What is it that makes us human? Is it the way we walk, the way we talk, our unique reasoning ability, or our ingenuity? No. It is the cause behind all these different things: emotion.
Emotions are what make us human. Our ability to feel, to empathize, to love, to hate. These are what truly make us who we are. They are the driving force behind all the things the effect the world: the great works of art, the great inventions, the great wars. It is the underlying motivation behind everything we do.
The strength of these emotions differ, but I believe there are two that match for the rank of strongest: love and hate. There are no emotions stronger, or more influential, than these two. They completely subvert all of our prized reasoning abilities and drive us to act in way we never would otherwise.
These two emotions also have their apices: the love one feels for their friends, and the hate one feels for themselves.
Though dark the light of day may be,
the path we tread we still can see,
take one step forward, and the repeat,
the hate inside, we can defeat.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Monday, August 04, 2008
One Sided Ravings
I met someone through facebook randomly. We go to the same University and I have a motorcycle, so she added me as a friend. I figured "why not?" so I added her back and we talked. We exchanged phone numbers and set up a double blind date to go bowling. It was a lot of fun.
Just over a week later, she was moving from where she lived into a house with a friend's family. I took her out to lunch and helped her move. Lunch was really fun. She asked me to sit next to her, and we had a good time eating. I helped her get all the stuff packed, then moved, then unpacked.
Forgive my use of detail in the rest, I'm just going to say everything that jumped out to me.
The missionaries came over for dinner at the house, so we all sat and ate with them. It was fun. I had my feet kicked out under the table, and she put hers out over mine. We sat like that for a while, with our ankles crossing over each other. There were some other instances of us breaking the touch barrier, but it was all a bit hesitant.
After dinner, and unpacking a lot of her stuff, we decided to go see a movie. We hit the 10:30pm showing of Hellboy II. It was a good story, but a mediocre screen play. They had what I dub "snuggle seats" at the movie theater, where the arms between the chairs fold up. She crossed her legs in her chair, and her knees were up over the arm rests. I said "I can't imagine that is comfortable" and put the arm rest up. Her knee was then resting on my leg, just above the knee, and I had my hand resting on her knee.
She didn't seem to have a problem with it. As the movie progressed, she twisted and through both of her legs over my lap, then, a little later on, twisted around to snuggle with me. We were that way for most of the movie, and it was good. The whole date just went really well and things seemed to be working out.
We hung out again that Friday before she had to go to work. We had both not had much sleep the night before, been up early, and had a busy morning. That being said, by the time we were hanging out we were both pretty tired. It was, for lack of a better word, boring. There really wasn't much to do at the house, we didn't have long before she had to leave, and she just kinda wanted to do facebook and myspace on the computer.
Since then, it has been like pulling teeth to hang out with her. She'll tell me when she thinks she is going to be available, but then I won't be able to get a hold of her, etc. It's just frustrating because I don't know if it was something that I did, or something else. It is just ... obnoxious.
Just over a week later, she was moving from where she lived into a house with a friend's family. I took her out to lunch and helped her move. Lunch was really fun. She asked me to sit next to her, and we had a good time eating. I helped her get all the stuff packed, then moved, then unpacked.
Forgive my use of detail in the rest, I'm just going to say everything that jumped out to me.
The missionaries came over for dinner at the house, so we all sat and ate with them. It was fun. I had my feet kicked out under the table, and she put hers out over mine. We sat like that for a while, with our ankles crossing over each other. There were some other instances of us breaking the touch barrier, but it was all a bit hesitant.
After dinner, and unpacking a lot of her stuff, we decided to go see a movie. We hit the 10:30pm showing of Hellboy II. It was a good story, but a mediocre screen play. They had what I dub "snuggle seats" at the movie theater, where the arms between the chairs fold up. She crossed her legs in her chair, and her knees were up over the arm rests. I said "I can't imagine that is comfortable" and put the arm rest up. Her knee was then resting on my leg, just above the knee, and I had my hand resting on her knee.
She didn't seem to have a problem with it. As the movie progressed, she twisted and through both of her legs over my lap, then, a little later on, twisted around to snuggle with me. We were that way for most of the movie, and it was good. The whole date just went really well and things seemed to be working out.
We hung out again that Friday before she had to go to work. We had both not had much sleep the night before, been up early, and had a busy morning. That being said, by the time we were hanging out we were both pretty tired. It was, for lack of a better word, boring. There really wasn't much to do at the house, we didn't have long before she had to leave, and she just kinda wanted to do facebook and myspace on the computer.
Since then, it has been like pulling teeth to hang out with her. She'll tell me when she thinks she is going to be available, but then I won't be able to get a hold of her, etc. It's just frustrating because I don't know if it was something that I did, or something else. It is just ... obnoxious.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
The Intellect of Man: Quantum Flux
As the current theory stands, Quantum Mechanics, the smallest particles in our universe are unpredictable. We cannot say exactly where they will be at any give point, but we can guess the most likely place where they will be. These predictions have been experimentally tested and are extremely accurate. Einstein, when speaking what he thought about Quantum Physics said: "God does not play dice with the Universe."1 Many years after his death, and several very critical experiments later, Stephen Hawking simply stated: "Einstein was confused, not the quantum theory."2
Here we see many many people making huge leaps and bounds in understanding how our universe works, but few, if any, truly understand why. We have a theory that is very accurate that was derived using experimental data. The discovery of this theory happened a bit backwards. Scientists didn't come up with an equation and a theory and then do experiments to prove that theory, they did experiments and came up with an equation and a theory to explain the results.
Many scientists have approached science from a religious stand point. Einstein, for instance, approached everything as a discovery into one more way that God made the universe work, as shown by the viewpoint quoted above. This trend has seemed to change over time. Now scientists try to use science to prove why God doesn't exist, the same way they try to use evolution to discredit the Creation. Many people in society also have this view point. It's as if gaining more knowledge as to how things work is suddenly proof or evidence that no one designed the intricate fabric upon which our Universe runs.
Allow me to delve further and show you some of the intricacies we fail to notice in everyday life. There are books written on these topics (as I'm reading one right now), so my brief paragraphs will fail to encapsulate much of the complexity, but I'll try to explain the basics.
General Relativity
This theory, in its most simply form, simply explains how large objects interact with space and time. The entire theory revolves around the constancy of the speed of light. Fact: no matter how fast you go, you will never "catch up" to a beam of light. You can throw a baseball forward and by running quickly in the direction it was thrown keep up with it. This same concept is not true for light. No matter how fast you are moving, when you measure the speed of light it will always be ~670 million miles per hour.
To further expand on this. If you are moving 500 million miles per hour, point a flashlight in front of you and turn it on, and measure the speed it travels forward from your moving platform, it will still be moving at ~670 million miles per hour, not the ~170 million miles per hour one might suspect. Someone standing on the ground can also measure the speed of that light beam. Can you guess their result? ~670 million miles per hour, not ~1.17 billion miles per hour. It is exactly the same for both people observing the light. What a conundrum of a paradox.
To understand fully what is going on, we need to introduce a new concept spacetime. We want to meet a friend somewhere, so we tell them where we want to meet them (the location in space) and when we want to meet them (the location in time). We normally view the location and the time as two separate entities, but they are one. You exist at a current point in space and a point in time: spacetime.
Now, imagine you are walking at a constant speed from one end of a giant patio to the other end. If you walk straight across the patio, the trip to the other side will take less time than if you were to walk across at an angle. We were always walking at the same speed (distance covered in a given amount of time), but it took longer when we walked at an angle. Now let me redefine the terms a little. The patio is spacetime and, according to relativity, we always travel through space time at a constant speed: that of light (our walking speed). The journey from side A to side B of the patio signifies our experience in spacetime. Our deviation from a straight line represents our speed through 3D space. The total time to cross the patio represents just that: time.3
Einstein made theory states, as mentioned above, that we always journey through spacetime at a constant rate: the speed of light. If we increase the speed at which we are traveling through 3D space (walking at an angle) our speed through time, our 4th dimension, slows (the total time it takes to cross the patio). Why does this happen? Because of mass.
Einstein stated that as an object moves faster its mass increases. He also showed that mass warps the fabric of space time (much the same way a marble place on a stretched bed sheet makes a dimple in the sheet). This warping of space time causes time to pass more slowly. So as we move faster and faster through space, we warp the fabric of spacetime, and cause time to slow.
Quantum Mechanics
Scientists discovered that light particles (photons) had the properties of a wave. It was formerly thought that they were particles. After making this discovery, scientists also found that electrons and other minuscule molecules had these same properties. They found that energy transferred from molecule to molecule relied, not on the density of the molecule that were interacting one with another but based on the wavelength of the particle. Why? Because of energy. A shorter wavelength has more energy than longer wavelength.
When scientists tried to pin point these particles so that they could be observed, they ran into a problem: the particles weren't always where the scientists thought they should be. The theory was then developed to explain the probability that a particle will be at any given point in time. The theory essentially states that the particles act in an almost random pattern and we can only guess where they are going to be.
I don't really understand it very well, and I did a lot of summarizing in the first paragraphs, so I'm just going to leave it at that basic explanation for explaining how the smallest particles in our Universe act.
The Issue
These two theories clash with each other. You can use them alone, but if you try to combine them (for black holes, for instance), the theories crumple apart. Einstein spent his last years in life searching for a unified theory, but was unsuccessful. Scientists are in the process of developing what is being called "String Theory". It is a theory that is meant to be able to be used both for explaining why small particles move the way they do, but still be able to handle the effects that large masses have upon the fabric of spacetime. I know even less about this theory than I do quantum mechanics, so I will simply leave it here as what scientists are trying to use to find the universal equation.
Guess What
But, guess what? We've had the answer since December of 1832. It tells us why and how. The only problem is that it doesn't give us equations.
As you know from reading my evolution and creation posts, I hate that answer. I don't consider it a solution. What the references we see above explain, though, is that there is a law that governs all things. There is a unified law of physics that is the basis upon which everything is founded. We haven't found it yet, but it is out there.
Here's what I wonder, though. If these scientists who are trying to prove that God doesn't exist by figuring out how everything works (because that somehow proves it, just because we know everything), were willing to step back and factor God into the equation of everything if they would actually be able to find the solution to the problems of the Universe.
Also, never forget, the answer to the life, the universe, and everything is 42. Google even says so: http://www.google.com/search?q=the+answer+to+life,+the+universe,+and+everything
Footnotes:
1. The Elegant Universe. Brian Greene. pp 107 back
2. The Elegant Universe. Brian Greene. pp 108 back
3. Ok, so this explanation was a little obscure, but it's the best I can do in such a little confined space. I recommend reading on it in more detail. A good explanation is in The Elegant Universe on pages 34-41. back
4. Doctrine & Covenants. Section 88, verse 7-13. back
Here we see many many people making huge leaps and bounds in understanding how our universe works, but few, if any, truly understand why. We have a theory that is very accurate that was derived using experimental data. The discovery of this theory happened a bit backwards. Scientists didn't come up with an equation and a theory and then do experiments to prove that theory, they did experiments and came up with an equation and a theory to explain the results.
Many scientists have approached science from a religious stand point. Einstein, for instance, approached everything as a discovery into one more way that God made the universe work, as shown by the viewpoint quoted above. This trend has seemed to change over time. Now scientists try to use science to prove why God doesn't exist, the same way they try to use evolution to discredit the Creation. Many people in society also have this view point. It's as if gaining more knowledge as to how things work is suddenly proof or evidence that no one designed the intricate fabric upon which our Universe runs.
Allow me to delve further and show you some of the intricacies we fail to notice in everyday life. There are books written on these topics (as I'm reading one right now), so my brief paragraphs will fail to encapsulate much of the complexity, but I'll try to explain the basics.
General Relativity
This theory, in its most simply form, simply explains how large objects interact with space and time. The entire theory revolves around the constancy of the speed of light. Fact: no matter how fast you go, you will never "catch up" to a beam of light. You can throw a baseball forward and by running quickly in the direction it was thrown keep up with it. This same concept is not true for light. No matter how fast you are moving, when you measure the speed of light it will always be ~670 million miles per hour.
To further expand on this. If you are moving 500 million miles per hour, point a flashlight in front of you and turn it on, and measure the speed it travels forward from your moving platform, it will still be moving at ~670 million miles per hour, not the ~170 million miles per hour one might suspect. Someone standing on the ground can also measure the speed of that light beam. Can you guess their result? ~670 million miles per hour, not ~1.17 billion miles per hour. It is exactly the same for both people observing the light. What a conundrum of a paradox.
To understand fully what is going on, we need to introduce a new concept spacetime. We want to meet a friend somewhere, so we tell them where we want to meet them (the location in space) and when we want to meet them (the location in time). We normally view the location and the time as two separate entities, but they are one. You exist at a current point in space and a point in time: spacetime.
Now, imagine you are walking at a constant speed from one end of a giant patio to the other end. If you walk straight across the patio, the trip to the other side will take less time than if you were to walk across at an angle. We were always walking at the same speed (distance covered in a given amount of time), but it took longer when we walked at an angle. Now let me redefine the terms a little. The patio is spacetime and, according to relativity, we always travel through space time at a constant speed: that of light (our walking speed). The journey from side A to side B of the patio signifies our experience in spacetime. Our deviation from a straight line represents our speed through 3D space. The total time to cross the patio represents just that: time.3
Einstein made theory states, as mentioned above, that we always journey through spacetime at a constant rate: the speed of light. If we increase the speed at which we are traveling through 3D space (walking at an angle) our speed through time, our 4th dimension, slows (the total time it takes to cross the patio). Why does this happen? Because of mass.
Einstein stated that as an object moves faster its mass increases. He also showed that mass warps the fabric of space time (much the same way a marble place on a stretched bed sheet makes a dimple in the sheet). This warping of space time causes time to pass more slowly. So as we move faster and faster through space, we warp the fabric of spacetime, and cause time to slow.
Quantum Mechanics
Scientists discovered that light particles (photons) had the properties of a wave. It was formerly thought that they were particles. After making this discovery, scientists also found that electrons and other minuscule molecules had these same properties. They found that energy transferred from molecule to molecule relied, not on the density of the molecule that were interacting one with another but based on the wavelength of the particle. Why? Because of energy. A shorter wavelength has more energy than longer wavelength.
When scientists tried to pin point these particles so that they could be observed, they ran into a problem: the particles weren't always where the scientists thought they should be. The theory was then developed to explain the probability that a particle will be at any given point in time. The theory essentially states that the particles act in an almost random pattern and we can only guess where they are going to be.
I don't really understand it very well, and I did a lot of summarizing in the first paragraphs, so I'm just going to leave it at that basic explanation for explaining how the smallest particles in our Universe act.
The Issue
These two theories clash with each other. You can use them alone, but if you try to combine them (for black holes, for instance), the theories crumple apart. Einstein spent his last years in life searching for a unified theory, but was unsuccessful. Scientists are in the process of developing what is being called "String Theory". It is a theory that is meant to be able to be used both for explaining why small particles move the way they do, but still be able to handle the effects that large masses have upon the fabric of spacetime. I know even less about this theory than I do quantum mechanics, so I will simply leave it here as what scientists are trying to use to find the universal equation.
Guess What
But, guess what? We've had the answer since December of 1832. It tells us why and how. The only problem is that it doesn't give us equations.
"...This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made; As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made; And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space-- The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things."4Why and how: Because God said so, that's why!
As you know from reading my evolution and creation posts, I hate that answer. I don't consider it a solution. What the references we see above explain, though, is that there is a law that governs all things. There is a unified law of physics that is the basis upon which everything is founded. We haven't found it yet, but it is out there.
Here's what I wonder, though. If these scientists who are trying to prove that God doesn't exist by figuring out how everything works (because that somehow proves it, just because we know everything), were willing to step back and factor God into the equation of everything if they would actually be able to find the solution to the problems of the Universe.
Also, never forget, the answer to the life, the universe, and everything is 42. Google even says so: http://www.google.com/search?q=the+answer+to+life,+the+universe,+and+everything
Footnotes:
1. The Elegant Universe. Brian Greene. pp 107 back
2. The Elegant Universe. Brian Greene. pp 108 back
3. Ok, so this explanation was a little obscure, but it's the best I can do in such a little confined space. I recommend reading on it in more detail. A good explanation is in The Elegant Universe on pages 34-41. back
4. Doctrine & Covenants. Section 88, verse 7-13. back
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The Intellect of Man: Coincidence or Divine Intervention
I think I'm going to change the general focus of these more to what I wanted to talk about in the first place. Not so much evolution, but the intellect and ability for one to comprehend and/or understand and/or accept the existence of God.
We have a classic example where someone will say something along the lines of "Someone was watching out for me" or "My guardian angle must've been close by". Whereas others will say "Hey, that was really lucky" and "Nah, just coincidence."
Let me name a few events that can be applied either way.
1. Your tire blows out on the freeway, you spin a few times, run into the median, spin again, and stop. You car is facing the direction of the flow of traffic, it is off the side of the road enough that it is not blocking any lanes, it is just far enough away from the barrier that you have enough room to comfortably move around and put on your spare. No damage was done to the axles, you are not injured, your tires have enough tread left after spinning to get to a decent shop and get them replaced. The first shop you find is having a tire sale, and you get 1/2 off. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
2. It is snowy and you are driving, your car slides out on a turn while you are going about 60 mph on the busy freeway. You slide all the way across 4 lanes of traffic without hitting anyone, then you flip around and slide all the way back through those 4 lanes of traffic *again* without hitting anyone. You stop facing towards traffic, but off the side of the road, without hitting anything. Coincidence or Divine Intervention.
3. You have a long road trip to make, but end up delaying it for one day just because you don't feel like going yet. You go out to lunch with a friend the day you are planning on leaving and notice that the tread is starting to separate on one of your tires. Had you driven the night before, chances are the tire would've blown. Coincidence of Divine Interfention?
4. You lose a contact while you are at school and cannot find it. You go into a bathroom, say a prayer for help in locating the lost contact, walk back to where you think you lost the contact, look down, and you're staring right at the contact. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
5. A large number of people fast and pray for an end to the drought. Within a week, there are very heavy snow storms and massive rainfall. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
6. A Prophet of God dies. The day before his funeral is cold and snowy and miserable. The day of his funeral is sunny and warm and wonderful. The day after his funeral is, again, cold and snowy and miserable. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
7. You have an urge to do something you don't want to do. You fight that urge, but feel you are fighting a loosing battle. You read the scriptures, say a prayer, and the urge is gone. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
8. You have a test for which you have been studying, but feel you just don't know the material properly. You continually get mediocre grades on the practice study exams. You say a prayer before going to take the real test. Everything makes perfect sense while you are taking the exam, and you achieve good marks. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
9. You say a prayer in the morning asking God to let you be a tool for good. After an uneventful day, you feel the urge to call one of your friends. You call them, and it turns out that they are in desperate need of help in one way or another, and had just finished saying a prayer to ask for that help some how. You are easily able to help. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
10. You are going down a rocky dirty road on your mountain bike at about 25 miles per hour. You lose your front tire and have a terrible over-the-handlebars wreck. You are knocked unconscious for a few seconds, but your helmet keeps any major damage from happening, and you slide about 40 feet down the road. Your only injuries are a few rocks lodged in your face and arms and dirty-style road rash. No broken bones, no sprained joints, no pulled muscles, bike still in working order after the front tire is re-attached. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
I know a lot of people who would be able to look at these and be able to see Divine Intervention. I also know a lot of people who can always find some reason why it is just chance, luck, or coincidence. They simply refuse to acknowlege that God could exist because of lack of "evidence".
Here is the problem with their reasoning. There is evidence *everywhere* that God exists. People, however, refuse to acknowlege it as evidence because the idea of God existing is too far fetched for them. Their intellect cannot and will not support that conclusion.
They can look straight at the subtle proof God is giving them that He exists and find some reason why that isn't really "proof" or that it is just their imagination. There is no convincing them, because they are able to rationalize God out of the equation.
This reasoning, however, is a two edged sword. Any argument applied to someone to say "you just can't accept this as proof", can and will be turned around. Someone who credits God for every little random coincidence must be crazy. They are unwilling to acknowlege their own skill in preventing a severe accident, unwilling to accept scientific proof that is contrary to their beliefs, etc, etc.
Eventually, though, all truth will be known and the two edged sword will strike a death blow in one direction; Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
We have a classic example where someone will say something along the lines of "Someone was watching out for me" or "My guardian angle must've been close by". Whereas others will say "Hey, that was really lucky" and "Nah, just coincidence."
Let me name a few events that can be applied either way.
1. Your tire blows out on the freeway, you spin a few times, run into the median, spin again, and stop. You car is facing the direction of the flow of traffic, it is off the side of the road enough that it is not blocking any lanes, it is just far enough away from the barrier that you have enough room to comfortably move around and put on your spare. No damage was done to the axles, you are not injured, your tires have enough tread left after spinning to get to a decent shop and get them replaced. The first shop you find is having a tire sale, and you get 1/2 off. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
2. It is snowy and you are driving, your car slides out on a turn while you are going about 60 mph on the busy freeway. You slide all the way across 4 lanes of traffic without hitting anyone, then you flip around and slide all the way back through those 4 lanes of traffic *again* without hitting anyone. You stop facing towards traffic, but off the side of the road, without hitting anything. Coincidence or Divine Intervention.
3. You have a long road trip to make, but end up delaying it for one day just because you don't feel like going yet. You go out to lunch with a friend the day you are planning on leaving and notice that the tread is starting to separate on one of your tires. Had you driven the night before, chances are the tire would've blown. Coincidence of Divine Interfention?
4. You lose a contact while you are at school and cannot find it. You go into a bathroom, say a prayer for help in locating the lost contact, walk back to where you think you lost the contact, look down, and you're staring right at the contact. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
5. A large number of people fast and pray for an end to the drought. Within a week, there are very heavy snow storms and massive rainfall. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
6. A Prophet of God dies. The day before his funeral is cold and snowy and miserable. The day of his funeral is sunny and warm and wonderful. The day after his funeral is, again, cold and snowy and miserable. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
7. You have an urge to do something you don't want to do. You fight that urge, but feel you are fighting a loosing battle. You read the scriptures, say a prayer, and the urge is gone. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
8. You have a test for which you have been studying, but feel you just don't know the material properly. You continually get mediocre grades on the practice study exams. You say a prayer before going to take the real test. Everything makes perfect sense while you are taking the exam, and you achieve good marks. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
9. You say a prayer in the morning asking God to let you be a tool for good. After an uneventful day, you feel the urge to call one of your friends. You call them, and it turns out that they are in desperate need of help in one way or another, and had just finished saying a prayer to ask for that help some how. You are easily able to help. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
10. You are going down a rocky dirty road on your mountain bike at about 25 miles per hour. You lose your front tire and have a terrible over-the-handlebars wreck. You are knocked unconscious for a few seconds, but your helmet keeps any major damage from happening, and you slide about 40 feet down the road. Your only injuries are a few rocks lodged in your face and arms and dirty-style road rash. No broken bones, no sprained joints, no pulled muscles, bike still in working order after the front tire is re-attached. Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
I know a lot of people who would be able to look at these and be able to see Divine Intervention. I also know a lot of people who can always find some reason why it is just chance, luck, or coincidence. They simply refuse to acknowlege that God could exist because of lack of "evidence".
Here is the problem with their reasoning. There is evidence *everywhere* that God exists. People, however, refuse to acknowlege it as evidence because the idea of God existing is too far fetched for them. Their intellect cannot and will not support that conclusion.
They can look straight at the subtle proof God is giving them that He exists and find some reason why that isn't really "proof" or that it is just their imagination. There is no convincing them, because they are able to rationalize God out of the equation.
This reasoning, however, is a two edged sword. Any argument applied to someone to say "you just can't accept this as proof", can and will be turned around. Someone who credits God for every little random coincidence must be crazy. They are unwilling to acknowlege their own skill in preventing a severe accident, unwilling to accept scientific proof that is contrary to their beliefs, etc, etc.
Eventually, though, all truth will be known and the two edged sword will strike a death blow in one direction; Coincidence or Divine Intervention?
Friday, March 07, 2008
The Intellect of Man - A House Upon the Sand
Evolution is the gradual genetic change, or mutation, of a species over large amounts of time. Through the process of Natural Selection, the advantageous genetic mutations/traits are passed on to future generations, leading to the formation of more advanced and complex organism more highly adapted to their environment.
This theory, and I stress theory, makes a lot of sense. We see environmental adaptation happening all the time all around us, that means the theory as a whole must be true and proven scientific fact, right? Wrong.
The principle of adaptation and Natural Selection are considered to be pretty set in stone. If I creature cannot adapt to a change in its environment, then it becomes extinct, thus falling victim to Natural Selection. Not a very hard concept to understand, and it has been shown time and time again. However, just because the underlying principle of evolution has basis in fact, does not mean that the entire theory is true.
Let's start with the origins of Evolution. The theory was first transcribed and published before DNA and genetics were even truly discovered. The original theory doesn't even mention genetics, just the passing on of traits from one generation to the next. Now, you may look at that and say "That's genetics!", and you are right. Darwin didn't know that, though.
The traits about which Darwin spoke were physical traits and changes. Things about the animal that change during its life-span, not during its conception. By his logic, this is how a Giraffe would have evolved: a horse-like animal moves to an environment where it is forced, for one reason or another, to eat the leaves out of the trees rather than the grass on the ground. The animal that can reach the highest gets the most food and has an advantage over the others, so as the animals try to get the leaves, they stretch and strain their necks to get higher. The one that, literally, stretches its neck the farthest has the most advantage and will, therefore, be the most likely to pass that trait (the elongated neck, caused by stretch and strain) on to its offspring. In other words, as the creature changes itself physically, it is able to pass those physical changes to its offspring.
That is essentially about the same as saying: If someone cuts off their left hand when they're 20, and has children, those children have a chance of being born without a left hand. That, as we now know, is a preposterous idea.
As we have learned about genetics, however, the theory has adapted to incorporate the new knowledge. The modern theory now states that genetic mutations that happen at the time of, or before, conception can cause advantageous changes that will be more likely to be passed on to offspring. The theory now lines up with modern-day knowledge of the known workings of the genetic code.
Problem is: we know very little, all things considered, about the genetic code. We know what genes do, how DNA is replicated, what genes do what, but we don't know WHY they do it. DNA is used as the template for RNA, which, in turn, is used as the template to create proteins. These proteins, the building blocks of life, are what drive everything. One small chemical chain to one microscopic protein can kill an entire organism, just look at cancer. We don't know why they effect everything the way they do, we just know that they do, and that's that.
There are also massive gaps in the fossil record. Gaps which Darwin, himself, has stated were the largest problem for his theory as a whole. There are "missing links" a throughout the fossil record, where no common ancestors have ever been found, when, by Darwin's own theory, the fossil record should be rife with the fossils of transitional forms.
Problems also arise because of paraconformities. Paraconformities happen when the fossils records appear geologically backwards, and where no evidence of erosion (to displace the bones) or tectonic overthrusting can be found. This means that parent species is found to be younger than the child species. I have yet to find a decent explanation for this occurrence. Mostly, from what I have read, it is considered a "mystery" and just accepted as one of those things that will be explained by someone else some other time.
Thus we see that the foundation upon which evolution was initially created has crumbled to dust beneath the advancements of science, and the new modern theory of evolution, derived from the first, rests upon a foundation that is as equally unknown as genetics were when evolution first arose. Darwin knew traits were passed on somehow, he just didn't know why or how. Just as scientists today know that proteins drive the lifecycle, they just don't know why or how. He thought that, even though their were massive gaps in the fossil record, proof to fill these holes would show up eventually. None has yet been found. Lastly, and mostly caused by the drive of science to fill the fossil record gaps, fossils have been found in an order other than what the evolutionary cycle would dictate it must be. No theory has been conceived to explain this.
This theory, and I stress theory, makes a lot of sense. We see environmental adaptation happening all the time all around us, that means the theory as a whole must be true and proven scientific fact, right? Wrong.
The principle of adaptation and Natural Selection are considered to be pretty set in stone. If I creature cannot adapt to a change in its environment, then it becomes extinct, thus falling victim to Natural Selection. Not a very hard concept to understand, and it has been shown time and time again. However, just because the underlying principle of evolution has basis in fact, does not mean that the entire theory is true.
Let's start with the origins of Evolution. The theory was first transcribed and published before DNA and genetics were even truly discovered. The original theory doesn't even mention genetics, just the passing on of traits from one generation to the next. Now, you may look at that and say "That's genetics!", and you are right. Darwin didn't know that, though.
The traits about which Darwin spoke were physical traits and changes. Things about the animal that change during its life-span, not during its conception. By his logic, this is how a Giraffe would have evolved: a horse-like animal moves to an environment where it is forced, for one reason or another, to eat the leaves out of the trees rather than the grass on the ground. The animal that can reach the highest gets the most food and has an advantage over the others, so as the animals try to get the leaves, they stretch and strain their necks to get higher. The one that, literally, stretches its neck the farthest has the most advantage and will, therefore, be the most likely to pass that trait (the elongated neck, caused by stretch and strain) on to its offspring. In other words, as the creature changes itself physically, it is able to pass those physical changes to its offspring.
That is essentially about the same as saying: If someone cuts off their left hand when they're 20, and has children, those children have a chance of being born without a left hand. That, as we now know, is a preposterous idea.
As we have learned about genetics, however, the theory has adapted to incorporate the new knowledge. The modern theory now states that genetic mutations that happen at the time of, or before, conception can cause advantageous changes that will be more likely to be passed on to offspring. The theory now lines up with modern-day knowledge of the known workings of the genetic code.
Problem is: we know very little, all things considered, about the genetic code. We know what genes do, how DNA is replicated, what genes do what, but we don't know WHY they do it. DNA is used as the template for RNA, which, in turn, is used as the template to create proteins. These proteins, the building blocks of life, are what drive everything. One small chemical chain to one microscopic protein can kill an entire organism, just look at cancer. We don't know why they effect everything the way they do, we just know that they do, and that's that.
There are also massive gaps in the fossil record. Gaps which Darwin, himself, has stated were the largest problem for his theory as a whole. There are "missing links" a throughout the fossil record, where no common ancestors have ever been found, when, by Darwin's own theory, the fossil record should be rife with the fossils of transitional forms.
Problems also arise because of paraconformities. Paraconformities happen when the fossils records appear geologically backwards, and where no evidence of erosion (to displace the bones) or tectonic overthrusting can be found. This means that parent species is found to be younger than the child species. I have yet to find a decent explanation for this occurrence. Mostly, from what I have read, it is considered a "mystery" and just accepted as one of those things that will be explained by someone else some other time.
Thus we see that the foundation upon which evolution was initially created has crumbled to dust beneath the advancements of science, and the new modern theory of evolution, derived from the first, rests upon a foundation that is as equally unknown as genetics were when evolution first arose. Darwin knew traits were passed on somehow, he just didn't know why or how. Just as scientists today know that proteins drive the lifecycle, they just don't know why or how. He thought that, even though their were massive gaps in the fossil record, proof to fill these holes would show up eventually. None has yet been found. Lastly, and mostly caused by the drive of science to fill the fossil record gaps, fossils have been found in an order other than what the evolutionary cycle would dictate it must be. No theory has been conceived to explain this.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
The Intellect of Man - Introduction
Evolution.
A concept that has plagued the religious mind since it's conception in the mid 1850s. It has given rise to the belief that science has proved that God does not exist, or at least is not needed. The theory challenges the religious intellect to wonder whether the stories of the bible really are true. Did God really create Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden, or is it all just some story, passed down by oral tradition until it was transcribed around 1000 B.C.E., that is meant to tell the history of the civilizations of man-kind?
Some religious minds have come to a compromise with Darwin, they call it theistic evolution: the belief that God used evolution as his tool for creating everything as we know it today. I'll admit, it has promise, some of the current theories about the beginning of life are so far fetched that without a Creator they make little to no sense. So, they believe that God used a process of mass extinction, death, and struggle to create everything in this world we see today.
Other religious minds hold to the view that evolution is a fallacy of the human conscience. Despite all the evidence supporting the theory, they throw about phrases such as "that's just the way it is" and know little to nothing about the actual theory itself. They have no knowledge to back their statements, and receive little to no credibility despite their efforts.
Then there are others who simply believe that evolution is how it is. There is no God. Everything we see today developed by random chance, under circumstances that man has recreated in the lab, so there must not be a higher power. Science has proved their is no God. End of story.
The fourth group is the group about which I most often ponder. They are those who have looked into evolution and know the holes in the theory, know the assumptions around which everything revolves. They see how chaotic the entire theory is, and the crumbling rock that is its foundations. Yet, because the idea of a God, a supreme being and Creator, seems more preposterous to them, they side with evolution because it makes the most sense. In essence, picking the lesser of two evils, because their intellect does not have the capacity of understanding or allowing the existence of God.
And so the world turns.
A concept that has plagued the religious mind since it's conception in the mid 1850s. It has given rise to the belief that science has proved that God does not exist, or at least is not needed. The theory challenges the religious intellect to wonder whether the stories of the bible really are true. Did God really create Adam and Even in the Garden of Eden, or is it all just some story, passed down by oral tradition until it was transcribed around 1000 B.C.E., that is meant to tell the history of the civilizations of man-kind?
Some religious minds have come to a compromise with Darwin, they call it theistic evolution: the belief that God used evolution as his tool for creating everything as we know it today. I'll admit, it has promise, some of the current theories about the beginning of life are so far fetched that without a Creator they make little to no sense. So, they believe that God used a process of mass extinction, death, and struggle to create everything in this world we see today.
Other religious minds hold to the view that evolution is a fallacy of the human conscience. Despite all the evidence supporting the theory, they throw about phrases such as "that's just the way it is" and know little to nothing about the actual theory itself. They have no knowledge to back their statements, and receive little to no credibility despite their efforts.
Then there are others who simply believe that evolution is how it is. There is no God. Everything we see today developed by random chance, under circumstances that man has recreated in the lab, so there must not be a higher power. Science has proved their is no God. End of story.
The fourth group is the group about which I most often ponder. They are those who have looked into evolution and know the holes in the theory, know the assumptions around which everything revolves. They see how chaotic the entire theory is, and the crumbling rock that is its foundations. Yet, because the idea of a God, a supreme being and Creator, seems more preposterous to them, they side with evolution because it makes the most sense. In essence, picking the lesser of two evils, because their intellect does not have the capacity of understanding or allowing the existence of God.
And so the world turns.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Cleaning cleaning cleaning
I made a new friend recently. Her name is Jen. We've been hanging out a lot recently. She's quite the character. Her father is Catholic, her mother is Jewish. Which makes her Jewish, by blood line. She grew up attending a Jewish synagogue, but she didn't really follow the Kashrut, because her father was catholic. She grew up in a small town in California, and the temple she attended was like a little family. When she came out here to Vegas (I forgot to ask why she moved, think it was for school) all the temples were charging admission. Where she lived, you could donate if you were able. Out here, it was mandatory to "donate", and she didn't like that.
Anyway, long story short, we met the first day of class, and didn't become good friend until Thursday (Valentine's Day, as it would be). She needed some help with homework, so she came over to my place and I helped her out with it. We then talked for a few hours. She came over last night again and I started teaching her how to solve a Rubik's Cube. She can do the first two rows so far. I have her practicing those until she's decent at them and has the concept down before we move to the bottom row.
However, my apartment is a tornado disaster area at the moment. I hadn't filed anything in about 2 months, and I had 3 mail piles on the floor and it hadn't been vacuumed since I moved in. It finally got to me, so I've spent all day filing and cleaning and all that jazz. It looks nice. Now I just need to clean the bathroom.
I'm having tremors right now (lack of food), so I'm sitting in front of my computer typing this while I eat dinner and wait for the blood sugar levels to even out.
Anyway, long story short, we met the first day of class, and didn't become good friend until Thursday (Valentine's Day, as it would be). She needed some help with homework, so she came over to my place and I helped her out with it. We then talked for a few hours. She came over last night again and I started teaching her how to solve a Rubik's Cube. She can do the first two rows so far. I have her practicing those until she's decent at them and has the concept down before we move to the bottom row.
However, my apartment is a tornado disaster area at the moment. I hadn't filed anything in about 2 months, and I had 3 mail piles on the floor and it hadn't been vacuumed since I moved in. It finally got to me, so I've spent all day filing and cleaning and all that jazz. It looks nice. Now I just need to clean the bathroom.
I'm having tremors right now (lack of food), so I'm sitting in front of my computer typing this while I eat dinner and wait for the blood sugar levels to even out.
Monday, February 04, 2008
On The Lord's Errand
I've noticed something really quite interesting to me. When you are on the Lord's errand, I have found that He will give you those things that you need that are for your service to Him and to assist you in your own life.
I didn't have a single allergy attack today. I spent 2 hours at a hometeachee's house with their long haired dog: nothing; an hour a another house with two dogs: nothing; 2-3 hours at another house with 3 cats and a ferrett: a little throat constriction.
I, normally, am only able to stay at this 3rd house for 20-30 minutes before I have to leave because my allergies are acting up so badly. I'm usualy ok with that for a while longer if I've dosed up on antihistamine. I didn't have any antihistamine today.
When you are on the Lord's errand He won't let anything stop you from doing what He wants you to do. He will put you in the right place and the right time to help His children in their hours of need.
He will prompt you and whisper in your ears, and if you are willing to listen and heed the words, you will have more success and do more for good in one day than you will be able to do in 7 months (or more) without Him.
Don't ignore the whisper. Make the u-turn, make the phone call, drop by for a sparatic visit, whatever you have to do, just listen. You will never have known that kind of joy, as when you are in the service of your fellow men and doing His good work.
Lead kindly light, amid the encircling gloom. Lead, Thou, me on.
I didn't have a single allergy attack today. I spent 2 hours at a hometeachee's house with their long haired dog: nothing; an hour a another house with two dogs: nothing; 2-3 hours at another house with 3 cats and a ferrett: a little throat constriction.
I, normally, am only able to stay at this 3rd house for 20-30 minutes before I have to leave because my allergies are acting up so badly. I'm usualy ok with that for a while longer if I've dosed up on antihistamine. I didn't have any antihistamine today.
When you are on the Lord's errand He won't let anything stop you from doing what He wants you to do. He will put you in the right place and the right time to help His children in their hours of need.
He will prompt you and whisper in your ears, and if you are willing to listen and heed the words, you will have more success and do more for good in one day than you will be able to do in 7 months (or more) without Him.
Don't ignore the whisper. Make the u-turn, make the phone call, drop by for a sparatic visit, whatever you have to do, just listen. You will never have known that kind of joy, as when you are in the service of your fellow men and doing His good work.
Lead kindly light, amid the encircling gloom. Lead, Thou, me on.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Sheer Exhaustion
School has just started. I'm still working full time, and I'm doing a lot of work on the side for dad. I'm within inches of having the site ready for the official release. Just a bit more testing to do. I'm way too tired to really write more, so I'll just call it a night a say "Look, I wrote an entry!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
