Archive for October, 2008

Sorry Guys…

But due to tests coming up in Calculus and Chemsitry, I will not be posting for the next couple of days.

Read Full Post »


Nowadays, creationism is rarely viewed according to its definition: the believe that there is a God who was directly involved in the Creation of the universe.  That definition would include me.  Although I don’t believe in poof, poof all animals and people, I believe God worked through the mechanism of evolution (however, don’t confuse that with intelligent design; I will get to that later).  Most people see creationists as those who insist on a literal translation of the first chapters of Genesis.  These are actually the Young Earth Creationists; they believe that the 6 days of Creation were 24 hour intervals, so the earth must be less than 10,000 years old.  Also, they believe that everything was created by individual acts of Creation.  Although the YEC normally belive microevolution: how small changes in a species can occur in a species through natural selection, they do not believe in macroevolution: how one species evolves into another. 


I already spoke about this, so I will keep it brief.  How can you trust a literal interpretation of the Genesis stories if they are so different?  Also, would you say that Psalms should be taken literally (wisdom is a woman!).  Even St. Augustine said Genesis was more of a morality play than a history.  Many people see this is a way of defending God from science.  But He does not need help.  He is the greatest scientist and He would not be offended by our questions.  In fact, he gave us this intellect; let’s use it.


This explanation really angers me.  When presented with the evidence of fossils, many YEC will say that God placed them there to fool us, so it would appear that the universe is older.  Why is God playing Willy Coyote?  Lewis Black said it best when he said:

By attacking the fundamentals of nearly all sciences, you are only widening the gap between scientific and spiritual views.  YEC does more damage than good to faith, as it makes us look stupid.

Read Full Post »


First off, lets divide up atheists into two groups, strong atheists, and agnostics.  It is important to show the differences between the two.  Atheism has not really been a big player in the world until the eighteenth century when people wished to rise above the oppressive authority of the government and the church.  But at the time, there was no big hubbub about it.  Even Newton, a great scientist, published more articles about God than physics. 

Richard Dawkins

Famous Atheist: Richard Dawkins

Atheism gained major fuel after Sigmund Freud made some comments about God.  Today, prominent scientists like Richard Dawkins argue against God.  He has several arguments.  First, he claims, there is no need for God, as evolution accounts for all of life.  Although this argument does prove that God did not magically make all living organisms, it does not disprove the idea that God worked out His creative plan through evolution.  His second argument is that religion is irrational.  I find this interesting because Dawkins claims that science demands atheism, but this goes beyond the evidence.  If God is outside of nature, you cannot use science to prove or disprove God.  Also, his definition of faith is flawed: blind trust in the absence of evidence.  This does not fully encapsulate faith.  Surely, arguments by CS Lewis and Thomas Aquinas proves that serious thinkers can intensely believe in God.  Finally, he argues about all the bad created by religion.  As I already mentioned, however, despite the evil, have not great things been done?  Also, how do you pin that on God; is it not humans being imperfect containers for God and Moral Law?


Agnosticism is the belief that knowledge on God’s existence cannot be achieved.  Note that agnosticism can, but does not need to be, a cop out.  It should only be affirmed after a full consideration for and against the existence of God, and just about everyone who considers themselves agnostics do not do this.  Science cannot be used to justify discounting the great religions of the world, which rest upon history, moral philosophy, and the evidence of human altruism.  It is very deceitful and vain to say that you know for sure one way or another, as even people of great faith had doubts, but saying you know that God does not exist is just as wrong.

Read Full Post »

Alright, I don’t want to rush things, but I want to try to get back into the swing of things.  I will attempt to continue my series tomorrow.

Delicious or Foul?

Asparagus: Delicious or Foul?

We all know about asparagus, a green vegetable in the lily family.  However, only some notice an interesting side effect of eating this veggie, about 50% actually.  Only people with a certain gene (I have no clue which) can produce this odoriferous excretion.  Soon after consumption, people will notice their urine emitting at pungent odor.  This of course is only temporary, but interesting. 

Scientists are still not quite sure which set of chemicals or amino acids contained in asparagusactually cause the smell. The stalks themselves do not acquire a similar odor as they are prepared, so whatever happens most likely happens during ingestion or digestion. Experts believe that those with a certain gene produce a digestive enzyme which breaks down the asparagusinto various amino acids. One of those compounds is called methyl mercaptan, which is the same chemical which gives a skunk its defensive smell. But that is about as far as the consensus goes.  One group believes that asparagusbreaks down quickly in the body and an enzyme releases methyl mercaptan, this eventually goes through the kidneys and are excreted as a waste product in the urine.

Others suggest that the asparagus smellis created by another amino acid compound called thioesters.  There is also an amino acid called asparagusic acid, which is found naturally in asparagus. If these compounds are broken down and mixed with the genetically-created enzyme in certain concentrations, the results could be a strong smelling urine.

This smellis actually considered to be good news by most doctors, however, because it proves that the asparagus eater’s kidneys are functioning as they should.  But if you are still frightened, be not afraid.  I too am plagued by stinky asparagus pee.

Read Full Post »

I Need a Vacation

I have not found any reason to blog as of late and cannot force myself to do so.  I have decided to take a sabbatical, so to say.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: