Brothers

Brothers
E Plurubus Unum, Rex Montis

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Yellow Rain

"I refuse to explain myself to someone who rises and sleeps beneath the blanket of freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it." -Unknown author-

I am so tired of politicians that sit safe and sound behind their desks, vote on our country going to war, then spend the rest of their time in an office criticizing the reasons we went and the manner in which we conducted ourselves while there.
While I'm thinking of that....why is it that we the soldier can spend 20 years in service to this country and receive 50% of our pay, while any sitting congressman can do ONE term and get full benefits and pay FOR LIFE!?

Back on topic.
War is called war for a reason. That is why it is not called "play nice time."

I am so sick of the news media lately chastising 4 marines for allegedly urinating on some dead terrorists. Why do we not see this same media attention when terrorists gut a civilian or American, hang them from a bridge and set them on fire? Where is the outrage and media publicity for that? Where is the condemnation of the acts of extreme Muslim terrorists?

War is not only brutal and physical it is psychological. Why else do terrorists film the beheading of our soldiers with dull butter knives and then post it on the Internet?

If urinating on some dead terrorists helps them feel better after watching fellow Americans be butchered then I am all for it. If this is demoralizing to Muslims or any would-be enemies of America, then bring it on. Why aren't we dunking our bullets in pigs blood or burying dead terrorists in a vat of pig guts? Because we are "better than that?" Give me a break. Why do we care what the world at large thinks? No one likes us as is, and we feed the world!.

When going to war you try to retain your humanity, but you fight to win...at all costs.

We are often told war or violence solves nothing. I disagree. I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended a war and saves lives. Then again, I have become slightly cynical over the years.

The ironic part is that on average I am a very happy, content and upbeat person. You all reading this just get to hear from me on my angry days!

Friday, January 06, 2012

In the Beginning.....BANG!

Below is a series of posts I began on facebook, and decided to bring it here to my blog. The ultimate goal of this is not to convince anyone of anything, but merely to ask the questions "why?" and "how?"

"If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough, it will become truth." This is so true. Evolution used to be taught as a theory, it is now being ingrained in the public school system to such a point, that I meet people who have never heard any sort of alternative theory.

Let it be known, that I don't necessarily care that evolution is taught, in my mind it has no merit, is full of holes and cannot standon it's own two-billion feet. What I do care is that it is presented as fact in a scientific world. Any word to the contrary is met with cynicism, mockery and outright hatred. What happened to scientific theory being exposed to every arguement to help solidify it? Charles Darwin was his own biggest critique, once stating, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

I give you for starters, the following 5 problems I have encountered while studying evolution.

Problem #1 with the basis of evolution. A strand of DNA can only be created with a specific protein. This protein can only be created at the direction of DNA. It would then be necessary for both of these items to spontaneously evolve independantly of each other at the same time and same place and function together with no direction whatsoever. To say nothing of the other components of a cell. Just thinking out loud...

Problem #2 with the basis of evolution. The concept of irreducable complexity. The idea that a system is so complex that if you reduce even one part of it, the system fails. Example; a basic spring and bar mouse trap has 5 parts. If you take any one of those 5 parts out, the mouse trap does not work. This is a MOUSE TRAP. Yet, we are expected to believe that complex systems like, a cell, or the v...ascular system simultaneously evolved at once to function together as a whole, all at the same time. But, to function, multiple parts would have had to spontaneously evolve at the exact same time and same place with no direction besides chaos. Again, this is akin to throwing a bunch of metal in a dryer and a functioning rolex comes out...yet this is called science. I propose that beer is to football as evolution is to science. Associated, but not part of the actual game.

Problem #3 with the basis of evolution. For evolution to be viable it must break the first two concepts of biology, a) Life cannot come from non-life. b) organic matter cannot come from inorganic matter. With the many problems and outright theology that evolution seems to turn into, one begs the question, when most of everything observable in science and life appears to point towards a design, why is there an adament denile in that possibility? If you look at a house standing on a hill and look at the complexity and design, would you believe it if someone told you it just came into being by random chance? Just because we can't see the big picture or know the architect personally does not mean the house was not designed....we just need more information.

Problem #4 with the basis of evolution. The term and understanding of such is flawed from the beginning. Macro-evolution is the belief that over time through a series of successive mutations that one species can and does evolve into another species.

Micro-evolution simply put is the observable changes within one species reacting to an outside stimulus. The problem is that usually this distinctio...n between micro and macro is not made. Yet, this is a very important distinction because most follow the train of thought that since micro-evolution is observable, it proves macro-evolution. That is, since we can see certain changes happening within a species it is therefore proof for giant leaps in dna over long periods of time, resulting in new species.

However, there is something very important in micro-evolution that negates this theory. Observable changes in reaction to an outside stimulus are already pre-recorded within the dna. Very importantly, no new genes are added, no new dna results, no new species are an end state. Once outside stimulas is removed, species returns to it's previous state.

I can work hard all my life and get tough hands built with callus...my dna has not changed and my offspring are not born with tougher hands. Once I stop working I lose the callus.

Problem #5 with the basis of evolution. This is more of an observation, but still a problem. There is a fish called Coelacanths which was became extinct around the Late Cretaceous period, just under 100 million years ago. This fish was noted by evolutionists to be the precurser to land dwellers, as they noted fin/lobes on the fish and said they must be pre-cursers to legs and therefore part of the... evolutionary chain and is believed to have been a shallow water fish, hence the lobes/legs. It is believed to have evolved into it's fossilized form approximately 400 million years before the end of the Cretaceous period....okay, deep breath, I "think" I got all that right. Now, the PROBLEM.

This fish is still alive and well, unchanged after "100 million years." They have been caught off the coast of Madagascar and elsewhere, the first being noted in 1938 and multiple others noted since then. Oh yes, and it is a deep sea dwelling fish, not a shallow water fish.

There, these were the first five things that present themselves to me as problems with the theory of evolution. It has already been hashed out a bit on facebook....so now lets begin on my blog! Please be polite, respectful and adult-like. No one appreciates insults. Besides, it's just silly to do that from a computer.