I [Love/Hate] the Internet.

This feeds the hate part.

'Massive Chinese computer espionage network uncovered.' 'nough said.

Peace.

Theory of Creationism has its Share of Holes

Link to article reproduced below.

Theory of Creationism has its Share of Holes - Bob Henderson

Creationists question Darwin's theory of evolution. How sound is the theory of creationism? My King James version of the Bible presents at least two versions of the creation story. One, a straightforward tale of God's creation of the heavens and the earth and all creatures therein including man, male and female.

Then there is the story of Adam and Eve. The genealogy of Adam follows with a story of creation not very different from the first version. The genealogy begins with Adam's son Seth. There is no reference to either Cain or Abel.

Adam and succeeding generations of men lived at least beyond 700 years. Then comes Noah and the flood. All but Noah and his family died in the flood. The flood dried up in the 601st year (Gen. 8:13).

Adam, it says in the Bible, lived to be 930 years old. But Adam would have died in the flood at the age of 600 or so along with most of the men listed in his genealogy.

I wonder how creationists will handle these facts?

Darwin's theory seems by contrast to be quite sound.

I take all challenges to the authority of the Bible seriously, because if I'm wrong in trusting the Bible, I want to know. In fact, I take any challenge to anything I believe seriously for the same reason. If I'm wrong, I want to know so that I can stop being wrong. The only other thing that I'm going to say here (before I comment on the letter) is that I don't intend to make a case for Creationism or Intelligent Design or even try to say anything about the debate at all. My only intention is to point out that we should respect each other in these debates and present each other's positions accurately. No harm there, right?
As far as this letter goes, I only want to reproduce what Genesis 8:13 actually says.
By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering of the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. (NIV)
Um, 'Noah's six hundred and first year'? So, you mean, we're talking about Noah's birthdays and not about how old Adam was? Unless I completely misunderstand Genesis, Noah came some time AFTER Adam.
To be fair, I will reproduce the KJV translation below.

And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked , and, behold, the face of the ground was dry .

Now, it is clear from previous chapters that this is not referring to the age of the earth or even the age of Adam. Genesis 5:32 reads:

And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (KJV)

After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth. (NIV)

In Chapter 6:3 we find this (clearly backtracking from where ch. 5 left off, which is clear by vs. 10 - "Noah had 3 sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth."):

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

And Genesis 7:11 --

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

So, it is clear from the context and what preceded Gen. 8:13 that it in no way contradicts anything. Anyone who sees this as a contradiction is simply taking things out of context and forcing them to fit a particular agenda (something that even some Christians have been guilty of, I'll admit). To see this as a contradiction, you have to be pretty sloppy in your research--which isn't a crime, just (very) bad scholarship.
So, to everybody who is engaged in any part of this debate: please, please, please don't make stuff up. It makes you look stupid and confuses the issue.
Peace.

Death by Socialism

Appalling standards of care at a hospital trust put patients at risk and led to some dying, according to a damning report out today.

The "shocking" state of affairs at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust meant patients admitted as emergencies suffered due to serious lapses in care.

Between 400 and 1,200 more people died than would have been expected in a three-year period, the head of the investigation for the Healthcare Commission said.
Full story here.
A British friend recently asked me what I thought the NHS--the UK's socialized medicine service. She seemed shocked when I told her I wasn't too impressed. Sure, there are great things about it, but there are also some not so great things, such as ridiculous waiting lists and "third-world" conditions described by the article above.
And to top it all off, it's paid for by taxes (which, I suspect are ridiculously high. Let me know if any of you come across anything on that.) My British friend told me that Brits are essentially taxed on everything. There's even what's called a 'council tax' which is (if I understand it correctly) a tax on nothing in particular. Just something Brits have to pay every month.
This is why I'm so excited about having socialized medicine in the States. I've always wanted more taxes for a free third-world experience...
POST SCRIPT:
Found another relevant article.
The Hospital of Death: 'Appalling' care may have lead to hundreds of deaths

Russian bombers in South America? What the heck?

MOSCOW – A top Russian military official has confirmed that the Kremlin is thinking of parking some of its strategic bombers in Cuba or Venezuela, within easy range of the continental United States.

More here.

Some people think it's a bluff (or perhaps threats for negotiating leverage).

Possibly also a reaction to this:

Washington plans to base 10 interceptor missiles in Poland plus a radar facility in the neighbouring Czech Republic by 2011-2013 to complete a system already in place in the United States, Greenland and Britain.
The United States contends that the shield -- endorsed by NATO leaders in February -- is to fend off potential missile attacks by "rogue states" such as Iran, and that it is not aimed at Russia.
The Kremlin, however, regards it as a grave security threat and on Wednesday threatened to aim its own missiles at the planned US missile shield sites in Europe.
(full article here)

To make things even better, a video was released of Obama making the following statements:

...I'm the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.
I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

(Full article here)

I tried to access the video this appeared in, but apparently youtube has either blocked it or whoever posted it has made it private. I wish I could see it. If anybody happens to find it, do let me know.

At any rate, I'm certain that the Russians know that Obama intends to cut funding in missile defense.

So, interpret the Russian move as you will.

Russia is a dangerous friend, I think.

POST SCRIPT:

I found a couple videos with that text in them. Here are the links:

Video 1: (exact text match) (Ignore the inflammatory commentary in the sidebar, unless you enjoy that sort of thing.)
Video 2: Essentially the same thing as video 1, cut slightly differently.
Video 3: A third re-cut of the previous two videos, with added footage serving as a commentary.

POST SCRIPT 2:
This just in: Chavez: Russian jets welcome, but no Venezuela base.

"Is Obama taking on too much...?"

This article seems to argue so.
What really caught my eye, however, was this comment someone had posted on the article:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

aelemay wrote on 3/15/2009 9:54:07 AM:

Is Obama trying to do too much? No, of course not. He is taking advice from Saul Alinski's writings which say he must cause chaos, panic, and total despair in order to install a new Government order. There is the fantasy abroad in the US that Obama is trying to stimulate the economy to repair the damage to people's investments, jobs, and future retirements. There is nothing further from the truth because his statements about catastrophic tax increases, energy controls which control company's profits -- which is how he plans to bankrupt the coal industry, increasing taxes on investors and compay owners, denying medical treatments to senior citizens, all point to an orchestrated plan to make the recession into a depression. And that is what Rahm Emmanuel meant when he said "a crisis is too important to waste." Every time he makes a statement the market drops. If he had said nothing we would be far better off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether or not you agree, it's certainly an interesting thought.

Peace.

A brief quote: Religion and Science

This is reminiscent of Chesterton's quote at the top of this page, which is why it caught my eye.

"Religion and science should be kept separate if there isn't an intelligent and involved god (i.e., no god or an uninvolved life force). But if an intelligent and involved god does exist, then religion and science are inherently intertwined."

From this brief article.

I'm not sure I see the point of the article, but I found that paragraph particularly quotable.

EDIT:

This piece on the separation of politics and science amused me. Usually you hear separation of church and state. This is the first I've heard of separation of science and state.

Maybe it's the same distinction. I dunno.

Sunday Quote - from Apologetics315

"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth man's minds about to religion."

- Sir Francis Bacon

Taken from here.

Not sure whether I agree with Sir Francis, but it certainly is an interesting thought.

Obamamamamia.

Obama apparently released a new logo for his recovery plan earlier this week. And apparently, a few clever souls think it fitting.

But for those who are still unsatisfied, here is a "more accurate version" of the logo.

In other light news, poor Mr. Obama has been working too hard. So hard, in fact, that he was a jerk to Gordon Brown (British Prime Minister). I'm in no position to say whether or not Brown deserved it, but I'm pretty sure that's irrelevant to whether or not Obama should have been more thoughtful. Article here.

Apparently, Brown's visit to the US wasn't given much attention by the US press, which made the Brits a bit upset, especially since the visit was hailed as potentially the most important visit of Brown's political career.

And here's a video with an obnoxious parrot.



Peace!

EDIT:
At least Obama didn't treat Brown like a "lame duck." I suppose that's supposed to be consoling.

...and yet again.

Same topic as last post.

More people discovering that the Bible has good stuff to say.

Peace.