I intended to write this earlier, and then thought I should gather my thoughts on it more fully before the attempt. But an incident this morning while talking to someone I value a great deal has spurned this to be written now.

I want to be wrong. It is a methodology to my life which I have come to embrace, and attempt to follow thouroughly. I have been reading a lot about how to question things, when to question, and how to look at them objectively. Even those things I hold so dear. And I really want to be wrong.

To be wrong about events and things which can be objectively looked at is the greatest thing possible. Because when you are shown that you are wrong, when you are proven to be wrong with all the evidence, you can stop being wrong. You can learn something, something new, and stop being wrong about what you believed to be the truth. Isn't that more important? Why can't people see this? Delusion is delusion no matter how to slice it or look at it. I don't want to live a live shrouded in delusion, I want to live a life open in the light of truth. So I want to be wrong, all the time.

And it doens't take much to prove me wrong, it just takes evidence. I love evidence.

And if I question your evidence for something, if I take it and scrutinize it, I check it against anything that might contradict it, please don't take offense. It is not a personal assault on your own deeply held beliefs, it is how I see what is truth. We're too frakking emotional for our own good, we humans. Far too emotinal.

Before I read anything nowadays I read several reviews of it first, from every side I can find. If there appears to be a lot of validity to the points brought across, and discussed, in the book, I will read it with gusto. Extra points for books with references and footnotes. "Stumbling on Happiness", "Don't Believe Everything you Think", "Snake Oil Science", "Voodoo Science", "Flim Flam!", "Why People Believe Weird Things", "The Demon Haunted World", "The Varieties of Scientific Experience", "Your Inner Fish".... All of these books do not teach you how to be a closed minded, cynical brute. They teach quite the opposite. They berate and even belittle those that would become so closed minded. That would be a horrible thing. And I do not want to be closed minded. But if I have looked at the evidence, seen its worth, and decided that currently there is nothing of value there, then I will not believe it, nor accept it, other than for what it is: A hypothesis without a solid foundation in reality.

I was told: "you are only concerned with what's proven by a method we've invented."

And of course I am. That method, called science, has proven the complexities of the human body, and the human genome. It has shown us continental drift, evolution, the birth of our universe, the birth of our planet, the death of starts and galaxies, technology, medicine, it allows me to LIVE for cripe's sake thanks to the work of Banting and Best with Insulin therapy on diabetic dogs. Science has shown, time and time again, that it is the best method to prove anything based in our natural world. Period. If you contest this statement, please provide evidence to your point.

Now, science can be wrong, it has been many times, and then it is set right again. Much like how I wish to be proven wrong, so I can be set right.

There are a lot of weird things out there, a lot! And numerous studies have been done about them. Good one, and bad ones. I recall one that is oft quoted by some "New Agers" about firining molecules through a screen with vertical slits. When the particles are observed at their level, the outcome on the other side of the screen is altered. They claim it is as if the "particles know we are watching". In a since, yeah, they're kind of correct. Because when you observe it on such a level, there are more photons of light interacting with that particle and your measuring equipment, thus reaching your eye. That is why observing events on a quantum level always alter the results. Photons of light reflected off of objects allow us to see them, you change the amount of photons interacting with the observer and the event, you can change the event.

Also:


I find it ironic that the same people who usually question those for not being open minded, are close minded themselves. They won't allow themselves to see the alternative view of the information, or belief, they hold so dear. It doesn't coincide with their notion of "worth" or how the world, or indeed, universe should be. And then they appear to turn around and tag the person who wants to question everything with objectionable interest as being closed minded. To be skeptical and closed minded would be impossible. To be skeptical you have to be always open to new ideas, but question them. And what the hell is wrong with that?

A person I value and care about so much, I upset today, talking about some of this stuff. They like to block things out when they conflict with their interest and belief. They aburptly ended our MSN conversation and logged off, and since I know them well enough, I worry that they'll simply not read what I wrote to them afterwards. Or they they'll block my emails, or delete them, or block me completely from seeing them online for days, or weeks. I've seen it happen before, and they can get very fiesty, history tends to repeat. I won't go into the detail about the specifics, but that above will suffice. I worry about them a lot, and worry does nothing but beget more worry, I realise. However I can't help it most of the time. To break one self off from that would to become cold to other people. When someone stops crticizing, when someone stops questioning you, they don't care about you anymore. They have given up on you. I don't give up that easily, I guess that's unfortunate for some.

There are subjective things in life, things that cannot be measured, cannot be shown "right" or "wrong". Music, art, literature, experiences, love, hate, they can fall into the subjective category of reality.

But those things that can be looked at objectively; biology, physics, math, chemistry, the cosmos, events that occur in front of our eyes, and can be witnessed by many people, and repeated, and studied... They can be shown to be "right" or "wrong".

Wouldn't it be nicer to know what was trully right, and truly wrong? If there were something that cannot be explained by the methods of science, yet it can be partially measured by science, shouldn't that be cause enough to see how far we can take science to understand and explain it fully? Less than a century ago, lasers, cell phones, and television was called "impossible". We live in a world of the impossible, thanks to the methods of science.

And so far there are still things that have not passed the test. "Alternative Medicine" for example, is called such because it hasn't passed the test to become real medince.  If Acupuncture can do all its adherents claim, it should win a Nobel Prize, but is hasn't.  Does that mean they won't ever? Of course not, that would be ignorant. But until that day comes I won't simply accept it even if it feels so right, and makes me feel better about the world and the cosmos, sorry I can't do it. Who would? If you suspected a lover, spouse, or partner to be cheating would you prefer to believe them because it feels better for you to think they aren't? Or would you discover the truth, and allow that to set you free?

"The world is like a ride at an amusement park. It goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question: Is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, "Hey - don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because, this is just a ride ..." And we ... kill those people. Ha ha, "Shut him up. We have a lot invested in this ride. Shut him up. Look at my furrows of worry. Look at my big bank account and my family. This just has to be real." It's just a ride. But we always kill those good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok. Jesus murdered; Martin Luther King murdered; Malcolm X murdered; Gandhi murdered; John Lennon murdered; Reagan ... wounded. But it doesn't matter because: It's just a ride. And we can change it anytime we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money. A choice, right now, between fear and love.

The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace."

- Bill Hicks

Sub-Heading: How I Learned to Overact With "Melodrama"

Recently I've begun seeing a Counsellor through KW Counselling because I can get free services there through my shitty work.  I'm sure they offer the free counselling because they know how terribly depressed their employees get, but I digress.

We've been talking about a lot of things.  About my personal relationships, my life as it sort of sits and rots right now, my dreams (or lack thereof), my job, my family, my frustrations, and so on.  I joked that perhaps I should have two or three counsellors for the amount of shit that's festering around the innards of my skull once with him.  As it stands, I feel as though my life is at an apex of failure which is slowly destroying my emotional and mental faculties.  I can harldy talk to people anymore, I feel frustrated, angry, depressed, alone, unsatisfied, lacking accomplishment, and going directly into the ground with a fervent pace.

Our talks are leaving me craving something, something that I fear I can't do, something that leaves me paralyzed quite completely with terror and anxiety.  Something that could potentially leave me with a sense of purpose, accomplishment, and satisfaction, however unrealistic it appears at this point in time.  It also means making this choice will completely destroy all current tentative foundations my life is resting on, leaving me adrift on this ocean, fighting desperately to keep control.  And it's leaving me horribly upset, and quite seriously empty inside my own head.

You see, I've lived my life one day, or at most, one week at a time.  The future is not something I've come to look forward to, plan for, or dream about.  Dreaming, I was sure, led me to failure before, so I shut it out of my life.  For the past half a decade, give or take, it has done it's job.  However, things are changing as they always do in life.  Now I'm planning, and researching a potential future, completely going against everything I fear that must be overcome in order to achieve it.  This is causing severe detriment to my state of being.

I'm going to lose everything if I make this choice and stick with it.  And that's not melodramatic, it is the truth.  And that is leaving me wide-eyed and breathing heavy when I should be sleeping.  How will I handle it?  Is this the right decision?  I know I'll be broken completely, or dead, if I stay where I am now.  But I know almost nothing of what will happen to me if I pursue this pipe-dream.  In another decade I could be in a debt I never imagined being in, finding myself at the end of another of my failures, or being in debt and finding myself with the greatest thing I could do with my life in my hands.  And there is absolutely no gaurantee it is going to turn out for the latter, if experience has shown me anything, the former is more likely.  And that also doesn't leave me looking forward to this choice much more.

Again, I have to give up everything I know, everything I've lived, and everything I want right now in my life for this new path.  Is it right?  Is it worth it?  Is there anymore definitive notion of happiness at the end of this new path, than there is on the path I've been walking down now?  I give up on friendships, relationships, and the hope of love and partnership, if I make this choice.  And I give up on all of it for at least ten goddamned years.

My Counsellor asked me if I had any real friends with which I had an intellectual, emtional and mental connection with.  When I said "No, not really", he asked me why not, and I had a hard time answering him. 

I sincerely wish I had something like that right now.  I wish I had a friend, the kind I've never had, or known of, or felt, right now. 

I'm quite seriously afraid of what I'm getting myself into, and/or out of.

And sitting here listening to my music collection, I find these lyrics rather fitting to my current situation:

The Hydrogen Economy
Savior of Humanity or an Economic Black Hole?

by Alice Friedemann

Skeptics scoff at perpetual motion, free energy, and cold fusion, but what about energy from hydrogen? Before we invest trillions of dollars in a hydrogen economy, we should examine the science and pseudoscience behind the hydrogen hype. Let’s begin by taking a hydrogen car out for a spin.

Production

Unlike gasoline, hydrogen isn’t an energy source — it’s an energy carrier, like a battery. You have to make hydrogen and put energy into it, both of which take energy. Hydrogen has been used commercially for decades, so we already know how to do this. There are two main ways to make hydrogen: using natural gas as both the source and the energy to split hydrogen from the carbon in natural gas (CH4), or using water as the source and renewable energy to split the hydrogen from the oxygen in water (H2O).

1. it’s very seasonal;
2. it contains a lot of moisture, requiring energy to store and dry it before gasification;
3. there are limited supplies;
4. the quantities are not large or consistent enough for large-scale hydrogen production;
5. a huge amount of land is required because even cultivated biomass in good soil has a low yield — 10 tons per 2.4 acres;
6. the soil will be degraded from erosion and loss of fertility if stripped of biomass;
7. any energy put into the land to grow the biomass, such as fertilizer and planting and harvesting, will add to the energy costs;
8. the delivery costs to the central power plant must be added; and
9. it is not suitable for pure hydrogen production.¹³

Putting Energy into Hydrogen

No matter how it’s been made, hydrogen has no energy in it. It is the lowest energy dense fuel on earth.¹⁴ At room temperature and pressure, hydrogen takes up three thousand times more space than gasoline containing an equivalent amount of energy.¹⁵ To put energy into hydrogen, it must be compressed or liquefied. To compress hydrogen to the necessary 10,000 psi is a multi-stage process that costs an additional 15 percent of the energy contained in the hydrogen.

Storage

For the storage and transportation of liquid hydrogen, you need a heavy cryogenic support system. The tank is cold enough to cause plugged valves and other problems. If you add insulation to prevent this, you will increase the weight of an already very heavy storage tank, adding additional costs to the system.¹⁷

Transport

Canister trucks ($250,000 each) can carry enough fuel for 60 cars.²⁸ These trucks weigh 40,000 kg, but deliver only 400 kg of hydrogen. For a delivery distance of 150 miles, the delivery energy used is nearly 20 percent of the usable energy in the hydrogen delivered. At 300 miles, that is 40 percent. The same size truck carrying gasoline delivers 10,000 gallons of fuel, enough to fill about 800 cars.²⁹

Conclusion

At some point along the chain of making, putting energy in, storing, and delivering the hydrogen, we will have used more energy than we can get back, and this doesn’t count the energy used to make fuel cells, storage tanks, delivery systems, and vehicles.³² When fusion can make cheap hydrogen, when reliable long-lasting nanotube fuel cells exist, and when light-weight leak-proof carbon-fiber polymer-lined storage tanks and pipelines can be made inexpensively, then we can consider building the hydrogen economy infrastructure. Until then, it’s vaporware. All of these technical obstacles must be overcome for any of this to happen.³³ Meanwhile, the United States government should stop funding the Freedom CAR program, which gives millions of tax dollars to the big three automakers to work on hydrogen fuel cells. Instead, automakers ought to be required to raise the average overall mileage their vehicles get — the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard.³⁴

References

1. Thomas, S. and Zalbowitz, M. 1999. Fuel cells — Green power. Department of Energy, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 5. www.lanl.gov/orgs/mpa/mpa11/Green%20Power.pdf
2. Pinkerton, F. E. and Wicke, B.G. 2004. “Bottling the Hydrogen Genie,” The Industry Physicist, Feb/Mar: 20–23.
3. Jacobson, M. F. September 8, 2004. “Waiter, Please Hold the Hydrogen.” San Francisco Chronicle, 9(B).
4. Hoffert, M. I., et al. November 1, 2002. “Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet.” Science, 298, 981–987.
5. Union of Concerned Scientists. How Natural Gas Works. www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/renewable_energy/page.cfm?pageID=84
6. Kruglinski, S. 2004. “What’s in a Gallon of Gas?” Discover, April, 11. http://discovermagazine.com/2004/apr/discover-data/
7. Fisher, D. E. and Fisher, M. J. 2001. “The Nitrogen Bomb.” Discover, April, 52–57.
8. Smil, V. 1997. “Global Population and the Nitrogen Cycle.” Scientific American, July, 76–81.
9. Darley, J. 2004. High Noon for Natural Gas: The New Energy Crisis. Chelsea Green Publishing.
10. Romm, J. J. 2004. The Hype About Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate. Island Press, 154.
11. Ibid., 75.
12. Hayden, H. C. 2001. The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won’t Run the World. Vales Lake Publishing.
13. Simbeck, D. R., and Chang, E. 2002. Hydrogen Supply: Cost Estimate for Hydrogen Pathways — Scoping Analysis. Golden, Colorado: NREL/SR-540-32525, Prepared by SFA Pacific, Inc. for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), DOE, and the International Hydrogen Infrastructure Group (IHIG), July, 13. www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/32525.pdf
14. Ibid., 14.
15. Romm, 2004, 20.
16. Ibid., 94–95.
17. Phillips, T. and Price, S. 2003. “Rocks in your Gas Tank.” April 17. Science at NASA. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17apr_zeolite.htm
18. Simbeck and Chang, 2002, 41.
19. Amos, W. A. 1998. Costs of Storing and Transporting Hydrogen. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, 20. www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/25106.pdf
20. Simbeck and Chang, 2002, 14.
21. Valenti, M. 2002. “Fill’er up — With Hydrogen.” Mechanical Engineering Magazine, Feb 2. www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/feb02/features/
    fillerup/fillerup.html
22. Romm, 2004, 7, 20, 122.
23. Ibid., 95, 122.
24. El kebir, O. A. and Szummer, A. 2002. “Comparison of Hydrogen Embrittlement of Stainless Steels and Nickel-base Alloys.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy #27, July/August 7–8, 793–800.
25. Romm, 2004, 107.
26. Fuel Cell Engine Safety. December 2001. College of the Desert www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/tech_validation/pdfs/fcm06r0.pdf
27. Romm, J. J. 2004. Testimony for the Hearing Reviewing the Hydrogen Fuel and FreedomCAR Initiatives Submitted to the House Science Committee. March 3. http://gop.science.house.gov/hearings/full04/mar03/romm.pdf
28. Romm, 2004. The Hype About Hydrogen, 103.
29. Ibid., 104.
30. Ibid., 101–102.
31. Bossel, U. and Eliasson, B. 2003. “Energy and the Hydrogen Economy.” Jan 8. www.methanol.org/pdf/HydrogenEconomyReport2003.pdf
32. Ibid.
33. National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap Production, Delivery, Storage, Conversion, Applications, Public Education and Outreach. November 2002. U.S. Department of Energy. www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/national_h2_roadmap.pdf
34. Neil, D. 2003. “Rumble Seat: Toyota’s Spark of Genius.” Los Angeles Times. October 15. www.latimes.com/la-danneil-101503-pulitzer,0,7911314.story
35. Associated Press, 2004. “Oil Prices Raising Costs of Offshoots.” July 2. www.tdn.com/articles/2004/07/02/biz/news03.prt
36. Abbott, C. 2004. “Soaring Energy Prices Dog Rosy U.S. Farm Economy.” Forbes, Reuters News Service. May 24.
37. Schneider, G. 2004. “Chemical Industry in Crisis: Natural Gas Prices Are Up, Factories Are Closing, And Jobs Are Vanishing.” Washington Post, 1(E). March 17. www.marshall.edu/cber/media/040317-WP-chemical.pdf
38. Romm, 2004. The Hype About Hydrogen, 8.

This discussion began with me making a comment on one of his YouTube videos where he states that Evolution is a lie created by Satan.  He also makes numerous comments stating that every single organ that is considered “vestigial” by scientists are not vestigial at all because they all still perform some sort of function.  My comment was a simple question: “In 500 words or less, can you  explain to me the purpose of the modern human’s Appendix?”

His response:

From here our discussion begins with a series of messages sent back and forth where I generally propose to him actual scientific facts, and ideas.  The majority of his replies come back with no responses in even a simple attempt to debunk my claims or notions. However, I fully use resources and scientific, recorded evidence to poke holes in his “arguments” from his fundamentalist perspective.  The rest of the discussion follows below with my reply to his above response.  All of his responses will be indented once and in italics.  I will point out that my own responses, in all honesty, may not be 100% correct.  Should any of my readers find errors in my research, evidence and responses, please do not hesitate to let me know!  I’m certainly no scientist, or professor, or biologist, or historian, or geologist, or theologian.  And while the majority of my responses were made in haste late at night, I know that’s not an excuse for inaccuracies!

I'll start off by saying I'm pleased you did a small amount of research on the subject, and impressed that you have heard of the lymphatic hypothesis surrounding it. However, I have read a journal written by Loren G. Martin, who is so far the best - and only - credible non-”creationist” (as far as I have seen) scientist who claims just as you do in your former statement on the lymphoid follicles of the vermiform appendix. I noticed that he asserts it “possibly” has some positive effect on children, although there is as of yet no evidence to support this. Also, the amount of lymphoid follicles in the appendix will barely fit on the nail of your pinky finger, which in comparison to the rest of your intestinal tract, is inconsequential.
Your second statement, regarding keeping the gastrointestinal tract from getting inflamed, I'm sad to say, I have not found any information on at all. Not even Dr. Martin mentions such a thing in his journal on possible uses of the appendix.

I have also researched this on several medical websites which state that a slowly increasing number of people are being born *without* an appendix. Could this be the incredibly slow starts (as you would expect in evolution) of natural selection taking course? These people are also seen to have absolutely no health problems in childhood, right up to old age.

I'm unsure of how familiar you are with the TalkOrigins Archives, however, there is an excellent section on the vermiform appendix which discusses numerous arguments, and facts, regarding this particular organ here: (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html) I am well aware you seem to think that the theory of evolution is a lie created by “Satan”, but if might behoove you to try and look at the afore mentioned article with a hint of open-mindedness. As for myself, I like to think that I follow some of the scientific principles and never lock my mind into any set idea. New information and evidence can always come along to change my mind, and I welcome those changes. This is a good part of why I find so much interest in “Creationist Hypothesis”. Should true evidence of such an event ever present itself I would be more than happy to accept it.

I respect your ability to research the knowledge that you use in your fight, I do wonder though how much of the scientific world you might be closed off from, or refuse to believe regardless of how much evidence supports it. Perhaps you'd like another project on “vestigial” parts of the human anatomy?

1. VOMERONASAL ORGAN
A tiny pit on each side of the septum is lined with nonfunctioning chemoreceptors. They may be all that remains of a once extensive pheromone-detecting ability.

2. EXTRINSIC EAR MUSCLES
This trio of muscles most likely made it possible for prehominids to move their ears independently of their heads, as rabbits and dogs do. We still have them, which is why most people can learn to wiggle their ears.

3. WISDOM TEETH
Early humans had to chew a lot of plants to get enough calories to survive, making another row of molars helpful. Only about 5 percent of the population has a healthy set of these third molars.

4. NECK RIB
A set of cervical ribs—possibly leftovers from the age of reptiles—still appear in less than 1 percent of the population. They often cause nerve and artery problems.

Thought you might find this interesting as well, since you always point out that some “vestigial” parts of organisms still serve some purpose –

On the subject of “Vestiges can be functional”:

“First, and most importantly, this line of argumentation is beside the point, since it is unnecessary for vestiges to lack a function (see Muller 2002 for a modern discussion of the vestigial concept that specifically includes functionality). Many true vestiges are functional (for many examples see Culver et al. 1995). In popular usage “vestigial” is often believed to be synonymous with “nonfunctional”, and this confusion unfortunately has been propagated via poorly-worded definitions found in many non-technical dictionaries and encyclopedias. Even some professional research biologists have fallen prey to this oversimplification of the vestigial concept (for instance, Scadding 1981, often quoted by anti-evolutionists and discussed in the Citing Scadding (1981) and Misunderstanding Vestigiality FAQ). The statement that vestigial structures are functionless is a convenient, yet strictly incorrect, approximation. It is analogous to the common, yet strictly incorrect, scientific claim that the earth is a sphere.”

Be well,
Ryan.

You're right.  But that's a statement from someone who doesn’t understand what Evolution really is.  Evolution favours the changes in an organism that will provide useful and purposeful to its continued survival.  Evolution has never meant you are supposed to continually gain attributes. I have no idea where you got this idea, but it is, I'm afraid to tell you, incorrect.

The same goes for the Appendix; evidence shows it may have been part of a digestive system for processing more vegetation in our diet. You can see this as an example in other mammals that still thrive on eating vegetation as a primary source of nutrition. This also tends to fall in with our decreasingly useless wisdom teeth. As stated above they were used to break down more vegetation, which in turn, was easily digested by our Appendix. And, believe me, Wisdom Teeth are useless, I had a little incident during the surgery to remove all four of mine! That was one hell of a day, let me tell you!

Back to the definition of Biological Evolution, I realize where you may have found the error in the meaning.  Evolution in other facets of life do actually mean small gains over time:

"Any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane."

"A product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research."

However, from a Biological Standpoint, the definition is as follows: "A change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift."

When something "mutates", it again does not only refer to the addition of traits or attributes, but also refers to the subtraction, or loss, of traits and attributes. You seem like an intelligent and well-read fellow, I'd recommend (no matter how evil xtians might say he is) reading Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". Hell, if you want a more challenging read you could pick of "Origin of Species" instead. But it will do nothing for you unless you open your mind to another avenue of thinking.

I'm also curious what you thought about the rest of my other two messages? I'm slightly disappointed I only got a response for the afore mentioned vestigial organs currently seen in modern homo sapiens.

Be safe,
Ryan

Back the saddle up there, partner.

I was under the assumption from your articulately portrayed videos you had a vested interest in some form of exploratory debate, and right here I notice that you aren't even acknowledging 95% of what I've said to you in the last three messages.

To top it off, invoking The Bible is not calling evidence to the table.  I'd ask you what you have to say about Dinosaurs, and the evidence for a 4.6 billion year old earth, but I'm sure you've read up on the hap-hazard "science" of the "Answers in Genesis" webpage.  As I understand it, some creationists are actually telling people that dinosaurs existed in the Garden of Eden somewhere in the area of 6,000 years ago. Not only that, they were entirely vegetarians? How can you account for the various species of dinosaur that disappeared even before such beasts as Tyrannosaurus Rex (or by their nomen oblitum "Manospondylus gigas") appeared on the Earth?

Back to my own statement on the more vegetarian nature of ancient man (remember, when I say ancient, I mean 200,000 years plus); Were they actually vegetarians?  Most likely, yes. Why? Well, look at other prominent mammalian species that are in the ape family tree like us. They eat mostly greens, fruits, etc. Some do eat bugs, fish, and other sources of protein, but not nearly as much as they eat vegetation.  So, along the Evolutionary scale of mankind, we reached a point when our growing bodies required more fuel. We moved up from insects and the like to hunting other animals.

Much like, and I'm sure you don't relish the thought, certain other species of ape are now using tools as we once began to. It is extremely well documented that chimpanzees, orangutans and now gorillas are using spears, water gauges (sticks) and other wood fashioned tools in their day-to-day lives.  This is not old science either, these findings are quite new, within the last twenty to thirty years! 

While I got you on the whole "Creationist Bible is True" circuit, can you help me understand how it is that Noah (once the flood waters receded) was able to make sure that all ten million species (because *if* that story is true somewhere in the area of all ten million species would have to have been alive at the time, even though there is only roughly 1.7 million species of animal on earth now) got to all the areas on the Earth they need to be?  IE: All the Marsupials in Australia, etc. Because, I have to tell you, as a firm believer in logic, reason, evidence and science, this notion has really caused me some severe headaches when I've thought about it. To be perfectly honest, as a child it was one of the first things that made me doubt this whole "God Hypothesis"!

Ryan

[Noah did not bring 10 million species, he brought one of each kind of animal...] - you

Hold on a second there. This implies an evolutionary theory, at its core. No one species of dog can possibly repopulate all other variations of the canine species, across the entire world, in less then a couple thousand years. I think you need to look up the facts of biology and the species on your planet before you make such an outrages assumption.

And Dr. Hovind... *sigh*  Yes I am fully aware of this man. I've watched and listened to a number of his lectures. And even though I'm no scientist, and not highly educated in the ways of astrophysics and paleontology, I know from listening to him he's wrong, and he himself doesn't understand the concepts he's trying to "disprove". And I've read the bible numerous times, and the bible does not mention in any detail dinosaurs.  It makes vague statements about "large animals" which we can't even prove existed.  And to your notion that scientists don't know the past, we actually have true evidence, using science, on millions of fossils that predate anything in the bible by millions, and millions of years.  And before you snap back with "carbon dating isn't accurate", you are right, it isn't.  It has a flaw of somewhere in the area of a few thousand, to tens of thousands of years.  And even then a MILLION year old fossil would be older than the "Created" Earth of your bible.

Isn't the good Dr. Hovind currently serving a ten-year term in Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield in Edgefield, South Carolina for 58 tax offenses, obstructing federal agents and related charges?  Something about "everything he owns, is owned by God”, and he shouldn't have to pay taxes?

Again, we have no actual proof of a global flood outside of the bible.  Even if such a thing were true, it would have destroyed any fertile soil for centuries.  Why?  The heavy salt water (I've heard the creationist argument for "fresh water floating on top of the salt water" which is also ridiculous. there is 3% fresh water on the Earth, if it was mixed with the oceans in a catastrophic world flood, it would be dissipated into the salt, and be unrecoverable) would have been deposited into the Earth's soil completely making it incapable of growing crops.

And to say that scientists that have studied actual physical testable evidence means I have "faith" in it, that's wrong.  Because that evidence is palpable.

Your faith is true faith, because you believe a book that was written 2000 years ago, centuries after pretty much everything in it happened.  Except Revelations, of course.

Have you ever played a game of Telephone when you were a child?  How do you think that would work after 100 years?  Let alone a couple thousand!

Ryan

The Grand Canyon?  You really think it was formed by a flood of 40 days?  Hard, solid, impossible to move rock was cut apart in 40 days?  Really?  Man, if you really believe that I can't shake that faith.  I just can't.  But you should read a book on Geology, it's not my forte.

And even if the flood was fresh water, it would've had to mix with the oceans, would it not?  You're create an incredible mixture of fresh/salt water anyways.  That in and of itself would be ripe for salting land plains, even during the initial water rising.

Alright, you don't know how carbon dating works it seems.  But it was a scientific method based on testing items which can be literally proven.  And when I can hold a fossil in my hand, and know that it walked the Earth, I know it was real, and not in any recorded history.  Your book is all the evidence you have.  There is no other hard evidence of your faith on this earth.  None. Really.

Not even the Egyptians, one of the greatest civilizations in the world, have records of enslaving Jews.  Not a single record, none!  But then again, my scientists weren't in Egypt at the time... So there might not have been Egyptians either...

And in regards to your "species mutation", you seem to act as if the dogs (or other animals) can almost choose how to mutate their offspring.  You're still talking about 100 or so (your words) pairs of animals *completely repopulating the planet* in only 4400 years.  This nearly impossible.  And the amount of varying mutations that would have to occur to create these varied offspring would have to be instantaneous.  Literally.  Again, read a book on genetics and species of this planet.  You need to.

Ryan

{Note: I failed in the following reply to mention that if his hypothesis about the spreading of animal species was to have actually happened, it means that every single animal of the planet would be completely inbred, and most likely, suffering sever mutations and deformations that would not, in any way, benefit the continuation of their genes...}

You are partially right about the canyon. It was caused by running water, that theory is pretty much proven by sedimentary evidence. However, it took more in the area of millions of years, not a few days.  The stratification of the cliff faces show this history of progression.  Read any science text book about geology.

So, if there were not oceans as we know them today, how then did other races (Chinese, Egyptians, Mayans, Incas, etc, etc) all over the world, before the Judeo-Christians and Jews even arrived on the scene, traverse the oceans?  Even circumnavigate the entire African continent?  You keep telling me to read the Bible, and I have, numerous times. It's impossible to believe everything in it.  Face it, it even says that the Earth is immovable in the sky, this has been quite easily proven false. We are not at the center of the Solar System, and most definitely not at the center of the Universe.  We move around a Sun which itself isn't even stationary, because it orbits around the center of our Milky Way Galaxy.  Next you'll be telling me its okay to stone disobedient children to death (yeah that's in the "good book" too).

And the fault lines? They're caused by the spreading of the continents around the world.  Never heard of Pangaea?  Look it up. Or else you might have a better explanation for how pretty much every land mass there is can fit into its corresponding land mass like a giant Earth Jig-Saw Puzzle. (South America's eastern side into Africa's western side)

[Since we don't have a time machine, we can not confirm any of the results. So no, it is not literally proven; it is literally not proven.]

And here we go with the whole "scientists weren't there" stuff again.  This coming from you means absolutely nothing, sorry to say.  Because logically it completely refutes your own belief system!  You believe a Book that has been written by men, over the course of hundreds, and edited over thousands, of years. Pieces have been taken out, added, etc, since its first time put down on paper.  And even then it was told by word of mouth. I'd like to see you tell a story that big to someone, and then see what the story looks like in 10 years time of being told to another, and another, and another.  Your belief system on a single book, written by men, who were NOT THERE EITHER, and also is supported with zero tangible evidence, is almost laughably (with no intent to offend) insane.

[Not at all. 2 animals have 6 offspring. So, 2 to the power of 6. Then 6 to the power of 12. Then 12 to the power of 24. Keep going.]

Okay... I'm going to humor this idea for a split second.  We'll suppose (with absolutely no evidence to support this hypothesis - again, I beg you to read any book on genetics or biology regarding this) that two tigers, from the genus "Panthera", species "Tigris", had 4 offspring (they usually have a maximum of this). These 4 have 4 each, and so and so on.  Some where in all this copulating, they would have to have from the family Felidae, and the sub-family Felinae:

Genus Felis
  - Chinese Mountain Cat (Felis bieti)
  - Domestic Cat (Felis catus)
  - Jungle Cat (Felis chaus)
  - Pallas's Cat (Felis manul)
  - Sand Cat (Felis margarita)
  - Black-footed Cat (Felis nigripes)
  - Wildcat (Felis sylvestris)
Genus Prionailurus
  - Leopard Cat (Prionailurus bengalensis)
  - Iriomote Cat (Prionailurus iriomotensis)
  - Flat-headed Cat (Prionailurus planiceps)
  - Rusty-spotted Cat (Prionailurus rubiginosus)
  - Fishing Cat (Prionailurus viverrinus)
Genus Puma
  - Cougar (Puma concolor)
  - Jaguarundi (Puma yagouaroundi)
Genus Acinonyx
  - Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus)
  - Genus Lynx
  - Canadian Lynx (Lynx canadensis)
  - Eurasian Lynx (Lynx lynx)
  - Iberian Lynx (Lynx pardinus)
  - Bobcat (Lynx rufus)  
Genus Leopardus
  - Pantanal (Leopardus braccatus) 
  - Colocolo (Leopardus colocolo) 
  - Geoffroy's Cat (Leopardus geoffroyi)
  - Kodkod (Leopardus guigna)
  - Andean Mountain Cat (Leopardus jacobitus)
  - Pampas Cat (Leopardus pajeros)
  - Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis)
  - Oncilla (Leopardus tigrinus)
  - Margay (Leopardus wiedii)
Genus Leptailurus
 - Serval (Leptailurus serval) 
Genus Caracal
 - Caracal (Caracal caracal)
Genus Profelis
 - African Golden Cat (Profelis aurata)
Genus Catopuma
 - Bay Cat (Catopuma badia)
 - Asian Golden Cat (Catopuma temminckii)
Genus Pardofelis
 - Marbled Cat (Pardofelis marmorata)
  - Subfamily Pantherinae
Genus Neofelis
 - Clouded Leopard (Neofelis nebulosa)
 - Bornean Clouded Leopard (Neofelis diardi)
Genus Panthera
 - Lion (Panthera leo)
 - Jaguar (Panthera onca)
 - Leopard (Panthera pardus)
Genus Uncia
 - Snow Leopard (Uncia uncia)

To top that off (remember this is your theory of the animals on the ark repopulating the world with just their own species) all of these Cats would have to make it to the places on earth where they live.  Most of these Cats live no where near each other, let alone on the same continent.  Unless you are going to tell me Divine Forces picked the new litters up and transplanted them in the hills of (for example: the Canadian Lynx) North Western Canada.  I'm not even factoring in how many of each of these species exist on earth, or the sub-species within the sub-species, E.G. Household cats!

Ryan

[Cats, population, etc..]

History has shown (recorded history) that cats have not always been pets of man.  Even the biblical account of creation is said to have taken place just before the domestication of the dog (from an actually historical standpoint, from records, mind you). Just like all animals, including humans (yes humans are animals), we had common ancestors.  You're right.  But to state that these animals walked around with humans (tigers, panthers, lynx, etc) to each part of the globe until they found a spot "just right" for them is also ridiculous.  These species came to be as they are from hundreds of thousands, and millions, of years of evolution in the environment they evolved to habitat.

Your hypothesis (as I understand it) would mean that two tigers had some cubs, perhaps two of those cubs were born lions, those lions would have to get to their habitat where we know they exist today.  Then those lions might have some cubs, and some of them are born panthers, and they, in turn, have to find their way to their natural habitat. And it goes on, and on, and on.  This happening in 4,400 years time is just not possible. Really, it isn't. On top of that, we have no archeological evidence to support your hypothesis. You also have to factor in all the species of Felinae that have gone extinct (we'll suppose for your sake) before or after the flood.  Evolution and Natural Selection takes hundreds of thousands, and millions of years, to work properly. Therefore, if your single Feline species repopulated all other Feline species on the planet in a mere 4,400 years (and less, remember that people have accounts of these other Feline species within the last few centuries) it just. Would. Not. Happen.  Again: Read a book on biology or genetics. PLEASE.

Your hypothesis is stitched together with scraps of actual evolutionary theory. Really, it sure seems that it is, just to fit your biblical account of the creation of the planet. "Similar" species have appeared around the globe due to the movement of the tectonic plates, due to ice ages and the land bridges created therein. Much like how the ancestors of Native Americans (Indians) came to the Americas across the Bering Strait which connected the eastern most point of the Asian continent with what we now call Alaska. These things did happen because there is archeological evidence to back it up through fossil records and the like. For those that believe empirical evidence, anyways.

-Ryan

[Grand Canyon, bending rock, flood aftermath...]

Alrighty, you are right, rock cannot bend. However, rivers do. The Grand Canyon (according to all credible geologists, yes I had to look up some research on it for my references to help you see the err in a "few days old Canyon") was formed by, and I quote Wikipedia; "the Colorado River basin (of which the Grand Canyon is a part) has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old (with most of the down cutting occurring in the last two million years). The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet."

A winding river, constantly running through, and around hard rock, for millions of years will easily erode it to nothing. The rock need not bend, because, of course it can't, it is simply cut through.

I won't touch this subject again, the evidence is colossal for the formation of the Grand Canyon due to millions of years of erosion. Your hypothesis of a few days due to a global flood has no evidence outside what is interpreted from the Bible. I'll also note (again) that we have no evidence, whatsoever, of a global flood.

I'll start off my pointing out you failed to respond to my statement on the "Jig-Saw Puzzle" like state of Earth's Continents.  Where does this fit into the Biblical Hypothesis? Anywhere? I don't see how, considering no one from Israel and the middle east even knew of other people in Asia, much less the Americas around the time of your "global flood".

Suppose that the flood took place 4,400 years ago (roughly) this means it occurred somewhere in the area of 2500BC - 2300BC (According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Irish archbishop and chronologist James Ussher, and most conservative Christian scholars...)  Let's take this seriously for your sake for a moment.  Here's a chink in that armour, and a rather large one at that:

The Egyptian Empire started somewhere in the area of 3150 BC by King Menes. The Old Kingdom Period started c.2700-2200 BC, right around the time of the flood, if you'll notice. The New Kingdom was founded c.1550−1070 BC and began with the Eighteenth Dynasty. In 343 BC  the last native Pharaoh, King Nectanebo II, was defeated in battle, and Egypt fell to the Persians. After this, it eventually came under Roman rule, and after this, the rest of history is irrelevant to the point I am making.

Look at those time lines.  Seriously and objectively look at them.  Somewhere in there, one of the greatest civilizations would have been completely wiped out by a great global flood.  Every single person. Then, after the flood, these people would've had to magically came back around and start up everything the were doing right before the flood happened. However, throughout all the recorded, yes, actual recorded Egyptian history, there is no mention of a massive flood (yes the Nile flooded a few times, but this did not submerse all of Egypt in water!). Again, there is also no mention of Jews being used as slaves, which is also said in the bible.  Explain to me how this is possible? How could this civilization continue on thriving even though it was completely immersed under water?

In regards to my message on Cats, etc, which I wrote first I forgot to include this article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070628/ap_on_sc/earliest_cats;_ylt=AmKmY2o8b2REDYWkgapyQ.LMWM0F

The above message was sent July 3 around 11:30 pm.  I have not heard from him since, and wonder if he has either gone to find a Biblical Excuse for the continued survival of the Egyptian Empire, or if he has simply given up because he fell into a rather large hole I poked into his Biblical Beliefs.  Should he return with a Biblical explaination, I have my response lined up, unless he thought ahead for it:  I’ll simply ask how the Chinese Nations were fighting and thriving during the time of Noah’s Flood as well.

If you have seen, or heard, of what is known as "The Pale Blue Dot", it is of the greatest importance that you familiarize yourself with it.  Taken by the Voyager Spacecraft as it exited our Solar System, a small speck of blue dust was caught in a sunbeam, smaller than a pixel in a photograph.  That dot is Earth.  This video is an excerpt from Carl Sagan's book "Pale Blue Dot" as read by him. 

If there is no other realistic thing you have ever experienced in your life that humbles you to no end, let it be this video.  Let it be the knowledge of how insignificant we truly are on this small world, orbiting one of only 100 billion, trillion stars. 

Below you will find another variation of the same clipping from Sagan's book.

"Take me back to the start..."

Yeah, won't you please?  Because I need someone to show me the way.  Twenty-Four years of age, they tell me I am, I might as well be fucking Fourteen.  I feel like I'm back there again, lost, alone, and left with nothing.  Makes me wonder when I figured I had anything to begin with.

For three years I wasted my life.
For years before that I wasted it equally so.
But they certainly didn't feel wasted as the time went by.  I made new friends, none of which I could touch, I accomplished seemingly grand and interesting things.  However, all of those things were as intangible as the dreams I clinged to as an innocent, naïve boy.  Nothing was real, no matter how real I wished it to be.  Therefore, today, I threw it away.  All the falseness of the "life" I had been living.  And, so it would seem, once again I've done it far too late to do any good for the moment.  In the long run will it do any good?  Perhaps.  Who knows?  Because I sure as fuck don't care enough to think that far ahead right now. 

How many times, Ryan, will it be that you will say "this is the last time I bother"?  How many after this?  Are you finished, finally? 

As a child your visions of adult-hood were filled with a single man, in a small house, with a few dogs to keep the loneliness at bay.  How disappointed that child must be in you now?  Not just for that, but for everything else you failed him for.  So much potential, so much promise, so much hope.  The home videos at your parents a few weeks ago helped reinforce these feelings.  Seeing that child there, happy, content, doing well in everything he attempted.  A bright educational future, a life somewhere out there.  And now you're a twenty-four year old child, Ryan. 

And after today, you're now left with nothing.

So fuck your games, fuck your friends, and please, Ryan, sincerely go fuck yourself. 

King Lear told you that nothing can come of nothing.  Considering you left yourself with nothing for more than a decade, we're all waiting to see how you'll pull your pathetic ass out of this tail-spin this time around.

Your move.