I was a little perturbed at how difficult it was to find who was running for the MS House and Senate this year. Eventually, I found the two parties’ pages (GOP, Dem) with the information for their own qualifying candidates, and put them together into a spreadsheet. Ahh, finally in one place, who’s running in which district in the 2011 MS elections. [I haven’t found any independent or 3rd-party candidates running, but if you know of any, lemme know and I’ll add them.] And as an added bonus, those qualifying for state races (governor, lieutenant governor, etc.).
Sudoku is a cool puzzle; “killer” sudoku, with its sums instead of numbers, is even better. I can feel my brain getting stronger every puzzle I do. 🙂 But I got annoyed at having to redo the sums every game, and was afraid of having missed one or more from time to time, so I finally sat down and worked out all the sums. At least, I think it is a complete list. So, here goes.
It’s a Word document (originally Excel, but I can’t upload Excel), so I hope it looks right. Happy sudoku-ing! 🙂
Why theistic evolution is be wrong and should be avoided by any who call themselves Christians
First, because when Christians belittle the historical account of Genesis and prefer a hypothesis begun with the presumption that there is no god, so that everything we see must have come about by nothing, they cut “the anchor line” that tethers them to Christ. Yes, some Christians may believe in theistic evolution and remain otherwise true Christians; but far too often, Christians relent on the clear teaching of Genesis and accept millions and billions of years (with a little bit of God thrown in to make it more acceptable to the Christian palate), and then get their legs cut out from under them by the nonsense that inevitably comes from holding that position, and ultimately turn against the faith altgoether. To quote from Richard Dawkins (copied from this article which quotes his book The God Delusion):
‘Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.’ (emphasis in original; p. 253)
One of the most common questions or come-backs from theistic evolutionists (or those leaning toward that position), is along the lines of, “I can’t understand how God could create the universe in such a way as to appear to be millions/billions of years old — that would be deceptive!” [As if God writing in His Word that He created the universe and all it contains in six days, when in actuality it took millions or billions of years, would somehow be less deceptive?!] What these people often don’t understand (as far as I can tell), is that people did not come up with the ideas of long ages based on the evidence; rather, they came up with that idea based on the assumption that there is no god, and if there is no god, we must explain everything by purely naturalistic principles; and if there is no god, then there can be no special creation, so everything must have just somehow appeared, but it would take even too great a leap of faith for them to say it happened quickly or instantaneously, but if you give “enough time,” then even the improbable becomes possible. Sort of like in “Dumb and Dumber” when Mary tells Lloyd that the odds of them ending up together are “a million to one,” and he gets this goofy grin and says, “So you’re telling me there’s a chance….!”
Here is a parable that perfectly sums up the theistic evolutionist’s position, and the problems that happen when one ignores the history of one who was there, and instead substitutes assumptions that cannot be proven but which skew the results, and go against the written account.
Or, “taking our nation/country/government back” — I’ve heard that statement numerous times from various people who generally would call themselves conservatives and/or members of the TEA Parties. I never thought much of it, but recently I read something that gave it a new twist. The author or speaker twisted the statement to give it racist overtones or undertones. I was flabbergasted. He said something that implied that people who use that phrase are trying to take our nation “back” into the hands of white people. Do what?? Not one person I know of who has ever used that phrase has meant anything remotely racist by it. In case anyone else has the same screwed-up idea that this man had, let me be explicit as to what we mean: taking the power back from the government and bureaucrats, and returning it to its Constitutional roots and restrictions, and it’s giving power back to “We the People.” No wonder it’s scaring the Democrat and Republican entrenched establishment.
So much for Dr. Wakefield being a quack and discredited, huh? Yep, this is one to save for the files!
Now a team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina are examining 275 children with regressive autism and bowel disease – and of the 82 tested so far, 70 prove positive for the measles virus.
Last night the team’s leader, Dr Stephen Walker, said: ‘Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain and none are wild measles.
‘This research proves that in the gastrointestinal tract of a number of children who have been diagnosed with regressive autism, there is evidence of measles virus.
‘What it means is that the study done earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct. That study didn’t draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming from the MMR vaccine. If that’s the case, and this live virus is residing in the gastrointestinal tract of some children, and then they have GI inflammation and other problems, it may be related to the MMR.’
One of my f/b friends posted this story told by Ben Franklin, and I liked it and wanted to pass it on:
Here is the story as told by Benjamin Franklin:
“When I was a child of seven years old, my friends, on a holiday, filled my pocket with coppers. I went directly to a shop where they sold toys for children; and being charmed with the sound of a whistle, that I met by the way in the hands of another boy, I voluntarily offered and gave all my money for one. I then came home, and went whistling all over the house, much pleased with my whistle, but disturbing all the family. My brothers, and sisters, and cousins, understanding the bargain I had made, told me I had given four times as much for it as it was worth; put me in mind what good things I might have bought with the rest of the money; and laughed at me so much for my folly, that I cried with vexation; and the reflection gave me more chagrin than the whistle gave me pleasure.
This, however, was afterwards of use to me, the impression continuing on my mind; so that often, when I was tempted to buy some unnecessary thing, I said to myself, Don’t give too much for the whistle; and I saved my money.
As I grew up, came into the world, and observed the actions of men, I thought I met with many, very many, who gave too much for the whistle.
When I saw one too ambitious of court favor, sacrificing his time in attendance on levees, his repose, his liberty, his virtue, and perhaps his friends, to attain it, I have said to myself, this man gives too much for his whistle.
When I saw another fond of popularity, constantly employing himself in political bustles, neglecting his own affairs, and ruining them by that neglect, “He pays, indeed,” said I, “too much for his whistle.”
If I knew a miser, who gave up every kind of comfortable living, all the pleasure of doing good to others, all the esteem of his fellow-citizens, and the joys of benevolent friendship, for the sake of accumulating wealth, “Poor man,” said I, “you pay too much for your whistle.”
When I met with a man of pleasure, sacrificing every laudable improvement of the mind, or of his fortune, to mere corporeal sensations, and ruining his health in their pursuit, “Mistaken man,” said I, “you are providing pain for yourself, instead of pleasure; you give too much for your whistle.”
If I see one fond of appearance, or fine clothes, fine houses, fine furniture, fine equipages, all above his fortune, for which he contracts debts, and ends his career in a prison, “Alas!” say I, “he has paid dear, very dear, for his whistle.”
When I see a beautiful sweet-tempered girl married to an ill-natured brute of a husband, “What a pity,” say I, “that she should pay so much for a whistle!”
In short, I conceive that great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon them by the false estimates they have made of the value of things, and by their giving too much for their whistles.
Yet I ought to have charity for these unhappy people, when I consider that, with all this wisdom of which I am boasting, there are certain things in the world so tempting, for example, the apples of King John, which happily are not to be bought; for if they were put to sale by auction, I might very easily be led to ruin myself in the purchase, and find that I had once more given too much for the whistle. “
Occasionally when I get into discussions with people who claim to believe the Bible but discount the first 11 chapters (the history of creation, the first several generations of mankind, the Flood, and the dispersion following the Tower of Babel), they say things like, “Well, God could have used evolution to make the world, like most scientists say, so when you insist on a literal interpretation, you’re just limiting God. He could do anything He wanted, so you’re in essence saying that He couldn’t have used evolution when you insist on believing a straight reading of the book of Genesis.”
I was made to think in this vein tonight, and I’ll offer an analogy.
Let’s say a woman you knew had just given birth, and she was telling you what happened. Suppose she told you she gave birth at home, and you said, “You mean, you had a C-section.” She’d probably look at you a little funny, and repeat, “No, I had my baby at home.” Then you said, “Right, you had your baby by C-section.” “No,” she insists, “I did not have a C-section — I gave birth at home. I didn’t even tear!” Finally, you realize you’re not making any headway, so you say, “Whatever, you had your baby — what does it matter whether you had a C-section or gave birth vaginally? And why are you limiting yourself? — you could have had a C-section, so it’s basically the same difference.”
You see, the woman wasn’t giving all the possibilities; she was merely giving actual history. And, yes, it does matter for historical purposes and accurate records whether her story was recorded properly. Why is it that we accept people’s accounts of something that happened without insisting that because it happened that way it was somehow limiting them on other things that might have happened? We don’t insist that our friends really stayed home when they actually went on vacation, so why should some people insist that believing history as written in the Bible is somehow a foolish exercise that limits God?
Someone on an old post said something about there not being any verses in the Bible that specifically say the earth/universe is young — “young” meaning on the order of 10,000 years or less — much less than the Big Bang or the chance arising of life from nonliving materials would allow. [Leaving aside the history of Genesis with a pretty strict chronology that allows one to add up dates of each man being X years old when he fathered a particular son, working your way back to Adam who was created on day 6 of the existence of the universe, I guess.] There isn’t a verse which says, “And in the 4th year of the reign of David, king of Israel, the earth turned 2035 years old,” or anything like it. But I contend it’s not necessary, given the history — much like one could say, “In the year 1776, the American colonies declared their independence from Britain,” without reiterating 230 years later that the country is 230 years old. Past history suffices. He also said that “not all thinking Christians/Jews from time immemorial have subscribed to the young earth-young universe model.”
So I asked him, but have not yet received an answer (he may just be ignoring me, although he may ultimately answer), “What Biblical evidence do you have that the universe is old? Which Christian or Jew prior to, say, the 1800s believed that the earth/universe was old?”
Yes, I know there are verses that talk about the earth being old, but it depends on perspective. Compared to humans which live about 70 years, 1000 years would definitely qualify as “old.” But, I’m just curious if there are any verses which teach that the universe is hundreds of thousands or even millions or billions of years old. I’m not talking about fitting things in sideways, or twisting passages — like the “gap theory” which says there’s a gap of several millions of years between Gen. 1:1 & Gen. 1:2 — I’m talking about verses which teach it, not those that might possibly could maybe somehow be construed to allow for millions of years.
Also, if anybody knows any Bible-believing Christian or Jew prior to the 1800s (the century when long-age philosophy first became popular in modern times) who believed in an old universe/earth, please tell me his name or link somewhere to it.
Just curious. And here is a list of articles that are available that demonstrate my position.
Recently, I registered for something online (Financial Times), and they had the following fields for me to choose for my “position”:
- I’m certainly a partner in my marriage – √
- Definitely the CFO (chief financial officer — my husband hates dealing with money) – √
- Director — Oh, certainly! – √
- VP — I would say yes – √
- I manage and supervise children all day long, so √
- Secretary/Treasurer — yes to both – √
- Department Head… yes, I head up the Mommy department 🙂 – √
- Advisor — certainly, I advise my husband in money matters, because I’m the nerd – √
- Other management — yes, I manage my laundry and manage to clean house too √
- Tired – √ … oh, did it say REtired… no, I guess I’m not then 😉
- Controller/Financial Officer — maybe according to my husband, I’m a little too much of a controller… √
- Government official…. well, I do make the laws in my home and see that they’re enforced, so √
Next there was Job Responsibility…
- Finance/Accounting — certainly! √
- Strategy/Planning — oh, I plan my days and strategize how to get the most done in the least time, so definite √
- Training — yes, I trained my children to pee in the potty and am trying to train them to be good citizens and loving brothers √
- Banking and investment — sure √
- financial adviser – yep! √
- Research/ development — does cooking count? √
- Consultancy… yes, my husband consults me before he does anything big… √
- Money Manager and Money Management – √
- Public Service… well, yes, I think I’m doing a public service to raise good children √
- Student — always learning! √
- Technology — yes, I like technology too and use it all the time √
Finally, there was “Industry”:
- Banking – √
- Financial Services – √
- Communications and Media — yes, this blog plus my facebook – √
- Govt/Public Service – as above, yes I make the rules in my home and I’m doing a public service by raising mannerly children √
- Education – certainly, I love to learn stuff √
- Manufacturing – does making stuff with construction paper count? If so, √
- Other business services — certainly, busyness is my middle name! √
- Transportation and logistics — oh, yes, taking my kids places, and trying to figure how best to do things √
- Engineering/construction – yes, I’m really good at building with blocks √
- Consumer – yes! √
- Consultancy, with my husband √
- Info management – all the time I deal with info – √
- Property management — yes, I manage my house which is my property √
- Real estate – yes, I’m trying to sell my house √
- Fuel – for me car – how else am I supposed to get around? √
- Energy/utilities – yes, I’m the one who pays the bills, and constantly turns stuff down or off
Yes, I do a lot. So I settled for “N/A” – “not applicable.” 🙂