Almost a break from Science...

Just taking a break from all the science to share a couple of other things I recently learned...

1. GOP (the nickname for the Republican National Party) stands for the Grand Ol' Party... That leads me to wonder why the Democrat National Party does not have a nickname, or at least one that is published...

B) Nash, the guy who gave us the Donkey and Elephant for the National Political Parties, is also the guy who gave us the pictures for 'Twas the Night Before Christmas...

3. This is purely hypothetical, but too ironic to pass up... Jurassic Park promotes a anti-homosexual lifestyle... Okay, I know that deserves an explanation... If you have read the book or seen the movie, then the fact that all the dinosaurs in the park were female, by human manipulation (i.e. unnatural)... Also pointed out was the fact that the DNA sequencing were incomplete (Hmm... Subtle hinting that maybe they should have stopped?) and to get passed this they filled in the missing gaps with Amphibian DNA (Kind of weird that it is popularly theorized that Dinosaurs came from birds and they used Amphibians)... Now introduce the Chaotic Theorist Ian Malcolm... "Life will find a way"... And it did (otherwise the movie and book would have been completely boring) and Dr. Grant explains it later on after finding the raptor's nest (different places depending on if you are in the book or watching the movie) filled with broken eggs... He explains that there are some frogs KNOWN (I put emphasis on this word because this is observable) to spontaneously change genders if it is in a mono-gender environment... Conclusion? Even nature knows that a single gender environment is unnatural and found a way to compensate for it...

Okay maybe I read too much into the last one, but I did not even bring this to my own attention... I was discussing timelines with an evolutionist and he brought up Jurassic Park as an example, then the idea popped into my head...

Well, I hope you learned something today, if not from here, then from somewhere...

Do not let Pluto happen again...

Just thought I would share my latest three arguments against evolution...


1. The Gallopogos Island Ecosystem...
2. Ring Species...
3. The Scientific Method...


1. This is my new favorite pet argument...

Balanced food supply versus animal life...
A variety of wildlife co-existing...
No observable variation to these conditions, both presently and archeologically (or however that is spelt)...
Kind of opposes the evolutionary theory that there is always change going on (Uniformtarnism) and Natural Selection producing New animals...

2. Speaking of Natural Selection and New Animals... This just in... Ring Species...

I just was informed by an evolutionist that I should read up on ring species and see what I think... So I did, and you know what? I love ring species... God is so smart...

So what is a ring specie? Simply put... You had one animal, which interbreeded with a neighboring variety of that animal, which produces a new variety... This process is repeated over and over... Eventually the animal that is produced will not be able to interbreed with the original variety of that animal...

So what does this have to do with God? The Bible teaches that all living things reproduce after their own kind... This prevents something known as genetic overload, by mixing the genetics of different animals... Ring species show that there is a limit (imposed naturally in nature) to interbreeding)... And even the animal at the beginning is still the same animal at the end, just a different variety (examples? Finches at Gallopogos or the Gull - You can look that one up at Wikipedia)...

3. The Scientific Method... Something must be testable with observational support...

What about it is observable? We can see bacteria evolving into more bacteria... We can see life producing life... We see a tree make a tree and a rabbit produce a rabbit... We can see Natural Selection in action...

What about it is testable? Dating of fossils? --Problem is that we can neither prove nor disprove the validity of these findings... Archeological digs? --Have never disproven the Bible, only supported it... Artifical Selection? -- That plant is still a plant, and wow, we made the snake less venomous, it still is a snake...


I wanted to share these now and spread the news before these arguments go the way of poor Pluto... What do I mean? Well in the past year Pluto was starting to be held up as an evidence against the Big Bang Theory... And see what happened? A bunch of "pop"-scientists decided it was not a planet and so the argument is no longer valid...

What is Science? Part 2

There is another website that I like to go to get "real people" answers to questions...

The question I asked this time was:

Can the "Theory of Evolution" be proven scientifically? Meaning can I use the Scientific Method to prove its validity? Or is there another way?

As usual the subtle emphasis in my question was missed, but a good point was raised by one of the people who "answered" my question. His response was:

No scientific Theory can be proved - it can only be disproved. That is in the nature of science: a Theory is simply a Hypothesis that has satisfied many tests and defeated may attempts at disproof. However, a theory can be tested - and frequently is. The theory could very easily be *disproved* - by finding human bones in the same strata as dinosaur bones, for example. Or any other mixture of remains from what are regarded as widely differing times. You can also see evolution in action - for example, in the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. The large the species you want to see evolution in, the longer it will take, because it seems to take a few hundred generations for evolution to show up clearly. In bacteria, that may be only months; in mammals that is usually the better part of a century.


Now leaving beside the fact that we have found dino bones intermixed with human bones in the same strata, that is not the point that jumped out at me... And while I also love the "generic scientist love" of equivicating us with simple celled organisms, I do not want to discuss that today. What I want to point out is that first line... No scientific theory can be proved - it can only be disproved.

Finally, someone in the other camp who gets "it"... Science is the pursuit of knowledge, yes, but how do we obtain that knowledge? Through the finding of limitations... Science measures to the point of failure, not success. If you measured a pencil do you stop where it begins, or measures till it ends? So now that we got "it"... Let me pose another question:

If we have no way of disproving something, because of a lack of a fitting test (or Process) should science be sticking it nose in that business? In other words, if it would be impossible for Science to conduct a test, should it be pursuing that ground?

Okay, I know how that sounded, it sounded like I am against the advancement of knowledge, but I promise I am not... And anyone who knows me, knows that I love to learn... (I am even getting better at basketball !) That point that I am making is this, there is no test to determine what happened at the beginning of time, there is no way to honestly conduct these multi-million year evolutionary tests, but yet science keeps touting themselves (not to mention cramming it down our throats) as hear ya go... Plus, they make no room for any other "theories"... And my question to that is:

If there are no other viable theories, why is it not a law?

And at this point the conversations usually shut down... I find people do not like to have their religious beliefs shaken... Especially evolutionists... They are the zanyist religious zealots of them all... The only difference between them and most other religious fanatics are that they are in control of the education system, and in my opinion that is more deadly than any suicide bomber... So, yes, I would be all for getting religion out of our schools, but we should start with evolution first...

Prop 2 -- Those cute little tasty animals...

I think that Prop 2 is all about the Rich people oppressing the poor...

Let us hop aboard the logic train once again, where I am your conductor... And please do not worry, I go slow enough to remember to stay on the tracks...

So we have my initial statement, that Prop 2 is about Rich people oppressing the poor... I guess it is time for me to back that up... Well to do that, I would need to inform the non-Californians (and even those Californians who do not bother to find out about the propositions...) what Prop 2 is...

According to the Official Voter Information Guide Prop 2 is "... this measure prohibits, with certain exceptions, the confinement on a farm of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs..." Then it goes on to discuss penalties...

That sounds great, good job Californians to find something else wrong to focus on...

The only commercial on TV that I have seen on this has been for it, and it is the one with the Vet playing with her doggie, and empathizing with us saying "... we would not do this to our pets, why would we do it other animals?" (Or something close to that, I understand it is not a direct quote, but the point she is making is still reflected in the statement...)

Now, seeing as this is the only publicity this prop has gotten that I have seen/heard, I wanted to think about the other side of the coin (I am good little voter, head pats are accepted...) and the first thought that came to my head was the initial statement... Rich people are oppressing poor people...

So now you are probably saying to yourself (out loud or in your head), "Chris, you have said that 3 times now and still I do not see the connection. Are you going to keep rambling on, or are you going to tell us the connection?" (I will pause for a moment for you to either say or think this...)

(Pause)







(End of Pause)

One of the arguments against prop 7 is that if it passes there will be fines on the Power Companies and that will have a trickle down effect on the employees and customers... Why then can we not say that about Prop 2 also? If this proposition passes, new building will have to be built, more land will have to be purchased, or even some inventory will have to be removed lessening the overall profit of the company... All of this equals higher overhead costs for the company...

I know this sounds like I am heartless towards animals, but I am the guy who proudly proclaims that PETA stands for People for the Eating of Tasty Animals... When I sit down to eat my turkey at Thanksgiving I am not thinking, "I wonder where this turkey spent its life?" or "I wonder if it had a little turkey family?" And neither are you... We are all thinking "I hope I am near the front of the line so I can get a drumstick!" And maybe you are part of the population who are concerned about where you food came from. Here is my response to you... That turkey's life stunk, it was rotten, miserable... You are actually doing it a favor by eating it... After all the turkey had one purpose on this earth... And you are helping it fulfill it... Aren't you a good Samaritan?

Okay Chris, connection please...

Fine, in case you do not see it yet... Here it is: This will cause the price of meat and dairy to go up... It will make an expensive market even more expensive... And poor people, well are poor... Could you imagine depriving people of milk, eggs, meat... Can you imagine what the price of a hot dog would be at a baseball game then? I think the connection is made, but to some up my feelings here they are...

1. We are not talking about FIDO, we are talking about animals whose sole purpose is for the production of humanities food supply.

2. Passage of this proposition will increase the overhead costs of the industry for reasons I have stated above, and very well could drive even more jobs from our state...

3. Finally, increasing costs, to an already costly item, puts an even greater strained on a normal person's already stretched pocket book...

So, what is Science?

Science is the pursuit, attainment (both in accomplishment and understanding), and organization of knowledge. It is divided into many disciplines, spanning even more subjects.

I, from the get-go, want to establish that I do enjoy Science. I like to learn new things, study things, and have always enjoyed asking and figuring out the "Hows" and the "Whys" of the universe.

Growing up, the subject of Science has always been my favorite (Lunch being a close second). I have always leaned toward the physical sciences, like Chemistry (what boy does not like to blow stuff up?) and Physics (or figuring which falls faster from a roof: a cat or a toy soldier on fire?). As I got into Jr. High I had a history teacher, we will call him Mr. N. for anonymity sake, who was the first real person in my life that really started me in the whole "Science and Religion do not mix" philosophy. And you know what? Mr. N was right, but at the time I was not as quick witted as I am now (patting myself on the back, I know).

As a reminder I went to public school from Pre-K to 12: Downer, Ford, Montalvin, Crespi, MCHS. Mr. N found out somehow who the "religious nuts" were in the class. I do not remember everyone, but I do remember Anka (he was a Jehovah Witness) who was the most outspoken in the class. There were certain days the two of them would go at it. Apparently Mr. N was a big guy on Anthropology. He would talk about all sorts of archaeological facts and data, spout off about the different forms of dating rocks and rock layers, and all sorts of other geological proofs. To which Anka, much credit to him, simply would say that God created everything and set things in motion (As I think back he was probably a theistic evolutionist). To which Mr. N's reply was always the same, "God is not Science!" He would end the conversation with that and continue on with class. But that phrase stuck with me.

Onto high school. I got the privilege of going to an unordinary high school at which I attended college classes along side of my high school ones. My freshman year I was in a general science class that was taught by one of the professors, we will call him Dr. Z. And it is to him, that I credit the definition of science at the top of this post and at the top of the next paragraph.

Science can only be executed by the Scientific Process (SP), thereby meaning, that anything that cannot be tested, examined, or otherwise manipulated, by the entirety of the Scientific Process cannot be Science. (Long definition short = If you cannot do the SP then it is not Science) If there was one principle that he hammered into us, it is what I just typed above (Enough that I remember it 15 years later). So, let me end this blurb by outlining the SP for you all:

Observation: Hmm... I noticed that every time that happens, this happens...
Hypothesis: Hmm... I think that if I do this, then this will happen...
Experimentation: Hmm... Let me do this, to see if this will happen...
Comparison: Hmm... When I did it, that did happen...
Repeat: Hmm... Let me try it again...
Peer Review: Hmm... Let me give it to others to see if they do this, will that happen for them.

So, what is my definition of Science? Science is the application of the entire Scientific Process to understand and organize the principles and laws that define Matter, Energy and Time.

Proposition Eight

Love it or hate it, right or wrong, whatever your choice may be, there is still one thing that everyone should agree on... This proposition is anti-Californian and teaches a wrong principle...

What is Propostion Eight?

According to the voters handbook put out by the State Department of Elections, it "eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry." It is to be a constitutional admendment.


No matter what side of the issue you are on, the fact that this is back on the ballot is what I would like to address...

1. Factoid: Back in 2000, 61% of Californians voted for a constitutional admendment that read these 14 words (which are in this proposition again) "Only marriage between a man and a woman is vaid or recognized in California."

2. Factoid: Four judges in one city, San Francisco (not even a panel representing the whole state), overturned the people's vote...

I can hear the collective "so" across the board here...

The problem is that 4 people overturned the majority of the people... Last I checked, the whole point of the proposition system was so that the people continued to have a say in government, and to limit the state's power... But back in 2000, this was not the case... The people spoke, and it did not matter... It was overturned by 4 people with agendas of their own... What kind of lesson is the teaching our children, and foregin people moving in? Trust our government, but they are not going to listen to you... That is the lesson I got... So now prop 8 is up again, the citizens are going to vote again, but will it matter?

What I am trying to say is this... Whether you Agree or Disagree with the proposition, if it does not pass, all we are doing is proving that the power does not lie in the people's hands, but the power is in the hands over the people. And that sounds as Anti-Californian as it can possibly get... Afterall we got Sather's Gate in Berkeley, the loud mouths down in Hollywood, we are all about the open speech and support of the people... So why did we let those 4 judges get away with stifling the voice of 61% of Californians?

Okay, I am going to get off my soapbox now...


Oh and by the way... Vote yes on prop 7 too... If you wanna know why, read the voter's guide, it explains it well...

A Green Museum...

Academy of Sciences -- San Francisco

Just something to read in the interim... I especially like the last statement...

This place was one of the most influencial field trips I remember taking growing up... They never did like my questions though...

Has Science evolved? part one...

The unfortunate answer to the above question is yes... And, much like the Law of Entropy states, it has not been for the better...

You would think that after years of experience, of dedicated and deep probing by scientists that the mysteries of life would have been solved by now...

You could think that, but you would be wrong...

Now just to get this out of the way... I love Science, I would even go as far as stating that I do believe in the fundamentals of it... I also love God, I would even go as far as stating that I do believe in hte fundamentals of him... At therin lies no problem...

Throughout my teenage life and into adulthood, people have plagued me with the same question over and over again... "How can you be so involved with Science and with God?" While my response may have evolved through the years, what I believe about it has not...

So now, I would like to share with you my 3 answers to this question... (In my foundational order)

1. God wrote the laws of Science... As we understand the laws and ways of our universe, we can understand the handiwork of God... God gave us a command to subdue and have dominion over the earth... So it would make sense that God would allow us a way to organize, hence Science...

2. As Science delves deeper, they find order... The farther into the macro-cosmos we go, the more of the same stuff we find, the smaller into the micro-cosmos we go the more detailed it gets... Both extremes point to continutity... Everything we are finding out there is the same stuff we are finiding out there, than the same thing that started what is out there started what was here... And as we look under the microscope and we keep probing we find that there is an even greater organizational structure there than on the macro-level... The Bible teaches that God created everything (That would be the macro-cosmos) and that Jesus Christ holds everything together (micro-cosmos)...

3. God fills in where science does not have a scientific answer... This last answer is the one that I have recently added to my arsenal... The first point I want to make is notice that I said a "scientific" answer... A "scientific" answer is an answer that has been proven, tried and true, via the Scientific Process... Not something that is assumed, guessed, hypothesized, etc... The second point I want to make is that notice I did not say the inverse of this statement (Science fills in where God does not have a religious answer...), because I do not believe that is true... Prime example... Cosmology... What happened at the beginning of time? Science is trying to answer that question... The problem with that is that there is no way to apply the Scientific Process to it (and if there was, give that guy a Nobel Prize)... And if you cannot apply the Scientific Process to it, then it cannot be Science and it must be a belief, and who better to answer that question than God? But yet science wants to answer that question... Why? That is in the next post...

Do you value life?

I know I do...

I just got finished sharing a button with my associates over at Facebook that reads "I vote for people that don't kill babies."

I also saw recently a bumper sticker on a van that read, "Smile, your parents chose life."

Too often I think that life is under appreciated. I know on occassion I have thought so personally... Questioning this or that, and sometimes even God...

But as the case solution often is, it is really a matter of perspective... What is life?

To answer this question we can go to science... Life is blah, blah, blah... and the problem with that is that amongst the "so-called-scientists" they cannot figure out at what point life starts... Is it at conception, after all the cells are now multiplying to form an individual? Is life at a certain trimester during the pregnancy process? Is life at the point the little baby (ehem... excuse me "fetus") sticks it's baby-toe or its head out? What if only part of it is outside and it dies, was it only half-human, half thing? It all sounds too muddled... Now do not get me wrong, I love Science, it is a great way to understand the stuff all around us, but does some stuff really need explaining or do we already know the answer? (Ex. Why do we eat?)

To answer this question we can go to science... Life begins within the womb, at conception, etc... But the most common retort to this statement is that this is a matter of belief and religion, not science... Well if science can use the excuse that it can explain things where "religion fails," then why cannot "religion" explain things where "Science fails" with the same credibility? It sounds like a double standard to me...

So the Bible teaches that Abortions are wrong... It is flat out murder... But then the other side comes in with one of their three main arguments (If there are others, I am sorry I did not include them, these are just the 3 I have heard multiple times...)


1. It is not human, it is a fetus (in other words a thing...) You tell a mother that the "thing" that is kicking inside her belly is not human... As harsh of an observation as that was that is what the "Pro-Choice" people are arguing...

2. A women should have the right to choose what to do with her body, you do not want to take away her rights do you? Do I want to take away rights, hmmm... Let me think about that... Hmm... No, I do not... Let's see who is taking whose rights... The mother "CHOSE" to have sex knowing full well what the possible outcome maybe... Then now, as if by miracle, she is pregnant... She gets to chose what to do with the life inside of her, just because it is her body... Let us think about that last part... First, it is not all her, half of that belongs to him... Secondly, if the fetus was a part of her body, then would not the removal of it be more harmful... Finally, back to the CHOICE thing... The baby does not have a choice, in fact, it never stood a chance... (But then there are those who do not think that the baby is human... See point #1...)

3. What if she was raped? So we should punish the child for the crime someone else committed? Believe me, I feel pain and sorrow for the lady who got raped... I really do, but why do we have to kill the baby? Why not focus at that point in time on the getting the rapist? Or spend the time on planning on what to do with the baby... Instead the first thought is, "Ohh... This is a baby as a result of a rape, let's get rid of it..."


So I guess I could say I have three problems that are preventing me from supporting abortions...

1. The negative perspectives that it promotes. It's not human, it is worthless...
2. The hypocricy of it... We are Pro-Choice (As long as the father and the baby are not the ones doing the choosing...)
3. The fact that even amongst their own group they cannot give a sound, scientific answer as to when "Life" starts.

My conclusion...

Until there is a point in time in which an expert on the Creation of Life speaks and tells us when life begins, then I will just have to wait...


-- Waiting --



-- Waiting --



Oh yeah, (snaps my fingers) that is right... God created life and he said it begins at conception in Psalms and Jeremiah even said that God knew him while he was still in the womb... Well, God has been right in all other areas of Science, why not trust him in this one too...

Blogging...

I am also going to weekly post various pictures of demotivation I have collected over my years of meandering the internet... Or rather I have an aquaintance that has an abundance of them and he sent them all to me.

So I figure what better one to start with than blogging. I by no means set out to name the monkies, but I am sure some of you out there in the blog-o-sphere could think of a few good names...

Besides, Monkies make almost anything funnier... Well, except for the gene pool... But that is going to be another blog in the not-so-distant future...

Flood Inusrance...

So I spent all day yesterday working on my flood insurance classes. I learned several things about flood insurance that I never knew before. The more important ones that are relevant to others are, in no particular order:

1. Flood insurance is cheaper than a disaster relief fund.

Most disaster relief funds are actually loans. You eventually will have to pay it back with interest. Plus, in order for you to even get those funds there is a far more amount of red-tape then with a basic flood policy. On top of that, those funds are not even available unless the president declares it an emergency. When I heard that, I could not help but think of FEMA. They really could not act until the beaurocratic red-tape had been cleared. Yet, the media massacured them.

2. How much damage even 2 inches of water can cause.

On the NFIP website there is a tool that you can input some numbers and it would give you an approximate amount of damage of a given size of flood. And this does not even take into account other effects such as Mold, Loss of Usage, etc...

3. Even low risk areas have a chance.

Of course the FEMA website was full of stories of places that are out of the way, never would get hit by a flood locations. There are lots of places like this. I know that they tend to show the worst of the worst stories for shock value, but hey, it could happen.

4. What to do in a post-flood environment.

They first thought I had was not to plant a vineyard. Plant rice instead. Seriously though. Photograph everything and you need to air out the house. There was this story about a lady "who did not want to do anything until the adjuster got there." Mold formed in her walls and climbed up to the second floor and infected up there, ruining the some of the second floor. While her stuff on the main floor was covered, the upper floor was not covered because she did not take reasonable steps to prevent damage. So air out the house.

So why did I even bother to make this post? Well, I am not trying to sell you insurance, although I could, I am a gold level flood agent with the NFIP/FEMA people here in California only. It is to tell others that it is important and depending on the construction, age, and location of your house it really is not that expensive. And of course I would not be doing my job, if I did not let you all know about the potential danger of it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Or check out the NFIP home page, or the FEMA homepage or go to www.smartflood.gov and find out there.


Christopher A. Myers
CA #0G10340

My goals...

My goal is to at the very least... Post something here every Monday... Just thought I would share that...

The mole...

So the mole is now over... I am not the world's biggest fan of television... I admit though that I did grow up on Gameshows... Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy, Press Your Luck, What's My Line... The list goes on... Now adays though TV has gone decidely downhill... Both in character and mentality... Then along comes a gem... The Mole...

A show where the audience actually participated without actually affecting the show... 12 people competeing in varying competitions to add money to a prize pot that only 1 was going to win with a cap of 500,000 dollars... The catch... One of the 12 is actually working for the Producers of the show to sabotage the missions, and keep money from the pot while staying under the radar of the other players... The Mole...

The single best part of this is that no one but a select few actually know who the mole is... Not the players, the host, most of the crew, and especially us at home... We got to play along and scrounge through the editing to try and answer that question... Who is the Mole?

Then in a stroke of brilliance, the players were eliminated based upon themselves... It is not a vote, or physical test... They all simply take a quiz that culminates in that question... The lowest scorer is executed and sent home...

So what now that it is over? I guess the ratings were low for this show at the beginning, and several people on the message boards started a few petitions to try and save this show... Some are even sending lemonheads to the executive offices of ABC (I probably will too)... There is even a website coming up soon called www.abcsavethemole.com ...

So in conclusion, in an age of trashy television and "mental taffy," as one influential person in my life puts it, it was great to get a show that made ya think, even if it was at 10 o'clock at night...