Get inside this "Iron Man 2" trailer like never before! | Marvel.com News | Marvel.com

Okay, I'm trying to not completely geek out here! This is a web Widget to promote Iron Man 2. It is for an international audience that is why the release date is not May 7, 2010. Why is the international release date sooner than for us here in America? I have no idea, but excuse me while I play with this thing.




Get inside this "Iron Man 2" trailer like never before! | Marvel.com News | Marvel.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Iron Man 2 interactive trailer blows me away (scyfilove.com)
• "Iron Man 2″ Poised to Best "The Dark Knight"? (kylesmithonline.com)
• 'Iron Man 2' Releases A Third Movie Trailer (pinkisthenewblog.com)
• 'Iron Man 2' Releases EVEN More Promo Photos (pinkisthenewblog.com)

He Lives: Honest Science

I love David Heddle's blog. It's cool. He considers a scientific article from Scientific American entitled Scientists say free will probably doesn't exist, but urge: "Don't stop believing!" This post is pointed and funny. I can't tell if David Heddle, himself believes in free will but considering his reformed views and his appropriate lampoon of the article I'd think that he denies that all of us have free will. His observation was so interesting, I have to quote a portion of it.

He Lives: Honest Science: "Silly scientists.
(a) Telling us to believe in something that they cannot demonstrate or explain and
(b) actually do not think is even real.

That's worse than theists! At most we are guilty of (a), but not (b).

Of all the things with which you could fill in the blank: Without God there is no [blank], one of the hardest things for atheists to address is free will.

Morality? Altruism? Evolved, evolved, next question?

Free will?

"*crickets chirping*"


There is no scientific explanation possible for free will. True free will, if it exists, is inherently supernatural. By its very definition it involves circumventing nature. The universe's differential equation is leading you to perform action A, but you rise up against nature's next time-step and choose B instead.

Hey nature, you didn't see that one coming didja?, you dumb old broad!"

Okay...I think I'm done laughing now.

Quran Explorer

I've always enjoyed the fact that I can look up any book, chapter, and verse in Bible using the Internet. Turns out you can do the same with the Qur'an. The following site is very useful dealing with the Qur'an and in discussion with Muslims.



Quran Explorer

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Mortimer Adler on the God Question

I agree. I think everyone needs to read this quote! Thanks to Brain Auten of Apologetics 315.

“More consequences for thought and action follow the affirmation or denial of God than from answering any other basic question.”

- Mortimer Adler

Apologetics 315: Sunday Quote: Mortimer Adler on the God Question

The Dunamis Word: The Myth Of Magnet Morality

I have been following District Superintendent  Harvey Burnett's comments on John Loftus' blog as he defends the Bible from people who obviously have no idea what they are talking about. I agree with Elder Burnett. i enjoy his comments and think he is a very able debater,. i also happen to be in the same church denomination but i live in California. He has recently posted a great article on his own blog post explaining how people who claim evolution can explain the source of moral values can't possibly be correct. It's a good read!

The Dunamis Word: The Myth Of Magnet Morality

Apologetics 315: Essay: Cumulative Reasons for Christianity by Chad Gross

Here is the essay from Apologetics 315 in the current series. This one is Chad Gross who runs the Truthbomb Apologetics blog. I love his blog and this essay shows why his blog and ministry are so awesome!

Apologetics 315: Essay: Cumulative Reasons for Christianity by Chad Gross

NOVA Online | Neanderthals on Trial | Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA

I was sent the following article rebutting my contention that all living people have mitochondrial DNA from one woman. The article begins as follows

n 1987, three scientists announced in the journal Nature that they had found a common ancestor to us all, a woman who lived in Africa 200,000 years ago. She was given the name "Eve," which was great for capturing attention, though somewhat misleading, as the name at once brought to mind the biblical Eve, and with it the mistaken notion that the ancestor was the first of our species—the woman from whom all humankind descended.

The "Eve" in question was actually the most recent common ancestor through matrilineal descent of all humans living today. That is, all people alive today can trace some of their genetic heritage through their mothers back to this one woman. The scientists hypothesized this ancient woman's existence by looking within the cells of living people and analyzing short loops of genetic code known as mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA for short. In recent years, scientists have used mtDNA to trace the evolution and migration of human species, including when the common ancestor to modern humans and Neanderthals lived—though there has been considerable debate over the validity and value of the findings.

Th article then spends time on explaining the difference between mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA (the DNA from both parents in the nucleus of our cells). Then the article tries to explain why the Bible is wrong if we are all truly descended from a single woman.

Let's get back to "Eve." The ancestor referred to in the 1987 Nature article can be more precisely stated as "the most recent common ancestor through matrilineal descent of all humans living today." In other words, she is the most recent person from whom everyone now living on Earth has inherited his or her mtDNA. This certainly does not mean that she is the ancestral mother of all who came after her; during her time and even before her time there were many women and men who contributed to the nuclear genes we now carry. (To see how this can be, check out Tracing Ancestry.) It also does not mean that the mtDNA originated with this "Eve"; she and her contemporaries also had their own "most recent common ancestor though matrilineal descent," a woman who lived even further into the past who passed on her mtDNA to everyone living during "Eve's" time. (We get our mtDNA from that same, older ancestor. She's just not, to us, the most recent common ancestor.)

So what about all of the mtDNA of the other women who lived during "Eve's" time? What happened to it? Simply this: Somewhere between now and then, they had female descendants who had only sons (or no children). When this happened, the passing on of their mtDNA halted.

Okay, let me get this straight: This one woman we are all descended from had other people with her  and they had ancestors and the reason why there are no other people with different mitochondrial DNA because every single contemporaneous woman either had all male offspring or no children at all! That makes about as much sense as pulling a pinto out of my.....but I digress. I am amazed at the contortions people will go to even remotely entertain that the Bible is right.

NOVA Online | Neanderthals on Trial | Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA