Friday, June 28, 2013

My Views on the Evolution of Species

lifted from april93's blog
Mankind has been observing changes in various species our entire existence. In fact, mankind has caused much change both directly and indirectly. We have observed evolution in action.

Directly, we have caused the evolution of domestic animals. We selectively breed various animals to enhance their desirable traits, while minimizing less desirable traits. However, a dog is still a dog, whether it is a chihuahua or a rottweiler; and genetically speaking, they can still interbreed (although it might not be practical or likely).

Then there are spontaneous adaptive changes in response to changes in the environment. I call it Evolution by Cataclysm. Salt and pepper moths changing from being mostly light in color, to mostly dark in color with in a few generations is a famous example. They blend in with of trees to hide from birds and predators. Soot from factories during the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree bark, thus favoring the darker of their species. Unfortunately, this is a poor example of evolution, given that it was relatively sudden and in the face of near extinction, and most species die out instead of adapt to sudden environmental change. What's more, they are still salt and pepper moths, with no genetic change that would prevent darker moths from breeding with lighter moths.

Then of course is the classic view of creatures that started out the same, but split and migrated and became separated by vast distances, slowly adapting to separate environments and evolving over millions of years until they became so genetically distinct that they could no longer interbreed and became distinct species. This is what was taught to me as the Theory of Evolution (I had a habit of calling out my school teachers when they made the mistake of listing classic long term evolutionary theory as factual on tests, a habit that got me both punishment and commendation) As a theory it is not unscientific, in fact it's quite as an good alternative explanation if you want secondary opinions on the origin of species, besides Intelligent Design. The only problem I see is that, given the Earth's theoretically relative youth, it seems a statistical unlikelihood that such a large diversity of contemporary creatures had time to evolve.

I adhere to a Christian viewpoint of intelligent design, although I'm frequently first in line to question whether a day to God is literally our 24 hours. I also like to point out that while God spoke it and it was done, the scriptures are unclear as to the exact scientific or technological process. A belief in God does not necessitate a suspension of reason or science.

In a free society, we have the right to respectfully debate all ideas, whether they are Atheistic, scientific, Christian, well reasoned, crazy, or just stupid. The above is just my opinions based on what limited knowledge I have on the subject. Debate it if it pleases you. I know it pleases me and helps me learn something new.

Thursday, June 27, 2013

I Still Disagree with the Supreme Court

I've only heard two stated reasons why LGBTs want marriage. 1 Love; however no mature people marry the people they love simply because they love each other. Marriage is not now, nor has it ever been about love, otherwise there would be no legal or social prohibitions on close relatives marrying, having multiple marriage partners; or marrying children, pets, inanimate objects, or corpses.

Argument number 2 involves financial benefits and inheritance issues. Really, says I. The obvious truth is that signing on to a work or business contract that does not provide benefits to your lover is your own fault, not the government's. What's more, while you may petition a private business owner to change the terms of the contract, he is under no legal obligation to do so. As for inheritance laws and death taxes, the government is morally wrong to override the written and notarized wills of the dead in most cases.

Change the law. Get the Federal Government out of the marriage business. They should not have the right to pick winners and losers in the marriage debate.

I have a theory why marriage is being so hotly challenged, and it has nothing to do with love or financial incentives, but everything to do with communism.

From the 45 Goals of Communist Takeover of America

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

It seems to me broadening the definition of marriage to include gay and lesbian relationships is well in line with these two goals.

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

This is Me Angry and Confused at the Supreme Court

Dear NSA,
This is what I want from the Fed regarding marriage laws, definitions, benefits, taxes, inheritances, and so forth. They can eat my shorts!

I don't want anyone trying to legally force on me what they think marriage means. I have a moral definition that neither the Fed, nor any of the liberal left has succeeded at changing!

That marriage is between any two consenting adults of any sexual orientation, is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; evidence that the LGBT community and their supporters have not provided!

I want the Fed out of my bedroom, out of my marriage, out of my bank account and health and life insurance, and out of my inheritance rights.

I want the liberal whiners to learn proper, respectable debate and to start making logical claims as to why marriage laws and definitions must change.

Proselyting a new definition of marriage by legislation and the Supreme Court will not gain my respect, will not change my mind or heart, and may even shorten my tolerance.

As a whole, I don't feel hate in my heart for the LGBTs of this country, but if that's what they are trying to inspire, they are getting close.

There, I've written something angry about the subject. Maybe soon I'll write something more reasoned and gentle.

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Homemade Macaroni and Cheese for the NSA

Is it fattening? Yes! Is it loaded with carbs? Absolutely!

Here is my recipe for homemade macaroni and cheese, since obviously the NSA will care so much:

1 lb pasta (we prefer rotini or egg noodles)
1/4 cup butter
1/4 cup all purpose flour
2 cups milk
1/4 tsp ground cumin
1/4 tsp paprika
2 cups shredded cheese (we prefer 1 1/2 cups colby and 1/2 cup romano)

Boil the pasta in a large pot until al-dente, drain and put back in the pot.

In large sauce pot on medium heat, melt butter, whisk in flour until incorporated, whisk in milk and spices. Stir until thickened. Add cheese and stir until melted and well blended. Remove from heat, gently stir into pasta. Serve hot. Makes 6 to 8 servings.