August 7, 2008

Evolution Exposed!

First the Movie came out called EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed



Then there was angry website that attempted to expose Expelled: The Movie, but failed.



Now, It's our turn !!


Claiming that "evolution was a fraud" may have been too harsh. We are now going with a new term, Evolution Exposed. Hot off the press!! The new wallpapers are up ready for downloading as your desktop. There are a couple as an Ode to Ray that my daughter thought of that we really like. Please put these on your desktops at work. I thought of putting daily or weekly quotes and verses on them to be available here at Debunking Atheists.

The T-Shirts will be available soon so get your orders in quick. They will go fast.



You can choose between the Ray Comfort special banana and Million Dollar bills or God's Word. The "no me" one is a real nice desktop picture for work or at home.


The full collection is available here: (just click the picture below)



Worthless side info: That famous soda/banana parody that Ray did was filmed at Hume Lake which is a short distance from my house.

32 comments:

  1. I was just wondering if the banana in the wallpapers is a reference to the generations of humans selection that have modified the environment, a form to honor the similarities between humans and other primates, or a recognition of just a phallic symbol in the Freudian sense to remind us how non-rational are humans from their origin?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why not post a link to the "angry website", and let your readers make up their own minds?

    Aren't you the one who's always complaining that it's "evolutionists" who are against academic freedom?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I notice that you're proudly holding up a half-eaten banana on your new t-shirt design Dan.

    Surely your not SERIOUSLY alluding to Ray Comfort's 'banana argument' for intelligent design are you? Even HE is embarrassed about having used that one.

    During a recent radio interview, he even admitted that he had 'made a monkey out of himself' by doing so. You might like to re-design your t-shirts using his 'Coke can' analogy instead. : )
    (although it's just as bad)

    Are you aware that our modern bananas are the product of centuries of artificial selection and cloning? Are you also aware that these modern bananas can't even reproduce on their own without human assistance?

    Are you also aware that the original, naturally occuring bananas from which all of our modern desert bananas have been bred, are as tough as old boots, dry as a dead dingo's donger, full of large hard seeds, virtually inedible, and need to be cooked before being able to be eaten?

    Or is your new t-shirt design a joke?

    If it isn't, then the joke is on you! : D

    The Stupid -- IT BURNS! : (

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dingo Dave,

    "During a recent radio interview, he even admitted that he had 'made a monkey out of himself' by doing so."

    Who ever does your fact checking better be fired!

    In the radio program that you talking about HERE Ray says atheists is the one that tried to "make a monkey out of him" for the banana for editing the video. Ray explains it to everyone HERE

    Have you tasted the bananas of today? They are almost flavorless. Seedless watermelons are the same way, the taste is horrible, mankind has screwed up God's creation so much that no one can even get decent fruit these days. Soon you will be buying meat that came from Genetic Engineering assembly lines, MMM Yummy!

    I will hold that banana like a badge of honor.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Correction:

    In the radio program that you talking about HERE

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dan, I just listened to the Ray Comfort radio interview again, and you were right about one thing. Ray DIDN'T say that he made a monkey out of himself, he said that ATHEISTS made a monkey out of him. Which is even funnier! : D

    AND HE SAID IT TWICE. Which is even funnier! : D

    Oh, and by the way, you've been caught lying again Dan, because Ray didn't say that atheists had "tried to make a monkey out of him", he said they succeeded!

    Here is a transcript of the banana segment of the interview, which I made especially for you.

    The host asked:

    "Ray, you did a thing on YouTube about a banana. Can you explain the banana, and how it supports your case [for intelligent design]?"

    Ray replied:

    "Oh, um, atheists made a monkey out of me!

    I actually held up a Coke can, and showed how the Coke can has a tab at the top, and you pull the tab, and it has contents inside, and you can get into the contents, and that it has a wrapper, and it was wonderfully designed.

    And I compared it to the banana, and how that has a tab at the top, and you pull it, and you open it, and there's contents inside etc.
    So atheists took what I've said out of context, dropped the Coke can, and said that I say the banana is proof of God's existence, when all I was doing was a parody."

    And they surely made a monkey out of me!

    But I can't do anything about it, so I just have to put up with it...
    And it's all over the internet. And it's just stupid. But that's the way it goes."

    So Ray is an even big a liar than you are Dan.

    Like hell it was a "parody", and like hell anyone took his words out of context. The banana WAS the context! Unless he was trying to tell people that Coke cans are designed by God as well. Heck, even I suggested that you use a Coke can on your t-shirts instead of a banana !

    However he's right about one thing, it certainly IS stupid!

    -"Have you tasted the bananas of today? They are almost flavorless. Seedless watermelons are the same way, the taste is horrible, mankind has screwed up God's creation so much that no one can even get decent fruit these days. Soon you will be buying meat that came from Genetic Engineering assembly lines, MMM Yummy!"

    Just try eating a wild ancestral banana, and see how much you like it Dan? I'll bet that you wouldn't buy any if you saw them at your local grocery store.

    -"I will hold that banana like a badge of honor."

    I Have no doubt that you will, but you had better be prepared for people to laugh at you while you do.

    Is your banana a "parody", the way Ray Comfort now DISHONESTLY claims his banana was, or are you clutching YOUR banana in earnest?

    If you ask me, Ray Comfort is his OWN worst nightmare.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I concede I did say "tried" as a possible, sub conscience opinion of my own.

    On Ray's blog he says "In doing so they did a good job and making a monkey out of me." Which is a joke in itself. Get it? Banana...Monkey... never mind. He is very Comfortable with himself and even knows how to laugh at himself sometimes. He should and does love the attention that he is getting from it. It sure boosted hits on his website Living Waters and Way of the Master now didn't it? He went from being famous before that time until the atheists made him infamous. He has all of you to thank. That is why he renamed his blog Atheist Central. OK not really but it sounded good. The point is you guys helped his ministry and we all thank God for "making the foolish things confound the wise"

    Is your banana a "parody"

    Yes and No. I guess maybe a little, as far as the definition goes, sure. I used the banana because my 7 year old suggested it. I am proud to hold it as a sword for him though. I love to laugh at myself and if you were only there watching my family howl at taking those pictures, you would of seen the good fruit. Get it?

    but you had better be prepared for people to laugh at you while you do."

    Dude, that was the point to put my mug on those pictures, lighten up. I want all of you to have it as a desktop, to me that is pure comedy in a very tragic way. Remember and study that face when we get to Heaven so you can come up to me and say Hi.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey Dan, I'm glad that you can see the humour in it, but Ray wasn't laughing during the interview.
    In fact he sounded very embarassed.

    If he wasn't embarrassed, then why do you think he felt the need to lie to the interviewer about it?

    Do you think he was being honest when he told the interviewer that atheists had taken his words out of context, or when he told him that it was only a parody? Please!

    Anyway, have a good one, and keep laughing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dan- I just got back from a ten-day trip through the Alps. It was beautiful- one of those experiences you never forget: the wonderful people at the "almen" (alpine pastures/farms) we stayed at, the fresh food, the landscapes, the plants and animals... and the fossils. It was indeed an "Evolution Exposed" experience, because evolution was exposed everywhere you looked, for all with sharp eyes, to see.

    The part of the Alps we hiked in is mostly Mesozoic limestone, the sediment from an ancient sea that covered what is now Central Europe between around 200 and 100 million years ago. The layers are strikingly visible above the treeline. And if you look carefully, you can find fossils.

    I brought home one such fossil- the only one small enough that I felt like schlepping it in my backpack for more than a week. It is a gray sandstone with many marine snails in it, visible in various cross sections on the surface. Of course, the original calcium carbonate of the shells is long since replaced, by quartz in this case. Holding this in my hand, I feel awe at its unimaginable age, and even more awe at the fact that life on Earth is almost forty times older than my fossil.

    Now I know the standard YEC answers to this: there are marine snails in the Alps because the Deluge covered all the Earth. And I know that you, Dan, would rather believe the Bible than some rock. We've been through this already, haven't we? But I thought you might appreciate the argument for evolution from a more personal perspective.

    Two points. One: shells do not get replaced by quartz in six thousand years. I also found some remains of freshwater clams preserved in mud which had almost hardened to rock, from much more recent riverbeds- perhaps ten thousand years old- but the matrix was crumbly and the shells still the original material, calcium carbonate.

    And two: you may be moved by the stories in the Bible. I am too: my favorite part is Ecclesiastes, which I almost think got snuck in by mistake. But when you contemplate the beauty of the Earth we live on, its incomprehensible age, and the the majesty and mindboggling complexity of the evolution of life, then all the stories of religion seem, well, childish and small-minded by comparison. That's my personal atheist manifesto, for what it's worth.

    Anyway, I'll close by seconding dingodave: being able to laugh at oneself is a large part of wisdom. Anyone who can laugh at themself is someone I could laugh with.

    cheers from blueskyed Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, and p.s. Dan- you might want to read why David Heddle, a professor of physics and a Christian, does not like the ID movement, even though he believes in God the Designer.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dan,

    By endorsing this film, you are endorsing the fraud contained therein. Are you dishonest? Because you are coming across as such.
    From Sci Am;

    1) Expelled quotes Charles Darwin selectively to connect his ideas to eugenics and the Holocaust.
    When the film is building its case that Darwin and the theory of evolution bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, Ben Stein's narration quotes from Darwin's The Descent of Man thusly:

    With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

    This is how the original passage in The Descent of Man reads (unquoted sections emphasized in italics):

    With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

    The producers of the film did not mention the very next sentences in the book (emphasis added in italics):

    The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

    Darwin explicitly rejected the idea of eliminating the "weak" as dehumanizing and evil. Those words falsify Expelled's argument. The filmmakers had to be aware of the full Darwin passage, but they chose to quote only the sections that suited their purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Clos,

    That was a powerful argument and I agree if the quote mining was deceptive, it was wrong no matter how good the intentions. Reminds me of Kitzmiller v Dover.

    Even without that argument though one still could conclude the link Darwin to the holocaust without any stretch of truth. I never did read the book so I will take your word for what it said. Thanks.

    Zilch,

    Welcome and it's good to hear you made it back safely, You are quite the adventurist I must say.

    but the matrix was crumbly and the shells still the original material, calcium carbonate.

    But the Fossil hat has real weight to it and is hard like stone. I am not convinced that fossils, stalagmites and stalactites oil, or diamonds need extremely long time to produce. Extreme pressure sure but extreme time, I don't think so, but I do very much appreciate your personal perspective on all subjects.

    Thanks for the link about David Heddle. Personally, let me be clear I am defending Biblical Creationism not ID. I believe ID can be interpreted into anything that created us, even aliens. So people tried to make it politically correct and more palatable by lumping Biblical Creation along with the theory of ID, I feel that was a cop out and even detrimental for the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. It was interesting how they tried to deceive or flat out lie to push the agenda of Biblical Creation turning it to ID. Did they think God wasn't watching that day, give me a break. It really is these same compromises that Christians go through that gets them in trouble. This eisegesis method of interpretation is very damaging and quite simply, sinful. It is my belief that there is no such thing as a Christian that believes in evolution.

    (Psalms 118:8)

    That is my personal perspective on the subject.

    On a side note Zilch, my wife wondered what you did for a living.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Even without that argument though one still could conclude the link Darwin to the holocaust without any stretch of truth. I never did read the book so I will take your word for what it said. Thanks."

    Dan, please don't take my word for it, the book can be downloaded here. Check out the quote for yourself. Also, all that needs to be said about Hitler, evolution and the holocaust is "gott mit uns".

    Also, Hitler did not appear to either have knowledge of or accept Darwinian theory (see here)

    Hitler imbibed a form of social Darwinism...an ugly aspect of our history. A distinction must be made between a theory and the uses of it. Should we blame the Wright Brothers for 911? This eugenics program implimented during the era from the early 1900's is something that we should learn from so that we don't repeat it. However, people have been killing one another long before Darwin was born-genocide is all throughout the Bible. Also, how many evolutionary biologists are running around murdering people?? Further, why were Jews chosen (I realize that mentally and physically handicapped people were as well)? If you read Mein Kempf, Hitler was basing his actions on an absurd form of nationalism. In any case, none of this says anything about the validity of evolutionary theory...the new trend is to link evolution with all forms of social evils (in fact this is the stated goal of many creationist literature including The Discovery Institute in their famous "Wedge Document").

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dan wrote:
    "But the Fossil hat has real weight to it and is hard like stone."

    Hams Hat!

    Michael Suttkus wrote:
    "Scientists know that certain kinds of rock formations can take a long time. Scientists know that other types of rock can form very quickly. Creationists, meanwhile, lump the whole thing together as "fossils" and declare that if *that* forms quickly, then all of them can! This is pathetically stupid, even by creationist standards. Cement can set overnight into rock, so all rocks can!"

    Source

    ReplyDelete
  15. Clos,

    Thanks for the book. Now all I need is a laptop. Might be worth it these days. Any bargains out there besides pricewatch.com?

    Should we blame the Wright Brothers for 911? Excellent point, noted. I think of a counter eventually...tag I'm it.

    OK, there has to be some responsibility with the inventor of a fouled system though. Should we blame the Wright brothers if the plane blew up and killed 50 people? Partly. Should we blame the engineer that designed the titanic for all those deaths? Partly. Should Professor Rudolph Peierls and Otto Frisch be blamed for Hiroshima? Partly? Do we blame Adam for a fallen creation? Partly. Do I blame Darwin for leading man kind down a wrong path? Partly.

    Quasar,

    There is no way Michael Suttkus is biased in his beliefs, no way!. His presuppositions remain in tact and so do mine.

    Cement can set overnight into rock, so all rocks can!

    That makes me giggle. Give us some credit here. The hat itself was rock. I wish we had more access to that hat though. I still firmly believe pressure not time is the deciding factor of things. I wish I can get million dollar grants like evolutionists can to prove that theory. Oh wait, I guess it would be a good idea to be a scientist also. Oops, Strike two.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dan- yes, thanks, we all got back safe and sound. It was a pretty tame adventure: here in Central Europe, it's hard to hike for a day without coming across an alm or an Alpenvereinhütte (Alpine Club Hut) where you can spend the night. Not like in Yosemite, where I once hiked with a friend for a week without seeing one other human being.

    About that fossil hat: quasar beat me to it. As you might imagine, there is a rather large difference between a hat in free air becoming saturated with calcium carbonate, and the calcium carbonate of shells completely immured in mud slowly dissolving and being completely replaced by quartz. I couldn't come up with any figures, but I will still bet you a pair of silk pyjamas that it can't be done in under a million years. If you can come up with a hat of quartz embedded in stone, I will eat it.

    I will also say this about Darwin: as clostridiophile said, Social Darwinism is not the creation of Charles Darwin, but rather others such as Herbert Spencer. Darwin, despite being a racist by modern standards, as was practically everyone in nineteenth century Europe and America, was an outspoken foe of slavery and a philanthropist. Not that it matters: the truth or falsity of evolutionary theory does not depend on whether it has been abused by Hitler or not. Ben Stein's connection of the theory of evolution with the Holocaust is simply rank sensationalism at its worst.

    What do I do for a living? I'm an instrument maker and a musician. I build all kinds of instruments, and my wife and I perform medieval marionette concerts. And I sometimes do translation work too. What do you folks do?

    ReplyDelete
  17. "OK, there has to be some responsibility with the inventor of a fouled system though. Should we blame the Wright brothers if the plane blew up and killed 50 people? Partly. Should we blame the engineer that designed the titanic for all those deaths? Partly. Should Professor Rudolph Peierls and Otto Frisch be blamed for Hiroshima? Partly? Do we blame Adam for a fallen creation? Partly. Do I blame Darwin for leading man kind down a wrong path? Partly."

    Eugenics was not part of Darwin's theory. The theory is an accurate description of nature. You ask about things that people built such as the bomb, the titanic, etc...Darwin didn't invent something...he described a process occuring in nature. How is he to blame for anything???

    ReplyDelete
  18. clostridiophile- this is a good question, which of course begs the question "what is, exactly, responsibility?" Since I don't believe in God, then for me "responsibility" doesn't exist in a vacuum: it is an evolved entity in the ideosphere, just as life is an evolved entity in the biosphere.

    While I am loathe to draw lines, I would say that responsibility is something we must assume in order to be social beings: that is, in order to declare that we ourselves are not the only thing worthy of consideration in the world. And while questions of responsibility are fraught with complexity, I would agree with you: if we declare Darwin responsible for Hitler (however rightly or wrongly), then we are saying that truth itself is dangerous and must be censored.

    That way lies madness. There is indeed a difference between describing the world (as Darwin did) and designing missiles (as Tom Lehrer sang of Werner von Braun: "Vonce zee rockets are up, who cares vhere zee come down, zat's not my department, says Werner von Braun"). Darwin did us a great service, as Copernicus did before him: put us in our place in the Universe.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Zilch,

    You are right on. That is the whole point of the Garden of Eden story...knowledge and intelligence are bad, blind obedience is good. Such has always been the ways of the gods.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I just don't view it as blind obedience though. I view it as trust based on righteousness. I trust that God will do the right thing for us and He knows better then us. If Jesus would say kill the babies because it's fun then I would be an Antichrist. I seek truth and justice and righteous and I know that is what Jesus is about and God knows better then us. Just because I don't understand every single thing that God does for us, I do give Him the benefit of doubt.

    I basically trust everyone until they give me a reason not to trust them. I trust God. Billions of people wouldn't follow God if he were evil. No one likes evil, except maybe satanists and atheists. OK that wasn't entirely fair but you have to admit it's quite peculiar that everything that God stands for is good, and atheists are against following Him.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I seek truth and justice and righteous and I know that is what Jesus is about and God knows better then us. Just because I don't understand every single thing that God does for us, I do give Him the benefit of doubt."

    You maintain that God is all knowing and all powerful, is able to intervene at will and does on occassion. If this is so, what about a 6 year old girl being raped repeatedly is "righteous" and "just" and what knowledge would God have that we don't that would make this non-intervention "just"? I'm curious, Dan, because I don't see how you can call god "good" when he can sit idle when such things happen.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan- you say: "If Jesus would say kill the babies because it's fun then I would be an Antichrist."

    Jesus didn't say this, but it's in the Bible, as I'm sure you know:

    "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." - Psalm 137:9

    That verse alone is enough for me to say "no thanks" to the Biblical ideals of morality.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Clostridiphilewrote:
    -"Should we blame the Wright Brothers for 911?"

    To which Dan responded:
    -"OK, there has to be some responsibility with the inventor of a fouled system though. Should we blame the Wright brothers if the plane blew up and killed 50 people? Partly. Should we blame the engineer that designed the titanic for all those deaths? Partly. Should Professor Rudolph Peierls and Otto Frisch be blamed for Hiroshima? Partly? Do we blame Adam for a fallen creation? Partly. Do I blame Darwin for leading man kind down a wrong path? Partly."

    Bad analogy fellas.

    Unlike the examples set out above, Darwin's 'theory of evolution through natural selection' is not an INVENTION such as aircraft, ships, the atomic bomb etc. It is merely an explanation of a natural phenomena.

    I agree that people have misunderstood and mis-applied (hijacked might be a better term) Darwin's theory for their own social and political purposes, however that is not the fault of the theory itself, any more than it is the fault of the 'atomic theory of matter' that it has been used to create explosives, poisons, and chemical weapons. Nor is it the fault of the 'germ theory of disease' that it has been used to intentionally spread diseases, or to construct biological weapons. Gravitational theory is the principle behind why people tend to die after falling out of third story windows. The germ theory of disease is the principle behind which people tend to die after being infected with the ebola virus, or bubonic plague. Does that mean that the scientific theories which explain these events are in any way responsible for those deaths? Of course not.

    The theory of evolution is merely the EXPLANATION for WHY we see what we see happening around us in nature regarding living things. It is NOT an 'ideology'.

    The theory of evolution certainly helps to explain WHY people behave in the ways that they do, in fact there is a whole scientific discipline called 'evolutionary psychology' which is dedicated to studying and explaining this very thing. It should NOT however be construed to be ADVOCATING or ENDORSING any particular course of action, and in fact it takes pains not to do so. The theory of evolution is merely the explanation for the current state of life's diversity, which demonstrates that all modern species are genetically related, and that we are all descended from a common ancestor.
    That's all it is. Period.

    Racism, imperialism, and xenophobia have been prevalent in human societies for as long as they have existed, however these societal tendencies have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. They are sociological phenomena which are more closely related to the disciplines of anthropology and sociology, rather than evolutionary biology or evolutionary theory.

    The genocides, pogroms, purges and discriminations which people have committed, and still commit , and the eugenics programmes of days gone by, cannot be attributed to the theory of evolution by natural selection, because they are in fact examples of ARTIFICIAL selection, which as you know has been practiced for millenia by virtually every agricultural society which has ever existed.

    I hope that this helps to clarify the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  24. DingoDave,

    Valid point with an exception,

    "The theory of evolution is merely the explanation for the current state of life's diversity,"

    To be more accurate I would change it to: The theory of evolution is merely one explanation for the current state of life's diversity,

    ReplyDelete
  25. Zilch,

    Psalm 137:9 feels as a very frustrated person that can't wait until that eye for an eye to happen. Old thinking not new. It sure is harsh and should never be condoned. Jesus said it best.

    And Clos,

    I just don't know why the 6 yer old gets raped. I don't know why the 3 year old is killed by her own Mom and then her Mom parties while she is gone. All I know is that there is pure evil out there and we must see evil for evil and not blame God for the evil that man does on us. Should we blame your mom and throw her in jail for your DUI?

    You say God is idle. But you would say he is unfair if he threw you in hell forever before you committed murder. You would be in an uproar if He punished us without committing any crime at all. You must be allowed to have the free will to choose your fate. You can choose Him and be saved or not then YOU will have to be Judged on Judgment Day. Your choice though. At first I was very terrified of the thought of Hell for me or anyone. His game, His rules, His universe and Creation and I will listen to His reasoning and logic and follow His authority. I am now so grateful for saving little ol me that I will honor Him the best way I know how and that's being obedient to His authority.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sorry Zilch I forgot to answer,

    "What do you folks do?" For years Patty and I had our own Design Company called 811 Design (Our birthdays and Anniversary) way before 911 happened. I was the mouth and she was the talent. Patty has won over 18 Addy (Advertising) Awards and a Telly (television) Award. We did corporate Identities, logo's and Ads and such. Things were getting very hard when we started to have children. We made a deal that one would stay at home and take care of the kids and the other would make a living. Whoever made the most would win the career. So I won at first and moved from Texas to Colorado Springs we were there a couple of years living minutes from garden of the gods. California was kind of our target because I was born here and lived in San Diego for almost 5 years. I missed the beaches and weather. Then a company in California saw Patty's portfolio and flew her out and gave us an offer we couldn't refuse. So she is the Senior Graphic Designer for a 60 year old company that takes in 30+ million a year, here in California. They are absolutely in love with her. I of course thought I lost the bet but in reflection I really won because I am watching my kids grow up and I get to teach them all about life. In a million years I wouldn't have guessed this is how things turned out but we are quite happy. Now we are a couple of hours form Yosemite and Monterey and are having a blast.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dan wrote:
    -"To be more accurate I would change it to: The theory of evolution is merely one explanation for the current state of life's diversity"

    Yes Dan, technically you are correct in what you say.

    You are correct in the same way that the germ theory of disease is only one explanation for how infectious diseases are spread.
    Or, that the atomic theory of matter is only one explanation for how modern chemistry works.
    Or, that Mendelian genetics is only one explanation for how heredity works.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dan wrote:
    "Billions of people wouldn't follow God if he were evil.

    Dan, you might want to re-think this statement. History proves that billions of people are willing to follow anyone, no matter how evil.

    Clostridiophile wrote:
    Zilch,

    You are right on. That is the whole point of the Garden of Eden story...knowledge and intelligence are bad, blind obedience is good. Such has always been the ways of the gods.


    My absolute favorite series of novels: Terry Goodkind's The Sword of Truth, speaks about exactly this: the difference between blind obedience to your faith and feelings, and using your reason and logic.

    The books are a combination of an incredibly well written and engaging story, and intelligent and at times striking social commentary.

    I really really recommend these books: the only thing I've read to match it is Terry Pratchett's Discworld series.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Quasar,

    History proves that billions of people are willing to follow anyone, no matter how evil.

    You might have a point there.

    Narrow is the path...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oh, Dan, I forgot to mention: my wife is an ergotherapist- she works with handicapped children.

    We've both got professions that don't pay very well, but we both love our work, so we consider ourselves lucky.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Zilch,

    We can relate to you finding something you both love, we consider ourselves 'blessed'.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>