks for tuning in!acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-64731288713035656592018-06-25T06:00:00.000-07:002018-07-04T12:12:33.093-07:00Perfumes and you, a primer Hello, and thanks for tuning in.<br />
<br />
I've started working on a schedule for posting that I hope to keep. This should keep my video and blog content coming to you more regularly now.<br />
<br />
Now onto the article.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<i>It’s 2018, and you might be wondering:</i><br />
<div class="contained">
<i>Is it alright for men to smell like rosemary and heather growing amongst dry wood in the sunny, Garrigues region of France?</i></div>
<div class="contained">
<i>Yes, it is. </i></div>
<div class="contained">
<i>What about a blend of freshly cut iris, pink peppercorn, and a stone heating in the sun?</i></div>
<div class="contained">
<i>Totally fine. </i></div>
<div class="contained">
<i>OK, how about a bright orange blossom that just weathered a hard rain and cedar felled from the shores of Corsica?</i></div>
<div class="contained">
<i>In fact, yes — but why not add a touch of bergamot?</i></div>
<div class="-last contained">
<i>If recent growth in the men’s fragrance industry is any indication, it is increasingly the norm for men to smell pleasant.</i></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="-last contained">
<br /></div>
<div class="-last contained">
I agree, it's fine for men to smell how they like, but the point is, people don't smell like those things. They're all things that are, in fact, not men. Personally, perfumes tend to be too strong for me, and I really don't care for them, and that's why I wear unscented deodorant and buy soaps with little to no scent if possible. <br />
<br />
Still, if our natural scent were sub-par, then we wouldn't have stayed alive as a species this long. We smell funky because it works for natural selection. I agree that it's not a particularly pleasant smell generally, but it works, and that's kinda the point.</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="-first clearfix contained">
<i>Expected to reach $18.7 billion by
2020, this industry is climbing from $14.8 billion in 2015, according to
a study by London-based industry researcher Euromonitor. This reflects
the broader <a href="https://www.fungglobalretailtech.com/research/deep-dive-global-male-grooming-market/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">rise of the men’s grooming industry</a>,
which includes shaving products, fragrances, and toiletries. Men are
now more invested in personal upkeep than ever, which is good news for
all, but especially for the fragrance business. </i></div>
<div class="-first clearfix contained">
<br /></div>
</blockquote>
That's a lot of money. I like how the implication is that men smelling better benefits everyone, because we all know that men's stench kills thousands <i>every single day.</i> We have to feed the narrative that people smell bad and things smell good so that we can make that number even higher, obviously.<br />
<br />
Again, I don't really care for perfumes because they typically annoy my lungs and sinuses, but I can appreciate why some people enjoy them. I just don't think it's nearly such a dramatic problem. Know what's even better news for all? <i>Ending world hunger.</i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="contained">
<i>The week before Christmas each year sees a <a href="https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=mens%2520cologne" rel="noopener" target="_blank">dramatic spike in Google searches</a> for “men’s cologne,” but it’s quickly becoming a year-round fascination year-over-year.</i></div>
</blockquote>
News, folks. This is it. People searching for gifts around the holiday is now news. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="contained">
<br /></div>
<div class="-last contained">
<i>The growth of the men’s fragrance industry is partially indicative of changing <a href="https://www.inverse.com/topic/gender">gender</a> norms, where men are granted more aesthetic freedom and fluidity. </i></div>
</blockquote>
I bet you didn't see that coming, did you? Generally speaking, men and women want to mate with one another, and generally speaking people will be attracted or repulsed by whichever smells they like or don't like, respectively. You can change gender norms all you like, but at the end of the day, men are typically going to be attracted to sweeter smells, and women are generally going to be attracted to muskier smells. There's a reason that the males of the species are the ones that secrete musk, after all. Pheromones are complicated.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="-last contained">
<br /></div>
<div class="-first clearfix contained">
<i>“Men are more comfortable expressing themselves these days,” fragrance historian and master perfumer Roja Dove tells Inverse.
“The way we smell is an extension of our sense of style, so as men have
become more self-aware of how they present themselves, fragrance is
another thing that has become more commonplace as a result.”</i></div>
<div class="-first clearfix contained">
<i> </i></div>
</blockquote>
There was a time when we humans used perfumes almost all the time, especially in high-society, because we didn't have things like showers and soap to wash the excessive dirty smells off. Generally, though, this isn't an issue today, and a bit of deodorant solves it. Naturally, scent has been a part of fashion since it was first derived thousands of years ago.<br />
<br />
The main difference today is that, for the past several decades, we've had artificial perfumes and smells that have made it very affordable for the average person to use them, so naturally they are more common place. There's a reason everyone jokes about every high school boy wearing Axe deodorant, after all. It's because they all wear it.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="-first clearfix contained">
<i></i></div>
<div class="-last contained">
<i>It’s not only that the men’s fragrance
industry is growing, but the range of scents that are considered
“masculine” or within the realm of men’s fragrance are also expanding.
Men, by today’s standards, need not have a cloud of Axe trailing them at
all hours, or feign disinterest in fragrance.</i></div>
</blockquote>
Called it.<br />
<br />
The point remains, however, that the scents traditionally considered masculine actually came from male animals, as well as plants that had the same smells or pheromones, or close enough analogues. You can't exactly go complain to the musk deer that their females should start secreting these scents, after all.<br />
<br />
We can decide that it's okay for men to wear whatever scents we want, but that doesn't change which chemicals are going to attract the partner you're looking for more than others. <br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="-first clearfix contained">
<i>“As men have become more
comfortable with the concept of scent, it has allowed the male perfume
market to evolve into something more diverse. Perfumers are more open to
delivering compositions that are more unique, such as a bigger embrace
of the use of flowers in masculine compositions,” Dove tells Inverse.</i></div>
</blockquote>
Men are just as comfortable with scents as they've ever been. Have you ever gone to church, or a retirement home, or even the grocery store when there's older people there? Men's colognes can be stronger than the women's perfumes.<br />
<br />
I mean, sure, there's arguably better marketing today, but the bottle of Old Spice on my shelf came from an older male relative. Again, I don't often wear the stuff, so it just kinda sits there, but you get the point.<br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="contained">
<i>Just a couple decades ago, men were not allowed to
stray too far from smelling like the ocean, lest they pose a peril to
their masculinity.</i></div>
</blockquote>
Depending on the man, though, and which decade or generation you're talking about, that smell wasn't that common. Again, old spice and other similar perfumes or colognes smell like something different. Then again, the average working man probably doesn't care about his scent too much, because he's going to go work in the factory, construction yard, or whatever, and the smell isn't going to last anyway.<br />
<br />
Dirt, dust, and all the other stuff in industrial environments easily trumps all the other smells you're gonna put on in the morning. For a lot of men, it has nothing to do with imperiling their masculinity, it is instead just another that takes time and effort which they could put into something else. Like making coffee, or going to work, or sleeping, or chopping down trees, or hitting things with hammers.<br />
<br />
Men have predominantly worked around other men, and women around other women, for a fair part of history. It isn't like we need to smell good for our machines, or other men. We're gonna smell like oil, or burning stuff, or dust, or dirt, or whatever. It's only more recently we've come to see scent as a thing everyone should have rather than a thing that should be used when you go out for a fun weekend to the bar, movies, or whatever.<br />
<br />
<br />
Listen to the tone of those words. Men were oppressed and we are taking their oppression away...<br />
<br />
Wait a minute, <i>Inverse</i>
is closer to SJW than MRA I thought. Then again, they're focusing on
this issue that they claim is better for everyone, rather than an issue
like men's custody or something, which only benefits men, so maybe it is
still an SJW issue? Men's odor is so oppressive that fixing it helps
alleviate the oppression of women via scent warfare, I see. This is
fascinating. That's subtle, like a good perfume.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="contained">
<i>As Dove discusses in his article, “<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/why-all-men-smell-same-master-perfumer-roja-dove-cologne-aftershave-sweat-a7531151.html" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Why All Men Smell The Same, According to Master Perfumer Roja Dove</a>,”
beginning in the ‘90s, men’s fragrance tended to be dominated by an
oceanic smell that is “actually calone — an aqueous-smelling material
with a pronounced watermelon aspect. It’s a man-made, synthetic molecule
that gives the olfactory impression of the fresh seashore through its
marine/ozone nuances.”</i></div>
</blockquote>
Spray the watermelon waters of the deep blue on your face!<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="-first clearfix contained">
<i>“As men have become more
comfortable with the concept of scent, it has allowed the male perfume
market to evolve into something more diverse. Perfumers are more open to
delivering compositions that are more unique, such as a bigger embrace
of the use of flowers in masculine compositions,” Dove tells Inverse.</i></div>
</blockquote>
I personally kinda like lavender and jasmine, but I don't really wear them. This sounds like some marketer looking for a new niche to fill. <br />
<br />
"Oh, that old stuff you're wearing is so out of date and overdone. Come here, we've got your solution, so you're not like the regular plebs. Come be our pleb, give us your money."<br />
<br />
I'm not really against commercialism, I just think it should be more transparent and honest.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>While decoupling fragrance and gender may seem like
a modern idea, art historian Jessica Murphy points out that it is
really an old idea. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br />
<div class="-last contained">
<i>For the majority of it history, fragrance has
known no gender. She sees the industrial revolution and resulting
commercialization of fragrance as the period when it came to be
partitioned into two genders. Before this time, fragrance was lawless —
the scent of a rose or a strong musk was open to all.</i></div>
</blockquote>
I mean, that's fair. Scents were basically just whatever you wanted to wear. Then we created two market segments and now they're <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281205121X" target="_blank">trying</a> <a href="https://www.ravenscourtapothecary.com/fragrances/do-fragrances-really-have-a-gender/" target="_blank">to</a> <a href="https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/beauty/fragrance/g38227/best-gender-neutral-fragrances/" target="_blank">create</a> <a href="https://nypost.com/2017/09/20/gender-neutral-fragrance-is-taking-the-perfume-world-by-storm/" target="_blank">a</a> <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gender-neutral-fragrances-are-next-933853" target="_blank">third</a> <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/fashion-beauty/best-unisex-perfumes-a6944261.html" target="_blank">with</a> <a href="https://www.elle.com/uk/beauty/articles/g32724/best-gender-neutral-unisex-perfume/" target="_blank">this</a> gender-less stuff. The best way to make a new market is to complain about the old one and try to replace it with your own, after all.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="-first clearfix contained">
<i>Even cologne, as it was originally conceived, was intended for and worn by all genders. As the <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/beauty/skin/the-best-colognes---and-why-nows-the-time-you-need-one/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">story</a>
goes, in 1708, when Giovanni Maria Farina concocted the refreshing,
quickly evaporating scent, he wrote to his brother: “I have found a
fragrance that reminds me of an Italian spring morning, of mountain
daffodils and orange blossoms after the rain.” He named the fragrance
Eau de Cologne, after the German city where he was working.</i></div>
</blockquote>
So he found the a smell that he enjoyed. Excellent!<br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="contained">
<i>It was only later that what began as mountain
daffodils and orange blossoms lost its more floral origins and came to
signify masculinity. Murphy notes that the fragrance was then widely
copied and for a long time Eau de Cologne meant a citrus herbal splash
with a lighter concentration of oils. For reasons that she does not
believe have been well-established, it then evolved to stand in for
men’s fragrance.</i></div>
</blockquote>
I mean fair enough, a man was the first one to wear it, and he shared it with his brother, and presumably women liked it so men wore it more often, and more women were attracted by it, and so on. Something as simple as that can explain the trend.<br />
<br />
You know, the reason a lot of guys act macho and a lot of girls act exactly the opposite is because those kinds of people are attracted to one another. Now, if their peers see that they are using specific fragrances to attract the other, why on earth would they want to use stuff that doesn't seem to be as effective to this end? Again, scent is tied pretty directly into our brain and wired for our attraction or repulsion. It's one of the major ways we determine pheromones and stuff, too, even though you can't smell some of them.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="-first clearfix contained">
<i>Now the western fragrance industry
is in many ways returning to an earlier time in history. This shift is
largely owed to niche perfumers, outside of the mainstream industry, who
have been on the frontline of shaping this move away from strictly
gendered fragrances. “[Niche perfumers] were not creating for men or
women, but just creating beautiful fragrances,” Sandy Blandin, founder
of the fragrance studio Nose Who Knows, tells Inverse</i></div>
</blockquote>
I mean fair enough, there's gonna be a market for it.<br />
<br />
I wonder though, if we put together a list of who buys which perfumes, do you reckon we're going to see a major rejection of the currently established trend? This is the kind of information we need. It's all well and good that the person making them doesn't care about the gender stuff, but if you're going to have a paradigm shift, you need to see if you're actually selling it as such.<br />
<br />
If you happen to be making your scents unisex but one sex overwhelmingly buys one and the other a different one, that might tell you that your filling a ghost niche, one that only exists in your marketing literature.<br />
<br />
I'm not saying don't do it. I'm just saying, perhaps check your sales demographics before you start making such assertions. Even if you don't gender your fragrances, there's a good chance that your consumers will.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="-last contained">
<i>The niche perfume industry has heralded the
growth of a new, shamelessly rose and heather-scented man. “The men who
are wearing fragrances today I think they are different from the men who
were wearing fragrances years ago. […] They want to stand out. They’re a
bit more assertive, in terms of what they like and what they don’t
like,” says Blandin.</i></div>
</blockquote>
That's true. It's also true that teenage boys and girls also make up a large portion of this market, and they're just going to buy whatever is cheap. It's also true that the working class individuals are a significant portion of this market, and like myself, don't really care what the smell is, so they're gonna buy the one that says it's for their gender. I am a simple man, you see, and I like fewer choices. I go to the store and buy the cheapest unscented deodorant I can find, or the least scented one if there's not one. I don't particularly care if it smells like roses, or a campfire in Mordor.<br />
<br />
I buy the one that says mens because it tends to work best and smell the least. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="-first clearfix contained">
<i>Niche perfumers were among the
first to embrace unisex fragrances, which are now a quickly growing
trend as well. Some of these independent perfumers have been creating
fragrances that are intentionally deconstructed, a smell removed from
any gendered connotations. </i></div>
</blockquote>
I thought you told me that people a century or two ago were the first to do that?<br />
<br />
Dang hipsters.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="contained">
<i>For example, <a href="http://cbihateperfume.com/" rel="noopener" target="_blank">Christopher Brosius</a>,
one of the most revered iconoclasts of smell, does not use any gendered
language with his fragrances. He instead opts for scents are deeply
conceptual, capturing something more psychological than material, like
“Where We Are There Is No Here,” “November,” and the E. M.
Forster-inspired, “<a href="http://cbihateperfume.com/shop/perfumes-a-to-z/404" rel="noopener" target="_blank">A Room With A View</a>.”</i></div>
</blockquote>
Yeah, but you see, I'm not going to buy something that smells like <i>nowhere</i> because that just sounds like an empty bottle. What does November smell like, I wonder? Does it smell like a snow storm and road salt? I wonder if a room with a view smells like a jail cell that has a small window.<br />
<br />
I hate this kind of superfluous marketing bullshit, I guess. <br />
<br />
Dang hipsters.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="contained">
<i>Zoe Tambling, who is soon to launch her own perfume
line, Agnes Fragrances, in Los Angeles, spent five months developing
the scent of a Hurricane — of lightning, of rain on concrete. At one
point, it hit her that rain on concrete smells like bell peppers, which
she then tinctured and added to the fragrance. </i></div>
</blockquote>
I feel like they're just making stuff up now.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="contained">
<i>Her earlier creation, Stainless Steel, which she
colored blue to resemble Windex, is not only outside of gender, but
outside of anything remotely human. </i></div>
</blockquote>
Lemme tell you what, when I go out for a night on the town, what I want to smell like is steel wool. Knives. Power cables. Arc welders.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="contained">
<i>“I wanted to make something that was totally cold and unfeeling,” she tells Inverse.</i></div>
</blockquote>
Well, to be fair, that does sound an awful lot like some corporations. Maybe you could sell some to congress.<i><br /></i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="-first clearfix contained">
<i>Blandin hopes that in the future,
the men’s and women’s fragrance are eclipsed by unisex fragrances, so
that nothing has a gender.</i></div>
</blockquote>
Why though? Why does it matter if smells are gendered? Are you losing sleep over the fact that some men are wearing perfumes or colognes based on what the market tells them to? Are you so offended by the smell of Bod that you want to make sure no one ever wears it again?<br />
<br />
Also, I just noticed, this article hasn't once recommended that women should be wearing scents that are traditionally mens, as a sign of equality, as a sign that the scents are truly without gender as they claim.<br />
<br />
Funny thing, that.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="contained">
<i>“For me, what I would love to see is that we don’t
have any more men and women’s fragrances. Let the people choose what
they would like. Let the people whether they want a vanilla, a
raspberry, a citrus, and don’t segment the market into men and women.”</i></div>
</blockquote>
Arguably the people are choosing what they like. Arguably, the people want a segmented market, in general. That's good for you, too, because it means you can create a third market segment to compete with them.<br />
<br />
If everything becomes unisex then your niche goes away, after all.<br />
<br />
Also, notice again, how they're talking about a very few scents here, and not ones typically worn by men, even though this shouldn't be a gendered thing I guess.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="contained">
<i>If current trends keep up, Blandin might just get her wish, and rose and musk will be, once again, in the domain of all genders.</i></div>
</blockquote>
Again, why does she care what other people wear? How, exactly, will you know it is in the domain of both if people still preferentially choose other things and it just happens to continue being used primarily by women, or people stop using it altogether?<br />
<br />
What is the actual resolution here, I wonder? It sounds like the resolution is to make men wear scents that women typically wear without making women wear the scents that men typically wear. What if men genuinely don't want to smell like those things and largely don't buy them, even if they're labelled in a unisex fashion. Will this still be sexist somehow? I'm sure they'll find a way to say so. How will we know when this unisex movement succeeds, I guess, is what I'm asking.<br />
<br />
I mean, I agree with article, effectively. Wear whatever you want, and don't worry about stereotypes and stuff. Still, what if everyone is already kinda doing that, and we've already hit peak unisex? Do I actually have to go out of my way to buy something typically designed for women just to demonstrate my loyalty to this cause, or can I just say I agree and continue buying my unscented stuff?<br />
<br />
The world may never know.<br />
<br />acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-46159515539416460162018-05-20T08:46:00.004-07:002018-05-20T08:47:26.518-07:00What's the frequency, Kenneth?Thanks for tuning in! Today we're gonna discuss the fine tuning argument <a href="http://thereasons.org/reasons-2/universe-fine-tune/universe-fine-tuned-for-life/" target="_blank">as presented here</a>.<br />
<i></i><br />
<i></i><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wMRdtvtA8MQ/WwGYh1F6_pI/AAAAAAAAmh8/ZSViZog602E2Z6Donai-lFXtI8NfCKDiACKgBGAs/s1600/20180520_104123.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wMRdtvtA8MQ/WwGYh1F6_pI/AAAAAAAAmh8/ZSViZog602E2Z6Donai-lFXtI8NfCKDiACKgBGAs/s320/20180520_104123.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<i><br /></i>The fine tuning argument is basically the idea that some prime mover/god/deity/whatever caused the conditions of the universe to exist exactly as they appear. Currently, as far as we can tell, the laws of physics came about as time and space stratified as they expanded in the inflationary period at the 'beginning' of time.<i> It's in quotes because time isn't linear.</i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>It used to be believed that whatever the conditions of the early
Universe, that given enough time and a little bit of luck, intelligent
life would inevitably occur somewhere.</i></blockquote>
It also used to be believed that gods were required to create rain or lightning, or to cause crops to grow, or all sorts of other things people at the time didn't understand. It used to be believed that the universe was comprised of aether, and that it was in a steady state. What I'm saying is, it doesn't really matter what we believe, it matters what the evidence shows. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i> This belief is even professed
today by the news media; whenever water is discovered on some
astronomical object such as Mars or Europa – one of the major moons of
Jupiter, report speculate that where there is water, life is sure to
eventually erupt like spring flowers after a rainfall.</i></blockquote>
The news media are not scientists, and they don't publish peer-reviewed journals. Also, the claim is generally that these would be good places to start looking for life outside of our planet within our solar system. I'm not familiar with anyone claiming that life is definitely going to happen. Too bad they don't actually have any citations in their article, I could have fun responding to them as well.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W_3Iyb27XRw/WwGFTo8swrI/AAAAAAAAmgk/gt0uX4X9dvkyRPFwJe0g9TiNWYmqOzIgACLcBGAs/s1600/Table-1-CODATA-Recommended-Values-of-Fundamental-Physical-Constants-2014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1074" data-original-width="1600" height="214" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W_3Iyb27XRw/WwGFTo8swrI/AAAAAAAAmgk/gt0uX4X9dvkyRPFwJe0g9TiNWYmqOzIgACLcBGAs/s320/Table-1-CODATA-Recommended-Values-of-Fundamental-Physical-Constants-2014.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This table appears in the original article. Twice.<br />
With no citation. Let's see where it's from.</td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The table appears to be <a href="https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=920686" target="_blank">from this source perhaps</a>? Maybe an older version or one of the related articles? Either way, the table doesn't seem to be supporting the claims of fine tuning, only that the measurements exist, so let's sally forth.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i> As a result of discoveries over the past fifty years or so, we now
understand that such optimism was not well placed; in fact, the opposite
is true.
</i></blockquote>
No, the opposite isn't true either. We can't claim for certain that life will or will not exist in those places. They do resemble places on our own planet where life currently exists though, as well as places on our planet where life probably first start existing, like the vents at the bottom of the ocean. They would surely kill us, what with all the heat and pressure and so on, but we aren't the only form of life. Neither are flowers, as the article alluded to earlier. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Physicists have been stunned to discover how many samples of delicate
balance initial conditions have to be for the existence of intelligent
life anywhere at all in the cosmos. </i></blockquote>
First off, we don't actually know how much the laws could be different and support life. Second, life is life, we don't need to qualify it with 'intelligent' or any other thing. It's hard enough to define as it is, after all. It's entirely possible that the laws of physics could have simply changed at the time the singularity inflated, and that there was plenty of life in the universe before it, with completely different rules.<br />
<br />
Saying it's fine-tuned is a bit like looking at two halves of a broken rock. Go out, find a rock, and break it. Let's see if I can do that now. <br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RXFpRfklvTM/WwGJeyKurKI/AAAAAAAAmhA/pwGnjcvck7EfxbSt4sRznJ4epKNY5AKgwCKgBGAs/s1600/20180520_104103.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RXFpRfklvTM/WwGJeyKurKI/AAAAAAAAmhA/pwGnjcvck7EfxbSt4sRznJ4epKNY5AKgwCKgBGAs/s320/20180520_104103.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">tappy-tap-tap</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So I found a rock and tapped it with a hammer. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--gwjcJZ0KKM/WwGJew5x2pI/AAAAAAAAmhA/oXGpMQGk-ZsW-9aI1gnDBpdX7tIVDUQ_ACKgBGAs/s1600/20180520_104123.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--gwjcJZ0KKM/WwGJew5x2pI/AAAAAAAAmhA/oXGpMQGk-ZsW-9aI1gnDBpdX7tIVDUQ_ACKgBGAs/s320/20180520_104123.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Look at those pretty layers</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Clearly, I must have laid out the cleavage/fissure lines perfectly for it to break in exactly a way that it fits perfectly back together. This couldn't just happen by chance, right guys? The rock must have been tuned to break in such a way that the pieces could fit back together, right? <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NHAMQyn_mBk/WwGJe-gZQQI/AAAAAAAAmhA/HtQo5GSosyAJeZwuPqzBqev1fyW_pj0SACKgBGAs/s1600/20180520_104144.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NHAMQyn_mBk/WwGJe-gZQQI/AAAAAAAAmhA/HtQo5GSosyAJeZwuPqzBqev1fyW_pj0SACKgBGAs/s320/20180520_104144.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Might be some old dead thing was once trapped in that bit</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Can you make out the few layers of rock there? Surely they must've been formed by someone to perfectly layer up like that, right? <br />
<br />
Of course not. You can clearly understand, I think, how this line of reasoning fails. The bits of rock fit together because they happen to have broken there. In fact, it would be weirder if they didn't fit back together nicely. Even as complex as those fractures are, you can understand why they fit together perfectly <i>even though no one caused it to be that way.</i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i> The delicate balance of initial
conditions has come to be known as “fine-tuning” of the universe for
life. </i></blockquote>
The term 'fine tuning' only seems to exist in philosophy, really. We know that as the universe expanded in time, the various forces came out of it, almost exactly like how the rock cracked when I tapped it. It happened relatively quick, just like tapping the rock, and the forces fit together as though they broke off in the way they did from the beginning. You can even understand how the hammer isn't necessary in this example, sometimes rocks just crack. Sometimes a universe just inflates, maybe. Maybe something did, in fact, tap ours, but we would never know. It also wouldn't mean that it tuned anything by doing so, because <i>the apparent constants can just form spontaneously and ours just happens to support life.</i> <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>We have, over these fifty years, come to understand that the
Universe is adjusted for the existence of intelligent life with such a
complexity and delicacy that defy human comprehension. </i></blockquote>
If it defies human comprehension, then how are you certain that it is definitely tuned? You mean that humans can't comprehend it and that's how you comprehend it? Are you not human, by chance?<br />
<br />
Although, I think most humans can comprehend the analogy I gave up there. <i><b>I even gave you pictures.</b></i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Several of these
factors are adjusted with far more precision – trillions of trillions
of trillions more precision – than anything that is remotely possible by
humans today.</i></blockquote>
See that rock I just broke? See how precise the crack is, to land exactly between the pieces that formed? Do you understand how I don't actually have to put the crack there for it to end up existing there? It's at least as precise as this article claims. I was so good I only put the crack exactly where the crack formed, and not anywhere else.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>But why is this so? </i></blockquote>
Reasons. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>How did it come to be that the Universe is so
finely adjusted for the emergence of intelligent life – and indeed, is
so finely adjusted for the existence of matter as to be nearly
miraculous.</i></blockquote>
It isn't. We just happen to exist in this one <i>because we can.</i> <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i></i><br />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<i>Why this is Important</i></h3>
</blockquote>
It appears to be important because it suits your narrative, nothing more. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>When physicists say the Universe is finely adjusted for the emergence
of life, they mean without these adjustments there could be no life.
</i></blockquote>
Sometimes they just use it as a turn-of-phrase, though. Yes, there are physicists who think the variables had to be tuned. They are generally in the minority though, and don't generally give compelling arguments or evidence. Kinda like this article, in a way. Most of the fine-tuning people won't even go so far as to say that ours is the only possible one, especially the scientist ones, because they understand that we don't have another universe to compare it to, for example. We simply can't assert whether or not ours is the only kind of universe in which life can arise. I wish he'd quit saying 'intelligent.' Life is life, get over it. <br />
<br />
Let's presume that our constants are the absolutely only ones that could produce life, though. It still doesn't mean ours was tuned. It just means we happen to exist in a universe that has these constants.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Without the precise adjustments which are in place today, there would
be no possibility of life for there would be no possibility of matter;
there could be no stars, no galaxies, no planets – and no matter. </i></blockquote>
Do you have another universe with just one constant slightly modified to prove this? Neither do I. therefore I can't say, and neither can you, that one tiny change would result in an inability for life to form. It may be that slightly different rules just produce slightly different criteria for life, and wildly different rules produce life the likes of which we wouldn't understand. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i> For
example, the Universe might have come into existence through the Big
Bang explosion – and then almost immediately just collapsed back upon
itself; or the Universe might have flung apart before any matter could
coalesce into solid objects such as stars or planets.</i></blockquote>
This might have happened any number of times, actually. The way the early universe formed in the inflation, we can't actually see the CMB and stuff beyond a certain point. We know mathematically how the laws separated out in some cases, but beyond the earliest point we can view, we can't see any more. It's entirely possible that it was actually a massive time/space flux before that, that acted exactly as was just described or something. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>To be clear, it is not that some other form of life-form might have
arisen without the precise fine-tuning in existence today such as in a
fanciful Star Trek episode; there would have been no matter from which
life might have arisen. </i></blockquote>
Except that most of the life forms are biological and could exist within the constraints of this set of laws of physics in the star trek universe. I don't think you quite understand this point. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i> It turns out that the production of matter, the
“elements” with which we are all so familiar such as carbon, oxygen,
iron and uranium, requires accurate adjustment of multiple constants of
nature, and it also turns out that these constants of nature do not have
to be their current value.</i></blockquote>
Fair enough, it is what it is because that's how it is and it doesn't necessarily have to be this way. We can't say for sure that it can be any other way, but it's true it doesn't have to be as it is. That rock up there, it could've broken along different lines, or fewer lines, or whatever. It doesn't mean the rock can't break unless it forms exactly on those cracks, though. It doesn't mean that if it cracked on other lines, it would suddenly become a rhinoceros, either. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<i>Two Kinds of Fine Tuning</i></h3>
</blockquote>
Or none. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>There are two kinds of fine-tuning,</i></blockquote>
Or there's not... <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>Forces of nature</b>. The first type of fine-tuning involves the constant of nature such as those holding the nucleus of an atom together, the gravitational constant, or the speed of light. A “constant” is a law of nature that appears in mathematical equations
that stand for unchanging quantities. </i></blockquote>
These are based upon observations, mind you. The speed of light is C, for example. Traveling faster than the speed of light is potentially the same as moving backward in time, for example, and photons do this all the time. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sdIiyncfPFU/WwGTcNOcdOI/AAAAAAAAmhw/0l5NBNbUN745BIyuVvor8-BM8Om37ULqgCLcBGAs/s1600/Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="287" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-sdIiyncfPFU/WwGTcNOcdOI/AAAAAAAAmhw/0l5NBNbUN745BIyuVvor8-BM8Om37ULqgCLcBGAs/s1600/Feynmann_Diagram_Gluon_Radiation.svg.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">See this thing right here?<br />
Feynman Diagram.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But yes, it's true, we observe lots of forces acting consistently, in exactly the same way we observe cracks happening where rocks split. Again, it doesn't mean that someone created the cracks exactly where they were just because they happen to be there, and just because they happen to be between pieces of rock, rather than somewhere else.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>The laws of nature do not
determine the values of these constants. </i></blockquote>
Well, you're wrong. The constants describe the laws, more or less. Even if they change, or if they are different in other universes, those are still their laws, with their constants, one being related to the other. Exactly like if the rock cracked differently, the crack (let's pretend it's a constant) still describes the bounds of the pieces of the rock (let's pretend it's the laws). They do actually determine one another <i>because that's how constants and laws work, even if they're different from ours.</i> <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>There potentially could be
other universes governed by the same laws of nature even though these
constants have very different values. </i></blockquote>
Correct. Or they could be completely different laws with the same constants. Either way, one will determine the other. The dark matter that affects how things work in our universe might well be the exact opposite laws (anti-gravity where we have gravity) yet have the same constants, for example. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Depending upon these constants,
universes governed by the same laws of nature would look very different
</i></blockquote>
Correct. Although, you wouldn't be able to look at it, because light probably wouldn't work the same, etc. It's very hard to think how different universes might act because we probably will be fundamentally unable to ever observe one in any meaningful way, even with advanced technology etc.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><b>Arbitrary quantities</b>. In addition to physical
constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are present initial conditions of the Universe upon which the laws of nature operate.
Because these quantities are arbitrary, they are also not determined by
the laws of nature.</i></blockquote>
I can't make sense of this statement. Let's see if it gets any clearer.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>An example of an “arbitrary quantity” would be the amount of
thermodynamic disorder (or “entropy”) in the early universe. It is just
given in the initial big bang as an initial condition and then the laws
of nature take over and determine how the universe would then develop.
If these initial conditions had been different, then the laws again the
Universe would look very different. If there had been less order or
more order in the initial big bang conditions, then our Universe would
not be able to have intelligent life – or even any life at all.</i></blockquote>
So it's basically the first argument turned inside-out? If the rock was larger or smaller, then it couldn't possibly be a rock? A bigger rock with different cracks couldn't possibly form? <br />
<br />
Also, ignoring how this doesn't make any sense, unless they've got another universe to reference, they can't say whether or not any given configuration of laws/constants can lead to life, and then to intelligent life. It's like Douglas Adams described here...<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/v8mJr4c66bs/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/v8mJr4c66bs?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
It's a bit like saying that only one puddle can ever exist because other puddles are different, and therefore this specific puddle is the only one that could ever have slime or whatever grow in it. It's very silly.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Another example of an “arbitrary quantity” might be the rate of
expansion (“inflation”) of the early Universe. Too much inflation and
the Universe would fly apart; too little and the Universe would
eventually collapse back into a hugely dense mass of plasma; either way,
no life could exist.</i></blockquote>
"Might be..." See, that's the problem. You can't say 'it has to be exactly the way I think it is because this or that might have happened if it wasn't.' Aliens might have probed my brain, you see, so it's a good thing aliens don't exist, otherwise it means that my brain would be probed, therefore aliens might not exist, especially if there's only ten aliens. If there were twenty aliens, that would just be too many for some reason, so there can only be ten aliens because there were none...<br />
<br />
You can see how this reasoning falls apart, I hope. Cracks under pressure, as it were...<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Several examples of fine tuning, an estimation of their precision, and their importance are provided here.</i></blockquote>
No, they aren't. That table up there is just showing us the values of several constants, as well as our certainty to how correct they are <u><b><i>in this universe</i></b></u>. <br />
<br />
Anyway, that's where I'm gonna leave it. Time to start on my next video! Thanks for tuning in!!acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-43335304276051322252018-04-22T16:22:00.003-07:002018-05-24T17:01:29.179-07:00Cool Creators #13: Camille and Kennerly (The Harp Twins)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This is a post in a series about creators I enjoy.<br /><br />Today I'd like
to introduce you to the harp twins, Camille and Kennerly. They are
known primarily for their harp covers of popular songs, which feature
each generally playing her own harp. Generally, their videos are shot
in high quality in a rustic-looking location as they perform the piece.
They have a range of harp sizes to accommodate all styles of music, and
generally make quite enjoyable content.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /><br /><iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KPb20fK0R94/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KPb20fK0R94?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
I'm also a fan of Iron Maiden so...</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
This is a good example of what you can expect from them. If you enjoy
unusual instruments and good music, this is the channel for you.
Here's an older video to give you some idea of how they've adapted over
time. Also another catchy tune.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Rx4-yryopy0/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rx4-yryopy0?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />If you enjoyed that, be sure to follow them on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5X8wA2pn9sbD765c-rmkMg" target="_blank">Youtube</a> to see when they create new content! You can also follow them on <a href="https://twitter.com/CamilleKennerly" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and see when they're touring near you, for example.<br /><br />Thanks again for tuning in, and stay tuned next time for another creator I enjoy!<br /><br /></div>
acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-9178562555908457662018-04-09T18:13:00.002-07:002018-04-09T18:13:32.314-07:00Cool Creators #12: ViHartThis is a post in a series about creators I enjoy.<br /><br />Today I'd like to introduce you to ViHart. There's a good chance you're already familiar with her. ViHart is a youtube creator, among other things. Her iconic style and voice are instantly recognizable, and most of her videos involve math of some sort. Take a look at this video, for example, probably the most famous video she's put out to date.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /><br /><br /><iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/VIVIegSt81k/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VIVIegSt81k?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
This is a classic example of the way in which she explains complex
topics in simple ways, so that nearly anyone can understand to some
degree. My favorite videos tend to be the ones about music though, and
this is one of my personal favorites.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /><iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AVo0Q8G8tS8/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AVo0Q8G8tS8?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />She is also an accomplished mathematician, and you can find her website <a href="http://vihart.com/" target="_blank">here</a>. Be sure to follow her on <a href="https://twitter.com/vihartvihart" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, too!<br /><br />Thanks for tuning in!<br /><br />Stay tuned next time, when I introduce you to another creator I enjoy!acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-50762886117078540912018-03-27T16:13:00.000-07:002018-03-27T16:13:37.852-07:00Youtube tomfoolery<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PQQV_JfXCao/WrrO6CmsNPI/AAAAAAAAl-A/U8TO2uDIqA8cnVpAlNZT1BHjx5I65xrrgCLcBGAs/s1600/FUCKING%2BYOUTUBE.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="819" data-original-width="1559" height="168" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PQQV_JfXCao/WrrO6CmsNPI/AAAAAAAAl-A/U8TO2uDIqA8cnVpAlNZT1BHjx5I65xrrgCLcBGAs/s320/FUCKING%2BYOUTUBE.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Apparently youtube thinks I would like to watch kids shows, nursery rhymes, and so on, from channels I'm not even subscribed to.<br /><br />I'm watching PhillyD. I'm subscribed to people like Mundane Matt, PewDiePie, Bearing, and other channels that are definitely more closely related to him than any of these suggestions.<br /><br />Is youtube just blatantly spamming people now? I pay for Red so I don't have to have advertisements. If I let autoplay go, I'd end up watching whatever stuff this is.<br /><br />Youtube appears to be losing its sanity as of late. So weird.acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-90437486313018721752018-03-14T14:35:00.002-07:002018-03-14T14:35:52.860-07:00Rest in peace, Stephen Hawking.Stephen Hawking passed away today. Here's a good video about him and his achievements.<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EsNjHaKwN5E/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EsNjHaKwN5E?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>"A still more glorious dawn awaits..."</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>-Carl Sagan</i></div>
</blockquote>
acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-90607759114582431602018-03-13T15:15:00.000-07:002018-04-09T18:02:26.081-07:00Cool Creators #11: Bill WurtzThis is a post in a series about creators I enjoy.<br />
<br />
Today's creator I would like to introduce you to is Bill Wurtz. He has been around for quite some time, and his unique style is fun to observe. His videos, for example, are very well produced and have a purposefully slapdash feel, with heavy contrasts in color and mood. Most of his videos are fairly short, but more recently they've become longer. Check this one out, I really dig it.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xuCn8ux2gbs/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xuCn8ux2gbs?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
I think it is safe to say that his style is unique among creators, on youtube or elsewhere.<br />
<br />
Bill also has a <a href="http://www.billwurtz.com/" target="_blank">website</a>, where you can ask him various questions, or view most of his previous work. He also has a <a href="https://twitter.com/billwurtz" target="_blank">twitter</a> where he apparently makes one post per day. If you enjoy his work, be sure to subscribe, so you can be the first to know when his new creations arrive!<br />
<br />
Thanks for tuning in! Stay tuned for more short blog posts on creators I enjoy!acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-6371348373239573512018-03-10T20:58:00.002-08:002018-04-09T18:02:25.880-07:00Cool Creators #10: Poisoning The WellThis is a post in a series of posts about creators I enjoy.<br />
<br />
Today I'd like to introduce you to Poisoning The Well, a comedy duo who consistently creates social commentary videos in a humorous manner. Each video is well produced and timely, and addresses a current event in the social media sphere. From the skeptic clone uproar to the dawn of internet bloodsports, PhatPat and SoFain give their unique style and spin to the events that shape our online lives. Take for example this video, perhaps the best video on this channel, regarding whether or not dogs have <strike>boobs</strike> brains, I mean. Do dogs have brains? The intro's a bit long on this one, but I guarantee you'll enjoy it, or your <strike>melons</strike> money back!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0f0pLpu0MIc/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0f0pLpu0MIc?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
The epitome of high-brow entertainment.</div>
<br />
If you enjoyed that, be sure to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/zombiewerewolfproduc" target="_blank">subscribe</a> for all their new content IN REAL TIME! You can also find <complete id="goog_400662651"><a href="https://twitter.com/sofain" target="_blank">SoFain</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/PatrickJolle" target="_blank">Phatpat</a> on twitter. They can also be followed on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/PPtheWell/" target="_blank">facebook</a>, and I hear they have a functional <a href="http://poisoningthewell.net/" target="_blank">website resting at this domain</a>.<br /><br />Stay tuned next time as we look at other great creators that I enjoy. Thanks for tuning in!</complete>acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-73021721216366994972018-03-08T18:03:00.002-08:002018-04-09T18:02:25.960-07:00Cool Creators #9: RawmanThis is a post in a series I'm doing on creators I enjoy.<br /><br />Seems that I missed a few days, sorry about that y'all. I got kinda busy and sidetracked.<br /><br />Today I'd like to introduce you to one of my favorite creators, Rawman. He is a self-professed grime rapper with an affection for video games and formal complaints.<br /><br />This video here is indicative of his style, and I think you'll enjoy it. This one particularly is a review of a movie he really enjoyed, and you can see his passion for it.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FsCBMnzh06U/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FsCBMnzh06U?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
You can also find Rawman on <a href="https://twitter.com/RelaxedRawman" target="_blank">Twitter</a> if that's your kind of thing. Don't forget to subscribe if you enjoy his content.<br /><br />Stay tuned next time when we look at another of my favorite creators!acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-61758616307412812752018-02-19T16:00:00.002-08:002018-04-09T18:02:25.839-07:00Cool Creators #8: The Captain's Stuff and ThingsThis is a post in a series about creators I really enjoy.<br /><br />Today I'm going to be introducing you to one of my favorite YouTube response channels. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBAwbocUABsQlMukuZbOrow/" target="_blank">The Captain</a> has a fairly straightforward response channel. The thing that makes his channel stick out is the style of animation used for the various characters, which are all voiced by him!<br /><br />Go take a look here and see what I mean. This was a good video.<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/P62bpfHa9Cg/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P62bpfHa9Cg?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />The captain is one of my favorite response-type channels. Go check him on <a href="https://twitter.com/TheCaptainFAS" target="_blank">Twitter</a> for more high-sailing shenanigans! <br /><br />Stay tuned next time when we check out another creator!acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-86209225957417498262018-02-18T12:26:00.001-08:002018-04-09T18:02:26.040-07:00Cool Creators #7: Jeph JacquesThis is a post in a series about creators I enjoy.<br />
<br />
Today's creator is Jeph Jacques, and he's primarily known for his webcomic series <a href="http://www.questionablecontent.net/" target="_blank">Questionable Content</a>, though he has a great many other creative endeavors. <br />
<br />
His art style has improved greatly since strip number one, and has also changed over time.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5A5ANDrJ9jA/WonfxQs0mEI/AAAAAAAAll4/cIs0LhgZezs4kvcrPYCz9K7QaFaQw5NBgCLcBGAs/s1600/JEPH.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="1000" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5A5ANDrJ9jA/WonfxQs0mEI/AAAAAAAAll4/cIs0LhgZezs4kvcrPYCz9K7QaFaQw5NBgCLcBGAs/s400/JEPH.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I made a collage of images from the various eras of style found on QC comic.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Jeph also has other webcomic adventures, like those found at <a href="http://www.alicegrove.com/page/220" target="_blank">Alice Grove</a>, or <a href="http://dord.horse/">dord.horse</a> for example. He also had a bit of a spate with walmart over a <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvxjva/why-is-walmart-so-upset-with-a-guy-for-photoshopping-this-picture-of-a-horse-in-front-of-one-of-its-stores" target="_blank">horse</a>. Jeph is also known for his soundcloud, where he uploads music occasionally. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<iframe allow="autoplay" frameborder="no" height="450" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/297097843&color=%23b7306b&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&show_teaser=true&visual=true" width="100%"></iframe><br /><br />There's a song I rather liked. Hopefully you will enjoy it also. You can find <a href="https://twitter.com/jephjacques" target="_blank">Jeph on Twitter</a> as well, where he's fairly active.<br /><br />If you like what he does, be sure to follow him on soundcloud or add QC to your feed reader, so you can keep up with the various things he does.<br /><br />Stay tuned for more blog posts discussing creators I really enjoy!acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-41544084128851178072018-02-18T11:53:00.001-08:002018-04-09T18:02:09.826-07:00Cool Creators #6: Steve TerreberryThis is a post in a series, of creators I enjoy. Perhaps you can enjoy them too!<br /><br />Today we're going to be taking a look at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/SteveTerreberry/" target="_blank">Steve Terreberry</a>, a cool creator whose main focus is on music. He has a very unique and quirky style, and a generally family-friendly approach to video creation and presentation. Steve is most well known for his Youtube channel I believe, and here is one of my favorite videos from him. It's been around a little while now, but it's the kind of content I really do prefer from creators like this.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/W50Qu-KNQSY/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W50Qu-KNQSY?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /></div>
This puts him squarely in the domain of other big names you might
recognize, a few of whom I plan to cover in future installments of this
series. Education is not the forefront of his channel, but you can
still learn quite a bit about some of the more obscure or abstract
aspects of music theory, like you can find in this video discussing ten
of the longest spanned chords on guitar.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7S6IvCo7zo4/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7S6IvCo7zo4?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />This video starts with an advert from StevieT, which is becoming a trend with most youtubers at this point, so that's fair. His Youtube channel claims that he has a facebook, but I was only able to find him on <a href="https://www.instagram.com/steventerreberry/" target="_blank">Instagram</a>, which I don't really use much, so I don't know how active he is there.<br /><br />Steve generally has a a video or two every week, and he's changed format a bit recently to do more blog-like videos, which are also entertaining.<br /><br />If you enjoyed him, be sure to hit that subscribe button so you can see all the newest content when he posts it. Stay tuned next time as we look at another cool creator!acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-81496903556419919972018-02-12T15:51:00.001-08:002018-02-14T16:43:04.676-08:00DARWIN DAY !!!<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LVwIP8oyxuA/WoIZXZbFRJI/AAAAAAAAljQ/xqVZr65YSEIC9ftNe7wcD_gZImX1GkqHgCLcBGAs/s1600/darwin-day-300x227.png.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="227" data-original-width="300" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LVwIP8oyxuA/WoIZXZbFRJI/AAAAAAAAljQ/xqVZr65YSEIC9ftNe7wcD_gZImX1GkqHgCLcBGAs/s1600/darwin-day-300x227.png.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">That's not how evolution works, Eric.<br />Quit listening to your dad.<br />He went to jail for lying, after all.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So, I came across this gem from Eric Hovind himself.<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Today is Questioin Evolution Day! Time to face the facts!<a href="https://t.co/z3CyzIT1oS">https://t.co/z3CyzIT1oS</a> <a href="https://t.co/pwhTTbUPCm">https://t.co/pwhTTbUPCm</a></div>
— Eric Hovind (@erichovind) <a href="https://twitter.com/erichovind/status/963178817043955713?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
Let's jump right into it.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-weight: 400;">It’s February, and you know what that means; decadent chocolate, dainty hearts, dazzling jewelry . . . and Darwin Day!</span></i></blockquote>
I can understand, you don't want some dead guy who died more recently to eclipse the day of Saint Valentine who may not have even existed, and who allegedly died earlier. <br /><br />I'm kinda with you on this one, though. I don't want people two hundred years from now to associate Darwin with ....<br /><br />Oh wait this is actually the perfect holiday to associate him with actually. CARRY ON!<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-weight: 400;">That’s right! Every year, on February
12th, an increasing number of individuals, organizations, schools, and
even governments commemorate the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth.
But who was Charles Darwin and what are we celebrating?</span></i></blockquote>
Darwin is pretty famous. I think his works speak for themselves, but be sure to pick up a copy of The Journey of the Beagle, or The Origin of Species, and give them a read, if you haven't already.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Charles Robert Darwin (12 Feb 1809 – 19
April 1882) was an English naturalist, geologist, and biologist.</span></i></blockquote>
Correct. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-weight: 400;">He is
best known for popularizing the theory of Natural Selection, which
eventually led to the wide acceptance of molecules to man evolution.</span></i></blockquote>
No, you're thinking of Abiogenesis, and I think you know it. Also, that's your term, not his. Abiogenesis isn't part of evolution. Evolution is what comes after abiogenesis completes. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-weight: 400;">According to the “Darwin Day” website, “The mission of International
Darwin Day is to inspire people throughout the globe to reflect and act
on the principles of intellectual bravery, perpetual curiosity,
scientific thinking, and hunger for truth as embodied in Charles Darwin.</span></i></blockquote>
Seems <a href="http://darwinday.org/about/" target="_blank">legit</a>. Carry on.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Just last month, a bill was
re-introduced to the US House and Senate by Representative Jim Himes
(D-CT) requesting US participation in an international celebration of
Darwin Day. The bill, </span><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/699"><span style="font-weight: 400;">H. Res. 699</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">,
states that Darwin Day exists to “celebrate the discoveries and life of
Darwin and to express gratitude for the enormous benefits that
scientific knowledge has contributed to the advancement of humanity.” </span></i></blockquote>
Christmas wasn't declared a legal holiday until 1870 either. This is how we get holidays recognized legally. Should we not do that, is that what you're going to argue?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-weight: 400;">There’s nothing wrong with fostering
an appreciation for science and the advancement of knowledge. </span></i></blockquote>
MURRIKA! <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-weight: 400;">But
national participation in “Darwin Day” is rather curious... </span></i></blockquote>
So is labor day, arbor day, earth day, halloween, and many other holidays, religious or otherwise. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-weight: 400;">...considering the
fact that Darwinian evolution has been losing ground as a viable
scientific theory for a generation or more. </span></i></blockquote>
This is the part where we point out <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed" target="_blank">[citation needed]</a> and carry on. It hasn't been 'losing ground.' It's a theory, and in science that means it's as excellent a basis for forming your worldview as you can get.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-weight: 400;"></span>
<i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Don’t take my word for it. According to </span><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/699"><span style="font-weight: 400;">H. Res. 699</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, by supporting the bill, “members of Congress are dedicated to promoting science and are opposed to </span><b>the growing influence of creationism</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> in our public schools.” [emphasis added]</span></i></blockquote>
Well, congress doesn't want a growing influence of a particular subset of religions to appear as though it's endorsed by the government. You, of all people, should be happy the government isn't endorsing the greco-roman creation myths. I thought you were Christian, after all. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Secularists are passing a bill to celebrate the life of Charles
Darwin because they fear the growing influence of creationism. </i></blockquote>
Exactly as Christians got Christmas to be a holiday in 1870 because they feared the opposite. Do I hear some special pleading?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Despite
the fact that secular humanism has gradually taken over the textbooks,
museum displays, TV programs, and children’s literature for the past
seventy years, Darwinian Evolution continues to crumble.</i></blockquote>
Yeah, I'm kinda glad kids aren't studying the Bible for the contradictions listed in it. I'm kinda glad kids aren't tuning into programs like those run by Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen, or Pat Robertson, to learn how to be a cranky old jerk. I'm kinda glad kids aren't visiting creationist museums and bible walks for things like natural history. I'm very glad that Jack Chick isn't around anymore to poison children's minds with such lovely things as tracts so bad they had to be banned.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/K10QFhLw-ck/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K10QFhLw-ck?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Even though Jake blocked me on twitter,<br />I still stand with him in saying "FUCK JACK CHICK."</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-weight: 400;">This year, instead of a celebration
in honor of Charles Darwin, let’s encourage others to exert intellectual
bravery, exercise perpetual curiosity, exude scientific thinking, and
most importantly, embody a hunger for truth by </span><b>questioning</b><span style="font-weight: 400;"> the claims of Darwinian Evolution.</span></i></blockquote>
This year, instead of a celebration in honor of Jesus like four times, let's encourage others to exert those same traits by also questioning the claims of Evolution.<br /><br />That's what science means, Eric. Science means questioning your beliefs and data and methods. Scientists try to find the things that are wrong, so they can be addressed or corrected or added into the hypothesis, if they appear correct. It is all by questioning that we got to understand evolution, and then refine it to explain nature better, and so on. I agree, children, question it. It's for the good of humanity! It's important to question it rigorously though, and to question other ideas, too, like if a man raised from the dead, walked on water, turned water into wine, or once put a spell on a tree to curse it to die.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h3>
<i><b>IDEAS FOR “DOUBT DARWIN DAY”</b></i></h3>
</blockquote>
Haha alright. I can get behind this maybe. Editor's note: all the numbers turned into 1 when I separated them to discuss them.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;"><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Invite friends over for finger foods and a</span><a href="http://creationtoday.org/?s=darwin&post_type=product"> <span style="font-weight: 400;">movie about Darwin</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span></i></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
Go for it! Alternately, you could invite them over to actually read parts from his books and discuss them. Maybe check out AronRa and his <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91UAzMNUDLU" target="_blank">series on falsifying phylogeny</a>.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;"><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Invite a</span><a href="http://creationtoday.org/about/request-an-event/"> <span style="font-weight: 400;">Creation Speaker</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> to speak to your church or group.</span></i></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
Better yet, ask your church to get a real scientist in, like many of the anthropologists or biologists. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;"><i><a href="http://creationtoday.org/events"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Find an event</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> already planned for your area.</span></i></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
You could also create your own event, like a fossil 'easter egg' hunt, to demonstrate how fossils are found and recovered from stone!<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;"><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Print</span><a href="http://creation.com/images/pdfs/flyers/15-questions-for-evolutionists-s.pdf"> <span style="font-weight: 400;">“15 Questions for Evolutionists”</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> and distribute.</span></i></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
OOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH SNAP! Gotta make a video on that one. Stay tuned to my youtube channel. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;"><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Share the </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/genesis3Dmovie"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Genesis: Paradise Lost Trailer</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> on Social Media</span></i></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
You could also share this:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JHFjEybguak/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JHFjEybguak?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br /><span id="goog_1271954103"></span><span id="goog_1271954104"></span>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;"><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Sport your favorite creation</span><a href="http://creationtoday.org/product-category/gifts-and-apparel/"><span style="font-weight: 400;"> T-shirt or Mug.</span></a></i></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
You could also buy a shirt <a href="http://shop.telltaleatheist.com/" target="_blank">here at telltale's shop</a> instead.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;"><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Engage the culture with</span><a href="http://creationtoday.org/?s=tracts&post_type=product"> <span style="font-weight: 400;">tracts</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> on evolution.</span></i></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
Your local library has copies of The Ancestor's Tale, which is also a good read on evolution. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<ol>
<li style="font-weight: 400;"><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Pre-order </span><a href="http://creationtoday.org/?s=genesis+paradise+lost&submit=Search&post_type=product"><span style="font-weight: 400;">Genesis: Paradise Lost</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> from The Creation Store.</span></i></li>
</ol>
</blockquote>
No, don't.<br /><br />And that's the end of the article! Tune in next time.<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-34676725080957753792018-02-12T14:23:00.001-08:002018-04-09T18:02:09.782-07:00Cool Creators #5: AronRaThis is a series on creators I enjoy.<br /><br />Today featured creator is AronRa, who is most well known for his educational series on evolution, biology and phylogeny. Give a listen here to his series on the systematic classification of life, and you'll get a sense of how his fast-paced delivery of words that would tangle the tongues of a less astute person is second nature.<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/AXQP_R-yiuw/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AXQP_R-yiuw?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br /><br />AronRa is also an opponent of the Texas board of education, who are bent upon disseminating falsehood, half-truth, and outright abdication of history. The Texas BoE is responsible for the major paradigms of what material enters textbooks for the school system by virtue of being the single largest purchaser of said textbooks. This means that primary and secondary school textbook publishers tend to print books based upon the standards set forth by Texas, and any inaccuracies or falsehoods which appear here also tend to appear in the vast majority of textbooks across the rest of the country.<br /><br />Below is a video from the Center for Inquiry in which he gives a speech on the nature of the indoctrination of creationism in the Texas curriculum.<br /><span id="goog_62540897"></span><span id="goog_62540898"></span><br /><br /><span id="goog_62540895"></span><span id="goog_62540896"></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/N0e21oaUDeU/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N0e21oaUDeU?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br /><br />Please be sure to subscribe to AronRa if you enjoy this content. You can also find him on <a href="https://twitter.com/Aron_Ra" target="_blank">Twitter</a>. <br /><br />Thanks for tuning in, and stay tuned for more!<br /><span id="goog_62540893"></span><span id="goog_62540894"></span>acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-82552129651456923412018-02-12T13:45:00.000-08:002018-04-09T18:02:10.083-07:00Cool Creators! #1: 3Blue1BrownToday I've decided that I'll start a blog series about various creators I enjoy. Each day I'll make a blog post with a featured creator of my choice, keeping it short so that you can get right into the fun!<br />
<br />
Today I'd like to introduce you to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYO_jab_esuFRV4b17AJtAw" target="_blank">3Blue1Brown</a>, a Youtube Creator who does interesting videos primarily relating to math. Here's his most recent video at the time of writing this article.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/spUNpyF58BY/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/spUNpyF58BY?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
It's a very good video on the Fourier transform. He uses a very distinctive style of animation to explain complex mathematical ideas in a way that most anyone can understand.<br />
<br />
If you enjoy his work be sure to subscribe, and also check him out on <a href="https://twitter.com/3blue1brown" target="_blank">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/3blue1brown" target="_blank">Facebook</a> as well!<br />
<br />
I think his videos speak for themselves, so that's going to be the end of this one.<br />
<br />
Let me know what you think down in the comments, and don't forget to check out my social media to the right hand side as well. There's also a link to my RSS feed in the dooblydoo, so you can check out all the stuff I post when it's new!<br />
<br />
Thanks for tuning in! acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-23004871620912064672018-02-11T16:49:00.003-08:002018-04-09T18:02:09.736-07:00Cool Creators #4: Telltale AtheistThis is a post in a series about creators I enjoy.<br /><br />Today we'll be looking at Telltale Atheist, a Youtube Creator and ex-Jehova's Witness.<br /><br />Telltale runs a Youtube channel where he creates videos exposing the poisonous aspects of JW culture that you might not be familiar with, as well as those of other religions and cults. He shares his stories in a format which showcases his art style in a complimentary fashion.<br /><br />Here's his most popular video, wherein he responds to the Watchtower society's propaganda which is used to indoctrinate children into the faith.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Hm2INWMyv7A/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Hm2INWMyv7A?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
This is an excellent video which demonstrates the style and approach you will find in all of his videos. Be sure to subscribe if you have an interest in this sort of video. You can also find Telltale on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/telltaleatheist" target="_blank">Facebook</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/telltaleatheist" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, and his <a href="https://discord.gg/BGrKtu2" target="_blank">Discord </a>server.<br /><br />Thanks for tuning in!acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-65522509999903082622018-02-11T16:38:00.000-08:002018-04-09T18:02:09.997-07:00Cool Creators #3: Galactic Bubble ProductionsThis is part of a series I'm starting to highlight some creators I like.<br />
<br />
Today let's take a look at Galactic Bubble Productions, one of my favorite Youtube Creators.<br />
<br />
The channel is run by a lad named Byro, and he does some kick-butt music. Here's one of my favorite videos he's made so far, because I rather enjoy his hard edge and animation style.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bJaESry8A4c/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bJaESry8A4c?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Don't let the thumbnail cause you to pass up this great piece of
art. Banjo has a unique style of taking apart and analyzing current
issues, as well as incorporating various animated vignettes on his live
streams. I do wish he weren't so hard on poor Johnny though. Here's a
recent stream he did that I found very enjoyable, and I hope you will
too!<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Hq9ELrWX4oE/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Hq9ELrWX4oE?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
If you enjoy Byro then be sure to subscribe for more great content just like this, and follow him on <a href="https://twitter.com/GalacticByro" target="_blank">Twitter</a> for maximum engagement.<br />
<br />
Thanks for tuning in!acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-54541406720287178562018-02-10T15:08:00.003-08:002018-04-09T18:02:09.869-07:00Cool Creators! #2: The 8-Bit Guy / 8-Bit KeysCool Creators is a blog series I'm starting which will share channels I enjoy with you.<br /><br />Today I'd like to introduce you to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/adric22" target="_blank">The 8-Bit Guy</a>, who runs the channel of his name, as well as the channel <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcTt3O4_IW5gnA0c58eXshg" target="_blank">8-Bit Keys</a>.<br /><br />The 8-Bit Guy does videos primarily on the computing tech from the 1980s and earlier. This includes unboxing of various sorts of equipment, as well as restorations, programming reviews, and overviews of new retro gadgets.<br /><br />Here's an example of a video I found interesting, and I think you might enjoy also, even if you have only a passing interested in antique computing equipment.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Nu-Hoj4EIjU/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Nu-Hoj4EIjU?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
It's a video on light-sensing technologies that you might be familiar with, which were popular at the time.<br /><br />The next video I'm going to show you is the newest one at time of writing, and it's about various new toy keyboards. VERY INFORMATIVE! VERY ENTERTAINING!<br /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IBak46asLlA/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IBak46asLlA?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br /><br />I thoroughly recommend subscribing to both of his channels if you enjoy this kind of content. Please also check him out on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/the8bitguy" target="_blank">Facebook</a> if you want more interaction with him! <br /><br />Thanks for tuning in!acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-29204565986306233172018-01-13T13:45:00.000-08:002018-01-13T13:45:52.252-08:00Evolution and SoulToday I'd like to respond to this person.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
If we go back to the Theory of Evolution, then perhaps, you would ask this question : If the origin of humans was from apes, then why has ape species still existed today and not all have becomes humans ?..........</div>
— Kerta Sasmita (@GreenKerta) <a href="https://twitter.com/GreenKerta/status/951308581873139714?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 11, 2018</a></blockquote>
<br />
I mean, I already did, but I feel as though I can do a more satisfactory job in a blog post.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Why are all apes not humans?"</blockquote>
This is a fairly common question. There's many reasons for this, but it's simplest to think of the various species of ape (including human) when compared with the various species or sub-species (breeds) of dog. Other apes still exist for the same reason that more than one kind of dog exists. First, there's not a selection pressure against having more than one type of ape. Hyenas and wolves still exist together, in the same way Dalmatian and fox terrier dog breeds exist together.<br />
<br />
There is, for example, no special selection pressures that caused one or the other to die off. As long as both can survive, both will survive. For a striking modern example of how species diverge, you can look at the horse and donkey. They are very recently diverged, as we were at one time from Neanderthals, for example. Horses and donkeys can breed to produce mules or hinnies, or the horses can breed only with other horses and produces horses. The fact that donkeys exist doesn't stop horses from also existing. Eventually, horses and donkeys will become isolated enough (through genetic changes) that they will be two completely distinct species. Humans and the other remaining great apes have already passed this point some 100,000 years ago perhaps. If there were still neanderthals, we might be able to breed with them, but it would be at least as difficult as a horse/donkey producing a mule.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Thank You....., you said that the same reason there are different
species and subspecies of dog. But the question is, is one species of
dog smarter than the other species. Humans clearly surpasses apes, what
cause it, if not an evolution of the soul ?. Thank you.........."</blockquote>
Intellect doesn't really matter in evolution. Sure, it helps, but so long as a species can keep producing offspring, it will tend to do so. The question of why humans are smarter can be answered by a few points. First, humans managed to walk upright by some chance more readily than most other apes. We also seem to have worked together in a different way from the other apes. This allowed us the opportunity to make chance discoveries (like how alcohol is made) that led us to become a more social species than the other apes in this regard. We also discovered something the other apes don't seem to have figured out, which is agriculture. Once we learned that we can reliably produce our own food in this way, we found time to learn things not strictly related to survival.<br />
<br />
This general trend happened because smarter individuals had some advantage in regards to producing more offspring. For example, this also introduced a massive amount of sexual dimorphism which is also mainly only present to this extent in humans. This is to say, for example, perhaps among early male hominids, the male who could reliably create functional shelter happened to mate more often with more female members, thus passing on his genes that led to better shelters being developed. Thus, the offspring who did the best of the next generation would amplify this effect a tiny bit, and so on.<br />
<br />
This was further amplified when agriculture and education became widespread, as it meant that ever more time could be devoted to things which were not strictly relating to survival. Perhaps a particularly attractive male would happen to have to work less and would get a longer life and thereby more chances to procreate than some competitors. All of these things work together, not individually.<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Thanks friend, but that's not what I meant. I'll try to explains here through the snowball parable, let's say, there are two snowballs, one was being rolled first, and the other rolled later, which snowball do you think that will get bigger first ?, surely the first one, right ?. <a href="https://t.co/vUzRtLHx6I">pic.twitter.com/vUzRtLHx6I</a></div>
— Kerta Sasmita (@GreenKerta) <a href="https://twitter.com/GreenKerta/status/952017451570536448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 13, 2018</a></blockquote>
<br />
I explained in response that not all snowballs move equally fast. If one species appears later, for example, but happens to have a very distinct advantage over another, it will generally use that advantage to the fullest to ensure progeny.<br />
<br />
I then also asked what relevance intelligence has to a soul. Are people who aren't as smart as another ape, perhaps through mental disability or misfortune of accident, or perhaps just a significantly smart other ape, do they lack a soul also?<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
If this snowball symbolize the soul, then both smart and stupid people must have souls, but the size of the snowball shows the load of knowledge and experience that has been gained along the way, smart people have more knowledge and experience than ignorant people..........</div>
— Kerta Sasmita (@GreenKerta) <a href="https://twitter.com/GreenKerta/status/952017999552135168?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 13, 2018</a></blockquote>
I'm honestly not sure where she's going here, but an individual from a species doesn't tell us much about how it is evolving. Evolution is generally a slow process which takes many generations to observe. You don't have to take my word for it, though. Every time you get sick, it's due to some phage mutating and your body being unable to deal with it to some degree.<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
If there is no level in evolution or progression, why do bacteria appear much earlier ?, and then after that the insects, then the mammals, and why do humans appear last ? ..........</div>
— Kerta Sasmita (@GreenKerta) <a href="https://twitter.com/GreenKerta/status/952026450881691648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 13, 2018</a></blockquote>
<br />
Bacteria don't actually appear first. Simple amino chains appear much earlier. To the general point, however, humans are comprised entirely of simpler things. We are 90% things that most people wouldn't call human. <br />
<br />
The simplest organisms appear earliest because <i>it doesn't make any sense for a building to exist before we discover building materials.</i><br />
<br />
Bacteria still exist, after all, even incredibly simple ones, and the things they're made of are in everything that we call living. <br /><br />Similarly, humans don't appear last, any more than your cat or dog does. Every species is transitional, including us. Our ancestors were not humans, and our descendants some day will not be, either. Some very old species still exist, and every one of them shares a common ancestor with us. All animals and plants have a simpler relative that they shared in common.<br /><br />Imagine if you will, we send people to space to live forever, and they start a colony. Eventually, the humans that left, and the humans that didn't, will have ancestors who will not be able to breed together. It may take a few hundred thousand years, or it could be relatively rapid.<br /><br />We can see some traces today, even, of how some traits were inherited from those common ancestors a long time ago. HIV, for example, formed when one of our ancestral ape/monkey forebears ingested two different strains of SIV and then passed on this to its offspring. <br /><br />If we want to see a somewhat more modern example of a selection pressure, we can look at something like polio. Polio prevented a great many humans from producing children. This is an example of a selection pressure that can give an advantage to non-human species who aren't susceptible to Polio. Today, it's unlikely that humans would lose dominance to another group of apes, but when we were still diverging from them, if something had affected one of our competing species of apes, we would have filled in that vacuum.<br /><br />This is part of the reason why so much of the human expansion has happened across the world in the past 10,000 years or so, when the Neanderthals went extinct. Remember, they were able to breed with us. However, something happened that cause them to no longer be a selection pressure against us. Maybe we just happened to be more aggressive and wiped them out. Maybe a disease affected them that didn't affect us. Either way, this vacuum allowed us to gain dominance over them and build up society as we have. This sort of thing happened many times before as well, for example when the dinosaurs grew to epic proportions because the carbonaceous environment favored them and did not favor mammals. Dinosaurs and plants grew to be very diverse, while mammals had very few variations. <br /><br />Did the Tyrannosaurus Rex have a soul simply because it was the dominant species at that time? Did it become dominant by being smarter? WHO KILLED CAPTAIN ALEX?!<br /><br />Sorry, got carried away.<br /><br />Thanks for tuning in!<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7673171531961324532.post-59507103726613383362017-10-20T14:07:00.000-07:002017-10-20T14:07:57.412-07:00Response to Virginia, Part 1<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Today I am responding<a href="http://katakalypto.blogspot.com/2017/07/a-debate-with-columbia-university.html" target="_blank"> to this article</a>. This is a companion article to the following video, which is the first of (possibly many) parts:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="text-align: start;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i9.ytimg.com/vi/FHgFZCu0P_8/default.jpg?sqp=COzVpM8F&rs=AOn4CLDAuSef46sYbYPt4DcVCyyl_iMssg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FHgFZCu0P_8?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
This article will focus mainly on the specific questions posed by the author. Please do take some time to read the original article. There's also a second, follow-up response that's <span id="goog_122281766"></span><a href="http://katakalypto.blogspot.com/2017/07/debate-with-columbia-university.html" target="_blank">been written here</a> which I will also address in due time.<br />
<br />
Let us begin.<br />
<br />
The basic premise of the article, and subsequent exchanges, is as follows:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #1d2129;">I would ask you to list one contradiction in </span><a class="profileLink" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/hovercard.php?id=455726921151110&extragetparams=%7B%22hc_location%22%3A%22ufi%22%7D" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/BiblicalScienceInstitute/?hc_location=ufi" style="color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Jason Lisle</a><span style="color: #1d2129;">'s argument? What evidence proves him wrong?</span></span></i></blockquote>
<br />
I shall do my best.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: 12px;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">How do you know that there was no no six day creation, Adam, Eve, fall, or flood?</span></span></i></span></blockquote>
There's plenty of evidence to the contrary for each, however, let's give just a few simple examples, in the interest of brevity.<br />
<br />
The six-day creation of Genesis 1 is refuted, first and foremost, by Genesis 2. Genesis one tells us that god created water, then plants, then animals, then humans. Genesis 2 tells us god created humans, then created plants, then created water, then put man among them.<br />
<br />
I'm only putting this here to demonstrate that <i>the bible contradicts itself in these matters. </i>Also, Ken Ham blocked me on twitter for asking this, and I have as yet to receive an adequate response from anyone.<br />
<br />
We have many ways to determine that the earth was not created in a span of about two days (since the rest of creation was not related to creating earth, but rather the things upon it). There are various dating methods, we have tree ring records stretching back further, we have a genetic record, and so on. The stars are further from us than their light could reach in the six to ten millennia since those alleged five days.<br />
<br />
We can be certain there was no Adam and Eve for similar reasons we can be sure there was no flood. If the flood were worldwide, then Noah's family has the same problems for genetics as Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve <i>were </i>the first humans, then it means that Cain took his wives from the neighboring tribes which god didn't create. Alternately, it could mean that Cain's wives were Nephilim, but then that would mean that <i>the entire bloodline since is no more divine than those neighboring tribes, including Moses, Noah, Mary, Jesus, and so on.</i><br />
<br />
I could have brought up other things, like human ancestral fossils that are older than Adam and Eve, or the stories that Adam and Eve are copied from. I could have brought up that there are cave paintings dated to be several times older. However, as we will see, the bible is a <i>much </i>stronger motivator for their belief. At every turn, Virginia and her family dismiss any science they don't like. Dismissing the bible might prove a bit more difficult, for it would mean <i>you would have to call the bible incorrect to call my evidence incorrect. </i>I would much rather tell you about evolution, cosmology, astrology, physics, chemistry, and so on; but you don't want to hear about evolution just yet. You want to hear about what your bible has to say, so I'll present you with the same kind of arguments people presented to me when I believed in it.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">It is true that Dr. Lisle says that we look at the same evi</span></span><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">dence. In what way does this distort reality?</span></span></i></span></blockquote>
You have to accept all of the verifiable evidence. You can't simply dismiss some because it disagrees with the bible. Let us take here an example.<br />
<br />
The bible claims, in Genesis 9:13, that god created the rainbows as a promise he would never flood the earth again.<br />
<br />
Science has shown, however, that light is complicated. Light bends when it travels through different media. This is called 'refraction' and 'diffraction.' Things like water cause the light waves to separate. When this happens in the air, where the water is a vapor, we get the rainbow that everyone is familiar with.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b0AlPmjbDd4/Weky5yslyKI/AAAAAAAAjmk/hfL3ANmtcGQKXIBYB2yYChTljef37bGJgCKgBGAs/s1600/20170622_061717.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b0AlPmjbDd4/Weky5yslyKI/AAAAAAAAjmk/hfL3ANmtcGQKXIBYB2yYChTljef37bGJgCKgBGAs/s320/20170622_061717.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kKrsKzSf66w/Weky5wogrDI/AAAAAAAAjmk/ENQ0PqX5h48XZhdWZkoDZ8ZnNfQsBAzKgCKgBGAs/s1600/100_0360.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kKrsKzSf66w/Weky5wogrDI/AAAAAAAAjmk/ENQ0PqX5h48XZhdWZkoDZ8ZnNfQsBAzKgCKgBGAs/s320/100_0360.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">I love having an excuse to use my photography.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br />
Rainbows have been around since before the flood. The flood was not why rainbows were 'created.' Rainbows are not a covenant. Rainbows happen whether there was a flood or not. I can create a rainbow with a prism, or with a spray of water. These are two contradictory things.<br />
<br />
The evidence points to the fact that rainbows simply happen as a result of nature. The bible says that god created the first rainbow as a covenant after the flood that killed all but one small family. If you don't understand the science behind this, that's fine. Jason Lisle does understand the science behind this, but he would rather lie to you than try to educate you. I do not want to lie to you, so I must explain it to you as best I can, in the way you will best understand. Saying that god created it, rather than saying that it's because light bends, is one way of distorting the evidence.<br />
<br />
To be fair, the people who wrote the bible thought that light came from our eyes, and thus would not have known that light actually comes from sources like the sun, or a candle (and it's why genesis calls the moon a light). The idea that light comes from the eye is called the Emission Theory, and was originally framed as the story of the goddess Aphrodite crafting the eye, and then lighting the fire behind it.<br />
<br />
A little over one millennium ago, in the year 1012, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham" target="_blank">Ibn Al-Haytham</a> wrote the book of optics, first proving that this Emission Theory was incorrect.</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Alhazen%2C_the_Persian.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="302" height="320" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Alhazen%2C_the_Persian.gif" width="268" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This is Ibn Al-Haytham.<br />
He was a very smart man.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">We do look at the same evidence as evolutionists and creationists. We both look at the Grand Canyon for example.</span></span></i></span></blockquote>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Bridal_Veil_Falls%2C_Havasu_Canyon%2C_Grand_Canyon%2C_ca.1900_(CHS-4597).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="616" data-original-width="800" height="246" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Bridal_Veil_Falls%2C_Havasu_Canyon%2C_Grand_Canyon%2C_ca.1900_(CHS-4597).jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">These are the falls at Havasu in the Grand Canyon,<br />
formerly known as the Bridal Veil Falls.<br />
This photo is about 117 years old.<br />
This will be important.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">We as creationists realize that it is a result of catastrophic events around the time of the global flood, I know you deny that reality but you cannot dismiss evidence simply because you disagree. </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/New_havasu_falls.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="600" height="320" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/New_havasu_falls.JPG" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">By Gonzo fan2007 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, <br />
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7545653</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Okay, then I shall request that you are as open-minded as you'd like your opponent to be. Here's what the falls look like today. They've changed quite a bit in 117 years. In fact, in this time we've been able to see how it changes, and what various conditions caused it. We can measure how much the rocks have eroded, and so on.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">At least some evolutionists believe...</span></span></i></span></blockquote>
Does not matter. Stick to the evidence. Beliefs are not true just because people have them, just like Aphrodite lighting the fire in the eye for men to see. A great many people believed that, for a great many thousands of years.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">...that the Grand Canyon was formed by the Colorado river flowing through the Grand Canyon over millions of years. </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
This is what the evidence shows. We find that the canyon appears to erode at the rates we find, and it appears to do so in consistent, predictable ways. If the flood were primarily responsible for the changes in the canyon, then we shouldn't expect things like the flood of 1910 to have the kinds of effects it did. Remember that black-and-white photo up there? It was taken 10 years or so before that flood.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I know that other evolutionists may have a different theory but I am using this as one example. </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
See, there's another problem. You're discussing geology as though it relates to evolution. It doesn't, but I'm trying to answer your questions as honestly as I can without sidetracking us too much. Also, 'evolutionist' isn't a thing. "Evolution" is not a religion. Evolution describes why we have dalmatians and poodles, rather than just wolves. It describes why we can breed corn for specific traits, like growing taller, or having bigger ears. It describes why people with red hair tend to have children with red hair, and why people without it tend not to. It describes why the flu can overcome our body's defenses, and how our bodies can fight the flu in the first place.<br />
<br />
The flood story of the bible, or of the Epic of Gilgamesh, or of many other religions, really doesn't have much to do with it. However, let's stick to the canyon for a moment since we're here already.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">We both look at the same evidence yet arrive at two very different conclusions. What evidence is Dr. Lisle ignoring?</span></span></i></span></blockquote>
I'm gonna gloss over this point momentarily. I do not have Jason's arguments in your original post, so I cannot respond to them directly.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">You said that " He appears not to have internalized the essence of science – an approach to inquiry that depends on testing explanations against data, not fitting data to predetermined conclusions." What evidence points to evolution? </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
Awww, no more grand canyon? One last point on the flood, though. Genesis 8:6 and 8:13 say that the water dries up, which means that in Gen 8:8 and 8:11, the water is <i>receding into the air, not to the ground. </i>Clearly, we can see that the bible does not even support a flood narrative in which the waters can cause the grand canyon to form. Just wanted to put that there.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Evolution is not proven by data...</span></span></i></span></blockquote>
Wrong. Again, if evolution were wrong, then we could not diagnose genetic or hereditary diseases, because they couldn't possibly happen. If evolution were wrong, then sperm and ova would not be necessary for sexual reproduction (as we humans do). Every piece of testable, repeatable evidence we can find points to the fact that evolution works. Whether it's a virus injecting it's DNA into a host, or the color of a cat's hair, evolution describes the process by which it happens.<br />
<br />
The bible, on the other hand, tells us that breeding cows in front of sticks will change the color of their hair. Genesis 30:39 says that spotted sticks are necessary to have spotted cows. This is just as silly as saying that chocolate milk only comes from brown cows. It simply isn't true. You can even try this experiment if you have some cows, or you can ask your local dairy farmer, if you don't believe me. None of them keeps spotted sticks for ensuring they get a Geurnsey or a Holstein instead of a Brown Swiss or a Dutch Belted.<br />
<br />
You can breed two Dutch Belted cows together all you want in front of spotted sticks. The vast majority of the babies they have will have the belted pattern, not a spotted one.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">it is a theory that has not been proven. </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
Incorrect. A 'scientific theory' is a very specific thing, and it means something very different to what people usually use it to mean. A theory is the best explanation for something we have, which has yet to be disproved. If we do find something it doesn't fit, then we figure out the best explanation and it gets appended or amended to the theory.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Everyone has a worldview, a set of your presuppositions, through which we interpret the evidence. </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
This is correct. The scientific method helps us eliminate those by removing the need to presuppose anything. We don't have to presuppose, for example, that the world was flooded just so YHWH could create a rainbow.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">This is why we come to two different conclusions when we look at the same evidence. </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
This is correct.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">A creationist comes to the evidence with the worldview of a young earth designed by God ...</span></span></i></span></blockquote>
That's correct. Biblical creationists believe the earth was formed, about six to ten millennia ago, by one of the gods listed in the old testament. There are other forms of creationism, like those held by the Greeks/Romans in which Chaos (the god) was one of entities that created the void. The people who believe in the Norse pantheon (Odin is the chief god) hold that Yggdrasil is the world tree, upon which all the universes hang. There are many beliefs regarding various forms of creationism. A biblical creationists presupposes that those other ones are false.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">and an evolutionist comes to the evidence with a worldview of an old earth </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
It's not a worldview. It is what the evidence presents. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">that came about through random chance. </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
No, this is wrong. It's not 'random.' It's not 'chance.' I could explain to you in great detail why it isn't either of those things, but I'm trying to write a blog post, not a dissertation. Perhaps in the next one.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">We both have predetermined thoughts of what the evidence should say. </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
Incorrect. Let's take the rainbow example again, since it's one of the simplest examples, and one you can try yourself. Ibn Al-Haytham did not presuppose that emission theory was wrong. Some of the greatest minds of history, like Euclid (the father of classical mathematics) and Ptolemy. Ptolemy even described how light bends and reflects, but also still believed the light came from the back of our eyes.<br />
<br />
Even Ibn Al-Haytham didn't get it all correct, because he had no way of knowing that light wasn't simply rays. He thought the lens of our eyes was where we collected the image, although we know now that it's the retina (the back of our eyes). This is why we can use lenses like we find in a pair of glasses to focus the light. The people 1,000 years ago had no way of knowing that light isn't simply a ray, and yet they still managed to discover all of this <i>while believing it was not correct.</i> This is how science works. Even the simplest notions you hold must be put to the side while investigating reality.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">No one comes to the evidence unbiased. </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
Again, this is correct. Science requires you to <i>completely remove your biases.</i> You must ask yourself why you believe that rainbows are created by god, and not by the bending of light.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">You challenged Dr. Lisle to put his faith on the line and to test his beliefs. I ask you to do the same. </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
Okay. I expect you to do the same. You are very nearly an adult now. Pretend for a moment your god doesn't exist. Pretend that no god exists. Now, read the part in Genesis 30 again. The bible says you should get spotted animals if you breed them in front of spotted sticks. You can test this. If your god is real, this should happen as it is described there. The problem is, if it doesn't happen, it means that story is very likely wrong, as it doesn't describe the data you collect. <br />
<br />
You can find other experiments in the bible. For example, the bible says in Jeremiah 10:13 that god creates the clouds, thunder, rain, lightning, and wind. Science shows us that, for the most part, this is a result of the water cycle, where water evaporates and turns into clouds, which in turn become rain, which feeds the rivers and such that evaporate back into clouds and so on. Lightning is caused when clouds cause electricity to build up from friction, like a giant capacitor. Thunder happens as a result of air pressure changing rapidly (just like any sound - it's all how air pressure changes the position of your eardrum).<br />
<br />
This is what the evidence provides.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Consider how in an random chance evolutionary worldview you can account for uniformity of nature. </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
Again, it isn't 'random chance.' For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is classical Newtonian physics. Everything from the most basic physics to the most complex chemistry is described by this (quantum stuff is more complicated and described by different interactions, but the basic premise exists). It's not random, it's not chance. It may seem too complicated for us to understand, but I bet you also can't explain to me how your phone or computer uses those same laws to show you this response. It works, you know the electricity works somehow, and it makes a picture on your screen. Just because it is complicated doesn't mean a god had to make it.<br />
<br />
It's true that humans do make computers, but we don't make the laws of physics. We can make computers work <i>because the laws of physics are constant and uniform. </i>If they were not, the hard drive would not keep its states and we couldn't save data on the platters (or I guess microSD drives now?). Much like a house, we can build things very small and complex. However, just because we can build the house doesn't mean we created the trees. It simply means we used things that exist in new ways that are consistent with nature.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In order for science to take place we must assume the uniformity of nature.</span></span></i></span></blockquote>
Not exactly. We do not assume nature is uniform. It simply appears to be. We could even be wrong about that, but it hasn't happened yet. If it happens in the future, then we'll have to record that observation and adjust the theory to account for it. We can't even assume it's uniform; it just so happens that every time we measure it, it is uniform.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">If nature was not uniform how would we know that an experiment that we performed yesterday would have the same results today?</span></span></i></span></blockquote>
We would test for it. For example, when you get out of bed every morning, you're doing this test! Every day that you step out of bed, onto the floor, and your sheet falls on the floor, gravity stays consistent. You may not think about it consciously, but you would be very aware if you suddenly fell out of your bed at twice the speed, or if you suddenly started floating out of bed! Even these basic notions must be put to the side. We can't say with absolute certainty that gravity will continue working tomorrow, but it has worked consistently every time we've tested it so far. Similarly, our predictions about it let us know if we've got it right, by how closely our predictions align with the results we get.<br />
<br />
If I go to the top of a tall building every day, and drop an egg every day, I can make two observations. I can observe how long it takes the egg to fall (timing it with a watch), and I can also see how long it takes for the sound to get back (again, timing it carefully). I could use a high-speed camera and even get it to the nearest frame, perhaps .00001 second. I would make an observation, perhaps it takes two seconds for the egg to fall, and somewhere around .1 second for the noise to return to me. I could then take this test several times, and I could start making predictions about how long it would take. Then, every day, if my predictions are correct, I can start to form a theory.<br />
<br />
Now comes the fun part. <i>Why does the egg take two seconds to fall every time? Why do I see the egg break before I hear it? </i>I now have a theory for what will happen when I drop the egg. Now I could start forming a theory about <i>why it happens. </i>Maybe I notice that, on days with strong wind, I can't hear the egg. <i>I wonder why that is, that I can hear the wind and not see it, but I can see the egg and not hear it.</i> From this, you could probably build a very solid theory.<br />
<br />
Then you'd have to ask other people to do the same, because your results have to be repeatable and testable.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> For all we know the principles of science could have changed overnight. </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
Sure. Then again, if we presume for a moment your god is real, he sometimes does claim to have done that. In Joshua 10:12, the sun stood still, allegedly. Jesus walked on water in Matthew 14, so they claim. Even in Genesis, you're asked to believe that the laws of physics changed overnight, when god created something out of nothing (where did god come from, anyway?). Moses allegedly parted the waters and turned a stick into a snake.<br />
<br />
None of those things can happen today, for some reason. <i>You are the one claiming the rules have changed, not us.</i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Without God you cannot account for uniformity. </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
I believe that I did, actually, about 3-7 paragraphs ago.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">How do you justify uniformity in your worldview?</span></span></i></span></blockquote>
Again, see above.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"> I would love to be able to have a conversation with you about this issue and Dr. Lisle will not delete this post. You posted on our page so we are able to keep it up. And if you know Dr. Lisle at all you will know that he is not afraid of someone posing a challenge to his beliefs he has nothing to hide from. </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
Please, direct him to our video, and this blog post. Since he's not afraid of anything, let me link this here:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pDO19ENrhDE/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pDO19ENrhDE?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">He stands by his beliefs as do I and I am happy to have a conversation where we challenge one another's views. </span></span></i></span></blockquote>
I'm glad to hear that. I realize you're young, but I've treated you just the same as I'd treat any adult. Shall we have a conversation?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white;"><i><span style="color: #1d2129;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><a class="profileLink" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/hovercard.php?id=455726921151110&extragetparams=%7B%22hc_location%22%3A%22ufi%22%7D" dir="ltr" href="https://www.facebook.com/BiblicalScienceInstitute/?hc_location=ufi" style="color: #365899; cursor: pointer; text-decoration-line: none;" target="_blank">Jason Lisle</a>, you can do a lot better than I can with this. Do you have anything to add? ~Virginia, age 14</span></span></i></span></blockquote>
Tune in next time, when we respond to the next paragraph or two! <br />
<span id="goog_122281767"></span>acce245http://www.blogger.com/profile/18084414526128842803noreply@blogger.com0