April 22, 2010
Dear Mr.Wonderful,
I've been thinking about you lately. Not you as in a specific person, obviously, because I don't know who you are yet. More than that though, I've been thinking about just how nice it would be to have a best friend.
So let me ask you a few questions about yourself. Are you a nerdfighter? Because I think it might be nice to marry one, if I could find one who loved Jesus. I'm sure there must be a couple people like that, but I'm only really just getting into YouTube and everything.
But Mr.Wonderful, whether you're a nerdfighter or not is not the point. In this moment, what I imagine I would want from a best friend is this: someone who challenges me, someone I could think with, about new and old ideas. This someone, you, I would hope would know how to dream, but live in reality at the same time.
Please don't take me too seriously; the serious torture me. Let's commit to continually learning together, oh, and having responsible fun. ;) I love you, and I hope to meet you one day.
I hope that if I should ever meet you, that you wouldn't have already fallen in love with another girl, because should I meet you, I would hope to share my whole life with you.
Oh, where are you? I just want to talk to you. Have a conversation. I'd like to be with you, but if I could just wave at you from a distance - I'd be fine with that. I can wait; I just want to know that this hope that I'm holding will come to its fruition.
Thanks for listening,
_________[I sign my name]
P.S. Do you like my cursive? Sorry if it's a mess, I'm trying to work on it.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Lose-lose
So I haven't read or written nearly enough of anything lately. I have more developed something of an addiction, or a bad habit: Youtube. It, itself is not bad. But I've become a bit obsessive over it. And I don't even make videos! Well, I'm starting to try, since I do have the tools. I think mostly I'm just going to make video responses. I mean, it's the natural way to go when I'm already subscribed to so many people.
Now I'm contemplating making a video in response to Dan Brown's (pogobat) video Tea Time. If you haven't seen it, look it up and give me an opinion. But basically this is it, he says that he's had an experience with the flying spaghetti monster, and that the FSM told him that Sarah Palin was the FSM incarnate. And rather than encouraging discussion at the end, he encourages making giving praise to Palin as a video response, even though he voted for Obama.
So at first the whole thing seems very satirical. But then I watched, his recorded live thing afterward, and when people specifically ask him if he's doing some social test or something, he says no. Furthermore, he says in his Tea Time video that he's not putting up ads with it to show how serious he is. That could either go two ways: either he's only do that to prove something that he doesn't believe, or he actually means it. If the first is the truth, and if he knows anything he would know that that would be a one shot deal. If he admits to only being satirical as oppose to serious, he would never be able to use no-ads as a means of proving his validity or earnestness in the future. And I think that, because he's not totally dumb, this might be evidence that he is being serious. Also, in the entire 70 minutes of his live show he never once was inconsistent with the Tea Time video.
If he is honestly serious about this flying monster story he's got going, it's simply utter ridiculousness, which is a huge disappointment for me coming from him. If it's satirical, he's set himself up for a lose-lose situation, because the whole video would be highly offensive, and so I don't know.
basschic40 is my user. I suck at vlogging but if you wanna look out for a response to this or other future responses to other users, I'm just letting you know how you can follow up with that.
Now I'm contemplating making a video in response to Dan Brown's (pogobat) video Tea Time. If you haven't seen it, look it up and give me an opinion. But basically this is it, he says that he's had an experience with the flying spaghetti monster, and that the FSM told him that Sarah Palin was the FSM incarnate. And rather than encouraging discussion at the end, he encourages making giving praise to Palin as a video response, even though he voted for Obama.
So at first the whole thing seems very satirical. But then I watched, his recorded live thing afterward, and when people specifically ask him if he's doing some social test or something, he says no. Furthermore, he says in his Tea Time video that he's not putting up ads with it to show how serious he is. That could either go two ways: either he's only do that to prove something that he doesn't believe, or he actually means it. If the first is the truth, and if he knows anything he would know that that would be a one shot deal. If he admits to only being satirical as oppose to serious, he would never be able to use no-ads as a means of proving his validity or earnestness in the future. And I think that, because he's not totally dumb, this might be evidence that he is being serious. Also, in the entire 70 minutes of his live show he never once was inconsistent with the Tea Time video.
If he is honestly serious about this flying monster story he's got going, it's simply utter ridiculousness, which is a huge disappointment for me coming from him. If it's satirical, he's set himself up for a lose-lose situation, because the whole video would be highly offensive, and so I don't know.
basschic40 is my user. I suck at vlogging but if you wanna look out for a response to this or other future responses to other users, I'm just letting you know how you can follow up with that.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Signature in the Cell: Ch1 Synopsis. (plus drive test results)
So I failed my G2 test today. For the third time. Anyone have a better record?
Not gonna lie, I cried a bit because when you fail three times, what can you do to help feeling like a failure? Hmm? What I hate the most is that this time, I did everything perfectly except for one lane change that wasn't even that bad. Grrr! Now I know what Thaddeus Johnson felt like from from this season of AI. (He did nothing wrong but there were too many talented people and they didn't pick him.)
Quickly now, since I have to be at work for 8 tomorrow, and it's like half past ten, or rather two thirds....
For anyone still interested in the science discussion, I bought the book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer. It arrived today, and I'd like to give my synopsis of the first chapter. (Also, I did get the other two books I said I wanted to get, but I haven't got to them yet obviously)
The first chapter is titled DNA, Darwin, and the Appearance of Design.
Meyer doesn't really make any statements, or rather give any evidence or go into any depth just yet, but hey, it's only the intro. The majority of the first chapter is spent describing how he became involved in origin sciences, and the question of the origin of life.
Briefly, he describes how in the DNA there's all kinds of genetic codes that the entire cell depends on for different functions and proteins and so on, and its vast similarities with computer codes and written languages. The DNA has specified information.
He goes over the differences between information and matter & energy, how they are in two different domains of science. With that point he gives the example of how two different CDs can have all the same matter/energy, but the arrangement of the different information is why people choose to buy certain discs over others. Something along those lines.
Meyer also mentions that some have proposed, and this is the argument he agrees with, that because of this specified information there may be a case to made for an intelligence having provided this information, since we only know information to come from intelligence and since information can also be equated to thought.
Then he mentions how Richard Dawkins and others make the case that yes, everything does appear designed therefor it might be likely to assume that there is a designer, but this appearance of design can be explained by natural processes and evolution, for which Meyer then gives a brief explanation.
Through out all these details Meyer is also telling how he got into this field of science. One scientist he was able to have many discussions with was Charles Thaxton, who was one of the people he had first heard propose an intelligent designer at some conference in 1985.
From those discussions, Thaxton shared that a proposal for a designer would fall under origin sciences, which often have unique events, only occurring once or perhaps at least very few times. He then compared this to operation sciences, which are testable and happen all the time. Operation sciences are the sciences from which laws are derived; they are also the sciences that give predictions, etc. etc.
Meyer did not, not yet - with in this first chapter, say what he agreed with what Thaxton had taught him as far as Intelligent Design as an or the origin/operation sciences.
Rather, he ends the chapter with the questions he had after having had his discussions with Thaxton: "Is it scientific?" "How strong is the evidence for it?" "Was life designed or does it merely appear designed?"
And the final paragraph reads, "Yet in all of this discussion - from Dover to Dawkins to Darwin's big anniversary - there has been very little discussion of DNA. And yet for me and many other scientists and scholars, the question of whether science has refuted the design argument or resuscitated it depends critically upon the central mystery of the origin of biological information. This book examines the many successive attempts that have been to resolve this enigma - the DNA enigma - and will itself propose a solution."
So nothing new really, for anyone interested in the discussion, just a long wordy introduction and the story of how he first got into it.
If you'd like to read the prologue, I believe it was Amazon where I read the whole the thing before I actually got the book. Nothing significant though. I don't know whether it'll be a chapter everyday that I'll be reading (it's a lot), but I would like to continue with writing synopses, if only to help me take it all in.
Grace & peace, ggirl
Not gonna lie, I cried a bit because when you fail three times, what can you do to help feeling like a failure? Hmm? What I hate the most is that this time, I did everything perfectly except for one lane change that wasn't even that bad. Grrr! Now I know what Thaddeus Johnson felt like from from this season of AI. (He did nothing wrong but there were too many talented people and they didn't pick him.)
Quickly now, since I have to be at work for 8 tomorrow, and it's like half past ten, or rather two thirds....
For anyone still interested in the science discussion, I bought the book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer. It arrived today, and I'd like to give my synopsis of the first chapter. (Also, I did get the other two books I said I wanted to get, but I haven't got to them yet obviously)
The first chapter is titled DNA, Darwin, and the Appearance of Design.
Meyer doesn't really make any statements, or rather give any evidence or go into any depth just yet, but hey, it's only the intro. The majority of the first chapter is spent describing how he became involved in origin sciences, and the question of the origin of life.
Briefly, he describes how in the DNA there's all kinds of genetic codes that the entire cell depends on for different functions and proteins and so on, and its vast similarities with computer codes and written languages. The DNA has specified information.
He goes over the differences between information and matter & energy, how they are in two different domains of science. With that point he gives the example of how two different CDs can have all the same matter/energy, but the arrangement of the different information is why people choose to buy certain discs over others. Something along those lines.
Meyer also mentions that some have proposed, and this is the argument he agrees with, that because of this specified information there may be a case to made for an intelligence having provided this information, since we only know information to come from intelligence and since information can also be equated to thought.
Then he mentions how Richard Dawkins and others make the case that yes, everything does appear designed therefor it might be likely to assume that there is a designer, but this appearance of design can be explained by natural processes and evolution, for which Meyer then gives a brief explanation.
Through out all these details Meyer is also telling how he got into this field of science. One scientist he was able to have many discussions with was Charles Thaxton, who was one of the people he had first heard propose an intelligent designer at some conference in 1985.
From those discussions, Thaxton shared that a proposal for a designer would fall under origin sciences, which often have unique events, only occurring once or perhaps at least very few times. He then compared this to operation sciences, which are testable and happen all the time. Operation sciences are the sciences from which laws are derived; they are also the sciences that give predictions, etc. etc.
Meyer did not, not yet - with in this first chapter, say what he agreed with what Thaxton had taught him as far as Intelligent Design as an or the origin/operation sciences.
Rather, he ends the chapter with the questions he had after having had his discussions with Thaxton: "Is it scientific?" "How strong is the evidence for it?" "Was life designed or does it merely appear designed?"
And the final paragraph reads, "Yet in all of this discussion - from Dover to Dawkins to Darwin's big anniversary - there has been very little discussion of DNA. And yet for me and many other scientists and scholars, the question of whether science has refuted the design argument or resuscitated it depends critically upon the central mystery of the origin of biological information. This book examines the many successive attempts that have been to resolve this enigma - the DNA enigma - and will itself propose a solution."
So nothing new really, for anyone interested in the discussion, just a long wordy introduction and the story of how he first got into it.
If you'd like to read the prologue, I believe it was Amazon where I read the whole the thing before I actually got the book. Nothing significant though. I don't know whether it'll be a chapter everyday that I'll be reading (it's a lot), but I would like to continue with writing synopses, if only to help me take it all in.
Grace & peace, ggirl
Friday, April 9, 2010
Oh for someone to understand me....
I still desperately long for a best friend. I can only wait to see if God's made someone who thinks and sees as I do. But better. A better balance. I'll wait.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Animation eats ID? Or vice versa?
OK! Forget everything I said in the last post entirely. I mean, y'know, I just don't altogether care for it.
Now I have a question. It not a question for just anyone, no, it's specifically for you.
It's pretty simple:
Would you rather give all of your cognitive, reasoning, intellectual thoughts to the thing that consumes your mind, or would you rather give all your energy into developing what is creative?
And tell me why.
Obviously, there's something behind the question. The title gives a hint to that, but I'm interested to hear what you would say.
Now I have a question. It not a question for just anyone, no, it's specifically for you.
It's pretty simple:
Would you rather give all of your cognitive, reasoning, intellectual thoughts to the thing that consumes your mind, or would you rather give all your energy into developing what is creative?
And tell me why.
Obviously, there's something behind the question. The title gives a hint to that, but I'm interested to hear what you would say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)