An article in an English newspaper states that "a human seems genetically less complex than a chocolate biscuit". What a thing to say. It totally misses what complexity is.
The scientists looked at the number of pairs in the dna sequence. Cocoa has more pairs of genes, that does not mean there is complexity. 40,000 identical pairs is not complex. 10,000 pairs that are each different is complexity. It is the number of genes, it is the combinations complexity that allows a living thing to have a wider variety of aspects.
It is the purity thing versus the variation thing again. Purity is all the same, heavy like gold. Variation is steel, it is much stronger than gold. Did you ever wonder who decided that gold had value? Think about it, gold was considered valuable 4,000 years ago. As a metal it is pretty useless except in electrical applications. It is too soft, it is difficult to find and is only good for jewelry. It is not the pretties thing, it is no prettier than copper which is a usable metal. So who decided it had value?
What made it valuable? What made it valuable was that it was heavier than any other metal. That had value because you could use it in weights. Remember, they use to weigh money. Weights and measures were critical to commerce prior to their being "official" money. The king set the weights, to violate the weight was sure death.
A cocoa bean would not know these things. It would never occur to a coffee bean to build a car. Why do they keep trying to trivialize us? Why do they keep trying to tell us that we are less than the things we experience? They are wrong, you matter, you are not the only one who matters; but, you matter too. The guy next to you, guess what, he matters. That cocoa bean cannot feel pain, it cannot learn and it has no concept of loneliness.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
On being old and the last
The world's oldest man is 114, people have lived to be that old before. Mr. Walter Breuning was born in 1896. He was born before planes, cars, television, radio, computers, houses with electricity, World War I, World War II. He was born before my family came to this country.
There are three other people, ladies, who are as old as him. The world has changed around them. For Mr. Breuning, everyone who was alive and around him when he was born is gone. He is the Omega Man, the Last Man on Earth that was alive when he was born.
How strange it would be to be the oldest person in the world. What must it be like to see all of the changes that he has? They say his mind is still sharp and just think about the context he has and the knowledge he has about people. Happy Birthday Mr. Breuning.
There are three other people, ladies, who are as old as him. The world has changed around them. For Mr. Breuning, everyone who was alive and around him when he was born is gone. He is the Omega Man, the Last Man on Earth that was alive when he was born.
How strange it would be to be the oldest person in the world. What must it be like to see all of the changes that he has? They say his mind is still sharp and just think about the context he has and the knowledge he has about people. Happy Birthday Mr. Breuning.
Monday, September 20, 2010
A Loving Husband
A couple of posts back I tried to describe love. I read an article that in a very sad way demonstrates this. I think I will pray for this young lady. It is about a husband who sacrificed himself to save his wife, he loved her more than himself. That is love.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Miracles
Do you believe in miracles? I not sure I would know how to describe a miracle. On the one hand I consider it a miracle that any of us exist as sentient beings. There is no need for anything to exist. When you really think about it nothing really needs to exist especially self aware beings. On the other hand we see nature, we see the life process and we know that we are part of it. If we see nature do we see a miracle?
While the things I mentioned may be miracles, I do not think that is what the term refers to based on our knowledge. When people talk about miracles they are referring to things that are "supernatural", they are referring to things that do not follow the law of physics. Funny thing is that nothing on the quantum or subatomic level follows the laws of physics, does that mean that everything that is subatomic is miraculous?
In our usage of the word, a miracle seems to be something God does that appears to violate the law of physics. How do you explain a world that has miracles and no cause? That is the problem of quantum physics. Professor Hawkins seems to be okay with having miracles, he thinks it is natural. How do you logically get there?
Mr. Hawkins is basically saying that it makes perfect sense for subatomic objects to violate every rule of physics as long as we understand we have parallel universes that fill in the blanks; but, we don't know how they fill in the blanks. He resorts to saying that everything is connected by one dimensional strings that we cannot see or understand.
I have more respect for physicists if they just said, "We don't understand why things do what they do yet, we are still working on it." Hey, that would be honest; but, then we might not think they have all the answers, we might look for ourselves and arrive at our own conclusions.
While the things I mentioned may be miracles, I do not think that is what the term refers to based on our knowledge. When people talk about miracles they are referring to things that are "supernatural", they are referring to things that do not follow the law of physics. Funny thing is that nothing on the quantum or subatomic level follows the laws of physics, does that mean that everything that is subatomic is miraculous?
In our usage of the word, a miracle seems to be something God does that appears to violate the law of physics. How do you explain a world that has miracles and no cause? That is the problem of quantum physics. Professor Hawkins seems to be okay with having miracles, he thinks it is natural. How do you logically get there?
Mr. Hawkins is basically saying that it makes perfect sense for subatomic objects to violate every rule of physics as long as we understand we have parallel universes that fill in the blanks; but, we don't know how they fill in the blanks. He resorts to saying that everything is connected by one dimensional strings that we cannot see or understand.
I have more respect for physicists if they just said, "We don't understand why things do what they do yet, we are still working on it." Hey, that would be honest; but, then we might not think they have all the answers, we might look for ourselves and arrive at our own conclusions.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Beware False Solutions
After I wrote my last post, I read a news opinion. Michael Moore called for putting the mosque AT ground zero. The writer identified the same problem as I just wrote about, the conflict of bias. His solution was for MODERATES to take over the churches.
What is a moderate, someone who holds no hard beliefs. I do not believe in religious moderates. That may sound strange. I am not talking about the people we call extremists, they rarely even know what their religion teaches. Instead they follow their biases not the words of their founders.
I have said it before, if you do not believe what your "religion" believes, leave it rather than attempt to "modernize" it. If it wrong, it is wrong, if it is the truth, die for it. Not kill for it, die for it.
There was a church in China. The communists came in and said that each person had to renounce their faith or die. They asked who believed, a young girl walked up and said she would not renounce her faith. She was the first to speak. She was willing to die for what she believed in, that is religion, that is true faith. Moderates believe in nothing.
One of my professors was talking to us about politics, he said he could live with believers on either side but had no respect for moderates because they have no beliefs and are guided by the beliefs of society. That is what makes sheep, sheep. They go with the pack and stand for nothing. If you believe in nothing, you will fall for anything.
Moderates cannot lead nor explain anything. They are always in the middle of extremists rather than trying to determine the truth, they seek harmony rather than truth. We should seek truth and to live in harmony.
What is a moderate, someone who holds no hard beliefs. I do not believe in religious moderates. That may sound strange. I am not talking about the people we call extremists, they rarely even know what their religion teaches. Instead they follow their biases not the words of their founders.
I have said it before, if you do not believe what your "religion" believes, leave it rather than attempt to "modernize" it. If it wrong, it is wrong, if it is the truth, die for it. Not kill for it, die for it.
There was a church in China. The communists came in and said that each person had to renounce their faith or die. They asked who believed, a young girl walked up and said she would not renounce her faith. She was the first to speak. She was willing to die for what she believed in, that is religion, that is true faith. Moderates believe in nothing.
One of my professors was talking to us about politics, he said he could live with believers on either side but had no respect for moderates because they have no beliefs and are guided by the beliefs of society. That is what makes sheep, sheep. They go with the pack and stand for nothing. If you believe in nothing, you will fall for anything.
Moderates cannot lead nor explain anything. They are always in the middle of extremists rather than trying to determine the truth, they seek harmony rather than truth. We should seek truth and to live in harmony.
More Anti-Religious Garbage
You are being scammed with false arguments. The mosque at ground zero controversy is garbage and so is the burning of the Koran, it is all garbage meant to get you to take side that are not based on understanding but are based on bigotry. Now we have some Hasidic Jews suing over their "freedom of religion". They want to build a church and home and pool in a historic district. The historic district is attempting to stop them.
By pushing both issues at the same time, the hope is that you will willingly allow rules that weaken true religious belief. The Hasidic could build their synagogue anywhere, they chose the historic district for a reason, to create a problem. Now, the issue is should we be able to legislate historic districts, my answer is no. If the state wishes to have historic districts, eminent domain exists, buy the property.
Sometimes restrictions are placed in deeds, some are not allowed. The question is how much one can restrict the future owner of the property. There was a time when you could put in a deed that people could not sell the property to blacks. The courts said this was unenforceable. The question in regards to deeds is contractual. The issue should be one of effect on the seller and others.
If I sell you my house, I can say that you should not be able to turn it into a brothel as that would have a negative effect on the neighborhood. The activity itself is not consistent with a family neighborhood and people bought houses to live in a family environment. Selling my house to a black family will not effect anyone unless they choose to interact with them. A brothel brings traffic.
It is important that we look beyond the inflammatory rhetoric and ask ourselves what truths we hold dear and not which biases we love to hold onto. It is not a question of what people should be allowed to do, it is a question of under which circumstances they should be allowed to. It is a question of options and choices, the more we are limited the less additional limitations should be put on us or eventually we have no freedom.
By pushing both issues at the same time, the hope is that you will willingly allow rules that weaken true religious belief. The Hasidic could build their synagogue anywhere, they chose the historic district for a reason, to create a problem. Now, the issue is should we be able to legislate historic districts, my answer is no. If the state wishes to have historic districts, eminent domain exists, buy the property.
Sometimes restrictions are placed in deeds, some are not allowed. The question is how much one can restrict the future owner of the property. There was a time when you could put in a deed that people could not sell the property to blacks. The courts said this was unenforceable. The question in regards to deeds is contractual. The issue should be one of effect on the seller and others.
If I sell you my house, I can say that you should not be able to turn it into a brothel as that would have a negative effect on the neighborhood. The activity itself is not consistent with a family neighborhood and people bought houses to live in a family environment. Selling my house to a black family will not effect anyone unless they choose to interact with them. A brothel brings traffic.
It is important that we look beyond the inflammatory rhetoric and ask ourselves what truths we hold dear and not which biases we love to hold onto. It is not a question of what people should be allowed to do, it is a question of under which circumstances they should be allowed to. It is a question of options and choices, the more we are limited the less additional limitations should be put on us or eventually we have no freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)