I have heard today in an article that some people are upset with Obama that during his Inauguration address he equated all religions the same. They are upset because by claiming equality for all religions, they say that he is denying the "Christian" heritage of the United States. I could use this time to discuss the whether or not we can call Americal a real "Christian" nation and what that means, but I'll abstain. Instead I have a question I have to ask these people who are now complaining: When did you figure out that Barack Obama did not share our worldview completely? By "our worldview", I refer to Bible-believing, Holy-Spirit-filled Christians. I mean he has always been consistent about not putting the Bible above the worldview of the World. I mean didn't they watch Rick Warren's "Showdown at Saddleback Church" last July? I saw it. I know that in his view Islam, Hinduism, Atheism, Buddism, and whatever else is just as valid as Christianity and should be treated equally. He has said it so many time. Don't complain now. I'm not saying that I agree with Obama's worldview on this point but it is the predominant viewpoint of American culture today.
I found a video today on YouTube where a little girl lets you know right off the bat what she think of George W. Bush. I noticed by some of the comments that people thought it was in poor taste to put a child up to this. I'm sure that girl's parents taught her what to say, but I've got to admit that my 2 year-old little girl does not like George W. Bush at all. I can't figure out why. I did not teach her to prefer Barack Obama, but it is possible that she has picked up this attitude from me. Here is the video:
This is a post answering Naon Tiotami: Just so you know, Jack’s comments are blue, mine, Marcus, previous comments are red. My current ones are in Black! This thread's original comments can be found at this link
The reason why we don’t have an unbroken line of fossils is that fossilisation is a rare process, and certain conditions must exist for it to take place. Shallow seas are a great place to find fossils though (accounting for why about 90% of the fossils we have are from marine creatures), so we should probably find more Tiktaalik-esque fossils in the near future.
I have no problem with your explanation as to why we have no transitional records indicating direct descent from fish to amphibians. It’s plausible. It’s logical. You only omit one possibility: There aren’t any to find.
That, of course, is a possibility, but… it contradicts the genetic evidence that strongly points towards the inter-relatedness of all living things. The only mechanism we know of that can produce similar genetic sequences is heredity, and, no, a common designer is not an explanation, because it cannot be falsified. Having a common designer can explain anything, and thus, is not really an explanation. Statements that are true regardless of any possible evidence are not verifiable (and therefore, not scientific) statements. Oh, and one small correction (for myself): Tiktaalik was actually found (and therefore lived) in an ancient river, not an ancient shallow sea. My bad.
It’s weird that my arguments are ridiculed and maligned. Yet you say “Having a common designer can explain anything, and thus, is not really an explanation. Statements that are true regardless of any possible evidence are not verifiable (and therefore, not scientific) statements.” Think about that for a minute. It’s not scientifically verifiable that living fish and amphibians have a common ancestor because none has been found. Just possble fossils that suggest that we may one day find them. So why not reject it. Besides some thing are true because they are true whether of not they are scientifically verifiable. For example if a child’s mother dies when the child is to young to remember her, can the child scientifically verify that his/her mother loved them? No. But we would still tell that child that the mother they have never seen loves them.
I don’t see any “goal post” moving. Initially, I was only talking about transitional fossils between apes and humanity. Dave brought up the link between fish and amphibians and tried to apply it to people.
Mmm, but you wanted a transition, you got one, then asked for a full, unbroken sequence. You moved the goalpost.
I asked for a transitional fossil proving that apes and humans have a common ancestor. Not for transitional fossils showing common links for today’s fish and amphibians. Look at the context in which I wrote that post reviewing Nephilim Rising. I didn’t move any goal post. David expanded the playing field.
This is kind of a moot point, and doesn’t really prove anything, so I’m just going to leave it. Think what you will.
Why abandon this point? I was taken out of context. Bottom line. And the only way to prove evolution is to produce an unbroken sequence. Evolutionist pretend that they have that but they don't
“Want to know a better definition for the origins of life on this planet: “In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.” Genesis 1:1"
Well, I wouldn’t read the Bible for that. It’s incompatible with modern scientific findings (if read literally). I’m not sure what by definition: do you mean “explanation”? If so, I don’t have one at the moment, no one does.
The Bible has a explanation. It does not give details as to how He did it. That is what scientific inquiry is for. God allows you to accept or reject this explanation. But nothing else makes sense. Something came out of nothing. Physics agrees with this. Some how Entropy became less than 0. Order came out of nothing. Direction-less, random processes does nothing to explain the origins of reality let alone life. The Bible does not answer all questions and not all of it is to be read literally. There is debate as to what it means to say that earth was created in 6 days. Was each 24 hours as we measure them today? Or was it many eons? We don’t know. The Hebrew does not specify. What we do know is that God can do anything. If he wanted to do it in 6 24-hour days, I see no reason why not.
So, you’re saying that the explanation is true by default (that the Bible is true in the way it describes things), and it’s science’s job to find out how? Firstly, how could science find out how? It was a supernatural event, and therefore you could say warp absolutely any data by just saying that God changed the laws of nature at that point. Not an explanation, I’m sorry. Again, unfalsifiable, not worth bothering about.
Not everything God does changes the laws of nature. He often works inside those laws.. You’re immediately going into the nature of “miracles” and I wasn’t going there. For example the Bible tells us when the first rainbow appeared. Now we can explain how rainbows are formed. There are a lot of other examples. I’m planning to do a blog series soon presenting what I have been studying concerning this.
Secondly, who says something came out of nothing? Not the scientific evidence. The Bible does, but we can reject that from the conversation because you would believe what it says regardless of what I say. “Physics agrees with this.” Show me, show me how it does.
You seem more well-versed in biology than physics. Therefore, I’d direct you to any Physics journal in print today. Ask yourself: What was there before the big bang? Right, nothing. Just like the Bible says. How can something come out of nothing. Scientifically if you take sub-atomic particles accelerate them to close to the speed of light, then collide them together you can get other particles springing out of nothing…for may be a pico second. You get particles with its corresponding anti-particle and they cancel themselves out anililating each other; mustn’t violate the laws of thermodynamics right? Yes, Virginia, there is such thing as anti-matter.
Thirdly, what are your reasons for rejecting the, understandably, incomplete hypothesises about abiogenesis? The Bible? Sorry, not good enough. Do you have any scientific reasons? Are any of them not found on this page?
My short answer is that abiogenesis is an “understandably, incomplete hypothesis” as to why I dismiss it. Why would you accept it other than the fact that it eases your conscious in rejecting your creator?
Fourthly, why are some parts of the Bible not to be read literally? How do you know this? Does the Bible say so? Or are you just cherry-picking to make sure it complies with what science you do accept?
The Bible, like a lot of literature is not meant to be taken literally because it uses hyperbole, metaphor, and allegory to make points. In context and a good study of history and culture set in the time it was written it becomes easy to tell what to take literally and what not to take literally. And yes, sometimes the Bible itself says when it’s being poetic or literal!
Fifthly, why would God create the Universe is 6 days? Couldn’t he do it in zero seconds if he wanted to? (This point is not a main one, so don’t devote millions of words going off on a tangent. I’m just curious as to what you think.)
The Bible says it was 6 days. I don’t know why he chose to do it that way. The Hebrew at that point is not even clear on how long a day was. The word translated “day” literally means a period of time. He could have done it in zero seconds, 6 seconds, or 6 billion years. The Bible does not say. God can do anything He wants.
First of all, “Evolution News and Views” is run by the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design thinktank that, for all intents and purposes, is a creationist organisation.
“Intelligent Design” does not equal “creationism”. Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design believe in an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, personal God who created everything. I think they’re nuts…but at least they have enough sense to know that you don’t get anything complex by chance. If you do, then I have some swampland in Florida I’d like to sell to you.
See, you define “creationism” as your brand of Biblical literalism, but most definitions will define it as any explanation of “creation” (being life, the Universe etc., but not necessarily more than one or all of them) involving a supernatural entity. The Discovery Institute is basically a creationist organisation, are heavily biased against evolution (as opposed to being “balanced”, like they would claim), and have stated this right here. (Note: The link is to a copy of a document that was written for the Discovery Institute, and is not hosted on the DI’s website)
You are making my point: you have to define terms. I do not know how the Discovery Institute defines creationism. So talking about them is pointless. I know how I define it. I see no reason to try to defend them. I pointed them out as only a source to show that not everyone agrees that this particular fossil is a good evidence for macro evolution! That is what you need to be answering to not whether or not they Believe God created the universe to some degree or another. Either Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil or it isn’t. Prove it is. Or else admit that you do so by faith.
I know what you’re thinking because you already made the point that evolution is driven by many factors. None of these factors are in a vacuum or can be thought not to interact with each other. Let’s say, that the Judeo-Christian God is not responsible as some folks say. Even so don’t you think anyone able to design life on earth would also be able to manipulate all those factors too!
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here. Sorry. Could you please restate this?
I’m making the point that I realize that you do not believe that evolution is a radom process with things happening all on their own but that evolution is driven by many factors including environment, food sources, and too many factors to keep in mind, let alone predict how they affect one another. To me this show that there must be a God. How else can you explain how all the factors lined up to bring about life in all its myraid forms as we see today?
Secondly, to debunk the claims found in those articles, I would have to spend time looking up stuff. I don’t want to do that now, but I may do that in the near future. Look out on http://naontiotami.com to see if I ever do get around to it (I have to write an essay for the Discovery Institute Academic Freedom Day contest, so it might be after that).
I look forward to seeing you try to explain the holes these scientist who disagree with the theory of evolution easily points out.
In time, in time. I promise, there will be explanations.
Today is the day. The first black President of the United States has been sworn in. Barack Obama is now officially the President. I never thought I would see this in my lifetime. I've been watching CNN all day and I was able to see his speech after being sworn in and I was impressed. It was straight talk. He didn't try to unrealistically raise expectations. I don't agree with everything Obama has said, because some of what he has said does not totally square with what God has said. However, I think he is a better choice than John McCain and I'm really glad Barack Obama won. Here is the speech:
I really liked CNN's stunt called "The Moment". They asked for all eyewitnesses of the swearing-in moment to send their digital photos to CNN so they can use Microsoft's Photosynth software to merge the photos into a single montage where all the images are uses to make a distinct, 3D image. What is really cool is that they posted the picture on the web and it's being updated as they receive more digital photos. The site utilizes Silverlight to allow viewer the opportunity to move around the picture and to zoom in or zoom out. You can see the picture at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2009/44.president/inauguration/themoment/. I've put the picture below also:
I also have to say that CNN also reported that Obama's new website is now live. "Cool" is inadequate. You can see it at http://www.whitehouse.gov/
Blue is me being quote. Black is his response and Red is my response to his comments
"Um, excuse me. It appears that you are all saying that Tiklaatik is evidence that today's fish and amphibians have the same ancestor but Tiklaatik is not that common ancestor. I so, where is it? What is it? Macro evolution supposes that it is possible to trace an unbroken descent from fish to us, but by everyone's own admission we don't have that evidence. All I said was that we have no transitional fossils which you agreed. We can pretend all we want that one day evidence will be found but so far...na"
The reason why we don't have an unbroken line of fossils is that fossilisation is a rare process, and certain conditions must exist for it to take place. Shallow seas are a great place to find fossils though (accounting for why about 90% of the fossils we have are from marine creatures), so we should probably find more Tiktaalik-esque fossils in the near future.
I have no problem with your explanation as to why we have no transitional records indicating direct descent from fish to amphibians. It's plausible. It's logical. You only omit one possibility: There aren't any to find.
"I don't see any "goal post" moving. Initially, I was only talking about transitional fossils between apes and humanity. Dave brought up the link between fish and amphibians and tried to apply it to people."
Mmm, but you wanted a transition, you got one, then asked for a full, unbroken sequence. You moved the goalpost.
I asked for a transitional fossil proving that apes and humans have a common ancestor. Not for transitional fossils showing common links for today's fish and amphibians. Look at the context in which I wrote that post reviewing Nephilim Rising. I didn't move any goal post. David expanded the playing field.
"Want to know a better definition for the origins of life on this planet: "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." Genesis 1:1"
Well, I wouldn't read the Bible for that. It's incompatible with modern scientific findings (if read literally).
I'm not sure what by definition: do you mean "explanation"? If so, I don't have one at the moment, no one does.
The Bible has a explanation. It does not give details as to how He did it. That is what scientific inquiry is for. God allows you to accept or reject this explanation. But nothing else makes sense. Something came out of nothing. Physics agrees with this. Some how Entropy became less than 0. Order came out of nothing. Direction-less, random processes does nothing to explain the origins of reality let alone life. The Bible does not answer all questions and not all of it is to be read literally. There is debate as to what it means to say that earth was created in 6 days. Was each 24 hours as we measure them today? Or was it many eons? We don't know. The Hebrew does not specify. What we do know is that God can do anything. If he wanted to do it in 6 24-hour days, I see no reason why not.
"Not all my rebuttal links are from creationists. One of them is from Evolution News & Views. Also I would like to know what arguments would you guys use against all of these sources that I pointed to against the fossil being used as a "transitional fossils"."
First of all, "Evolution News and Views" is run by the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design thinktank that, for all intents and purposes, is a creationist organisation.
"Intelligent Design" does not equal "creationism". Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design believe in an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, personal God who created everything. I think they're nuts...but at least they have enough sense to know that you don't get anything complex by chance. If you do, then I have some swampland in Florida I'd like to sell to you. I know what you're thinking because you already made the point that evolution is driven by many factors. None of these factors are in a vacuum or can be thought not to interact with each other. Let's say, that the Judeo-Christian God is not responsible as some folks say. Even so don't you think anyone able to design life on earth would also be able to manipulate all those factors too!
Secondly, to debunk the claims found in those articles, I would have to spend time looking up stuff. I don't want to do that now, but I may do that in the near future. Look out on http://naontiotami.com to see if I ever do get around to it (I have to write an essay for the Discovery Institute Academic Freedom Day contest, so it might be after that).
I look forward to seeing you try to explain the holes these scientist who disagree with the theory of evolution easily points out.
I'm not sure if you read the comment on my post by Dave The Happy Singer, then you know he thinks that my comment on transitional fossils is disagreeable. Then he offers the following link: Tiktaalik: a transitional fossil. I made a comment on his comment and checked out his blog. I realized that it's a simple matter to just look up Tiktaalik to see if it holds up to scrutiny. Here are the facts:
1. Pronounced /tɪkˈtaːlɪk/ 2. Extinct 3. Well-preserved fossils were found in 2004 on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada 4. Believed to represent an intermediate form between fish and amphibians 5. Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Archaeopteryx is to birds. While neither may be ancestor to any living animal, they serve as proof that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. (source: Wikipedia) If an animal cannot be proven to be ancestor of a living animal today, then how can we call it a transitional fossil? Wikipedia defines a transitional fossil as follows:
Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with their more derived relatives, as they are defined in the study of cladistics. "Missing link" is a popular term for transitional forms. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans.
As you may have probably gathered by earlier posts that I've been doing a little research about the "Nephilim" from Genesis 6:4:
The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
As I've blogged before, the Nephilim are sometimes interpreted as an attempt by fallen angels to insinuate themselves into our human gene pool creating a race of mutants. They understand the term "sons of God" as referring to angels not men in this verse. I have rejected this notion. However I have found a video series on YouTube, Nephilim Rising, that attempts to take this theory and tie in alien abductions, UFOs, and modern phenomenon.
Here is the documentary:
I have several issues with the theories asserted. The first being is that it sounds like the plot from X-Files with some Biblical eisegesis thrown in for good measure. It's not consistent with the Bible to think that:
1. "sons of God" always refers to angels; offered no proof 2. Asserting that Noah and his family were only saved because of their genetic purity, using Genesis 6:9 which says (KJV):
These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
The verses is talking about Noah's moral purity not his genetic purity! Look at the NIV rendering:
This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.
3. The video didn't mention the Book of Enoch, but it says that the flood destroyed the Nephilim and then God chained up the fallen angels who perpetrated the deed of siring the Nephilim and teaching humanity about war, weapons, and magic. Therefore how could said angels be free to seduce the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Sumerians into worshipping them and laying the groundwork for the secret organizations and conspiracies that control history and the fate of nations? If the video's creators are disavowing the Book of Enoch, then they loose any credibility for the Nephilim to be Angelic/human hybrids. 4. The video makes a point out of the War in Heaven in which Lucifer, Satan, lead 1/3 of the angels against the angels loyal to God. The video, as well as many Christians, imagine a long, protracted conflict with heavy casualties on both sides. I can't find anything in the Bible to substantiate this teaching. God is all-powerful. Do you really think anyone or anything, especially those whom he created (which is everything and everyone that has, does, and will exist) could possible stand against the will of God? Scripture suggests more that once, at that moment, Lucifer and his forces chose to disobey and rebel against our creator, The Lord God already had their kicked their butts out of heaven! No war. No shot fired. It was over. 5. There was a montage of images of different people doing a salute or a hand gesture that is supposed to be praising the devil, but no documentation as proof was presented. I was personally offended to be linking Spider-Man to that. I want proof. This post has a picture of Spider-man doing the gesture but it's not the same graphic the documentary uses. 6. The link to alien abduction and demons I think may hold some weight (a different article), the documentary goes further by asserting that their agenda is to create a race of hybrids (taking the idea from Genesis 6:4 that the Nephilim are still with us). Therefore, on the pretense that they are really the ones who created us through genetically manipulating apes, and that they want to help us evolve further and protect, equip, and prepare us to fight another invading force. This force will be Jesus himself. It does not make sense to me because I can't substantiate any of this Biblically and no one in the video did either. 7. The makers of the documentary seem to forget that God is in complete control. Total control. No one, not demon, not angel, not human can do anything against his decree. There is no "secret" organization worshipping the devil, running our world into the ground. We are doing a great job on our own. That isn't denying the fact that there are demons gunning for us, they are. The truth is that the Devil is running the world from the stand point that he isn't trying to oppose the will of God by polluting the humanity. All he has to do is to keep Christians from getting the word out that there is hope. 8. Were the Nephilim giants or human sized? A lot of folks who adhere to the mutation theories can't seem to make up their minds. Biblically it is consistent to accept giants. Remember Goliath was over 9 ft tall! I don't know how to explain the photo at the beginning of this post but these giant people don't necessarily prove that their daddies were angels. There are other examples throughout scripture referring to men of immense strength and size.
9. We must be careful to not jump on what the world says. Many scholars who believe that there was a race of mutant people called the Nephilim accuse the Bible of copying from Sumerian and Babylonian texts and want to use the idea of space alien genetically engineering humanity as explaining why there are no transitional fossils to explain where we come from! See this link.
All of this adds up to tell me that the video or most of the theories it presents are something I cannot buy into. The one thing I do agree with is that the devil is going to try to deceive as many people as he can so that thy miss out on God. Jesus is the only way to God. At least we agree on that.
Last week, a plane hit some birds taking off from La Guardia airport in New York. The pilot had to make an emergency landing, narrowly missing the George Washington Bridge, and landed the airplane floating it on the Hudson River. God was most definitely looking out: No one died. Here is a simulation explaining what happened.
I recently saw a video that show cases what happens when a reasonably intelligent person attempts to put together events in a story from which they only have hear-say and pieces of what actually happened. In this video a young lady tries to re-tell the story of Star Wars, however she has never seen it (gasp!!!) or knows what she is talking about. She tries to piece it together based on what she has heard other people say. Add her friend's animated montage based on her re-telling and hilarity ensues.
This reminds me of everytime I hear someone talk about Jesus and the Bible who have never studied the scriptures for themselves. They twist things. Misunderstand things. If their mistaken understanding wasn't so important it would be funny. Instead of just going by what other people say about history and the Bible, we all need to look for the truth for ourselves.
I found a video where CNN's Rick Sanchez lays into "Joe the Plummer" so hard you can hear the disgust in his voice. You can tell that he does not like this guy or anything he stands for.
This year marks the 400th anniversary of the invention of the telescope. When I was in school I was taught that the first person to use a telescope to observe the moon and make maps of it was Galileo. Today, I found out that he wasn't the first. I found out from Old Moon Map Corrects History that:
Thomas Harriot made the first drawing of the moon after looking through a telescope several months before Galileo, in July 1609.
The article seems to point out that Harriot achieved this first because he had financial backing that Galileo did not. In fact, while Harriot purchased his telescope, Galileo had to figure out the optics, re-invent the technology, and build his own telescope. Stands to reason that it would take Galileo longer. However, Harriot made such maps of the moon that we now know that no one made better maps for decades afterward. The reason we know about Galileo is that he widely published his results and Harriot did not. I don't know why. It would be interesting to find out.
One of the problems in the United States is the fact that not everyone has the same access to technology due to geography and economic status. For example, children in poor, urban school do not have access to computers at home or at school due to the cost. This is often referred to as the "digital divide". One of Barack Obama's campaign promises was to bridge this gap. You would think, logically, that poorer countries would have even larger gaps, where only the very wealthy can get access to the Internet on demand. I heard of a case in Africa where people had to walk for an hour one-way, to use the internet at the post office. You would also assume that people would not have a lot of skills in using computers also. However, this may not be a problem in China.
For a while now, I've been aware of China's attempts to modernize and regain the splendor it once had. At one point China was the most technologically advanced nation in the world. Some folk in America have stated a concern that China was not just catching up with us, but surpassing us. I read an article today that points to this idea. The article sites a statistic that more than 300 million Chinese people are regular internet users. I'd assume that they use the Internet for the same things everyone else uses it for: collecting, reading, and sharing information. This caught my attention because I'm not even sure if the population of the United States is 300 million. When I looked it up I got 305,611,925 people for the population of the United States. So roughly about the number of people in China who are Internet users is about equal to the estimated population of the United States! I call that surpassed because that not all Americans use the internet. I believe the same is true in China. In order to see if we have truly been surpassed in the number of citizen on the Internet, we need to know how many Americans are on the Internet out of the total population. As for China, 300 million isn't even half it's population which is about 1,330,044,544 (July 2008 est.) Three hundred million out of 1.33 Billion is about 22.5% and in the United States, 220,141,969 people on the internet out of 305,611,925 people total works out to about 72%. Although, all the numbers I used are estimates, I think that these calculations show that relatively speaking, more people in the United States are on the Internet than there are in China. The article points out another cool trick you can get out of this information:
Given the nationality of users of the Internet, our crack team of G4 scientists has determined that there's a 37% chance that you are in China right now. You'd better look out the window to make sure.
It's not just Internet that the Chinese are taking to. There are 633.8 million mobile phone users in that country, and last week, China issued a long-awaited license for 3G mobile phones, so Chinese early-adopters will be able to enjoy the Internet from the privacy of their phones.
Let me look...ok, yup, still Californa. Whew! In my Internet crawling I found some interesting graphics. Here are graphics showing population changes for China.
What do you call it when people think you are so stupid...so utterly bereft of intelligence that a name is coined to describe the things you say: "Bushism". Yes, there are things that George W. Bush has said in the past 8 years that will live on and be remembered for several decades to come, but not for their inspiration but because they are funny, silly, and makes you wonder "How in the world could someone like this could have become President of the United States...twice?!!" I'm sure several book will be written. For now here is a video playlist of some of them.
Disclaimer: I did not see the show that the following clip is taken from, but I can't let it pass. In this clip Oprah has a couple of ministers who were on The Secret DVD who supposedly drop a huge revelation to her audience of millions: "Being gay is a gift from God." I almost fell out of my chair. No where does it say that in the Bible. I could not believe it. The question anyone must ask yourself when ever you hear a "minister" or clergy of any kind: "Is this person speaking the Word of God or not?" You can tell by whether or not anything they are saying conflicts with what God has already revealed in scripture. No clergy can claim to speak for God and then totally speak against what God has already spoken. Homosexuality is no worse than any other sin...however like every sin the only cure is a relationship with Jesus. God does not desire for anyone to die in their sins but to come to repentance. The scripture says 2 Peter 3: 8-10
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.
I just saw a news report in which it's reported that Sarah Palin says that she was misrepresents in the video I posted a couple of days ago by those who said that mass media misrepresented her.
Google has posted a video showing a way the Nintendo WII can be used in a real world application. An engineer has written software that turns the Nintendo Wii's board peripheral (for snowboard, skateboard, and surfing games) into a controller for Google Earth. Users can virtually surf the earth. The even better news is that he's making the technology freely available (in techspeak "open source"). This means that some people are going to be using it in other applications....endless possibilities.
Some one has actually put together a website called www.HowObamaGotElected.com and they will be producing a documentary called "Media Malpractice". Obviously the producers are suggesting that the media swayed the nation to elect Obama. They gave a Sarah Palin the chance to be interviewed on how she thinks of the media.
At this week's CES in Las Vegas there was announced new tablet device: Giinii Movit Mini. It's an IPod Touch like device but it's runs the same operating system as the G1 Phone: Android. It seems really nice. Unfortunately, it doesn't have as much software and support as the IPhone, but the potential is there. Look at the following links for more information.
