DJ Black Adam's Blog!!

Recreating the Mammoth? Didn't these scientist see "Jurasic Park?"

From Here:

A team of scientists have reconstructed most of the genetic code of the woolly mammoth and have, in effect, come up with an instruction manual for recreating a creature that became extinct 10,000 years ago in the last Ice Age.

For those of you who don't know (or forgot from high school and college science classes like me): A mammoth is any species of the extinct genus Mammuthus. These proboscideans are members of the elephant family and close relatives of modern elephants. They were often equipped with long curved tusks and, in northern species, a covering of long hair. They lived from the Pliocene epoch from 4.8 million years ago to around 4,500 years ago.

SO my question is, should we be doing this? Perhaps things go extinct for a reason?

They also are trying to recreate our "relative" the Neantherdal, again why? We all have family that has "disappeared" that we don't want to hear from? From what I gather these Neantherdals have been gone for a while, do we really want to bring these folks back? Could be like that cousin who was locked up 10 years ago that you've been avoiding...In any case, what do you all think about the Mammoth or its favorite hunter the Neanderthal being brought back?

Are Science and Spirituality “Mutually Exclusive”?

I was talking online with a former Christian who is now an atheist, when someone asked him about how he became an atheist hes basically said: “He decided to use his brain”, to which I asked him was he are you implying, inferring or just plain saying that those of us who do believe the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, do NOT have a brain?

Well he basically said that I excluded data, to which I asked what data? He gave the following example: example: how do you answer the question about the age of the earth? is it billions of years old? how is it possible that it is only a few thousand years old and how is it possible to exclude evolution?

To which I answered: “I don't "exclude" evolution, I don't think Genesis communicates the actual process that God utilized to create earth, humanity, or life on our planet, I think it communicates that He (God) is responsible. I don't think Moses wrote genesis to be a science book, it deals with matters of "beginnings", themes such as the fact that the human family comes from common ancestors, where Israel came from, how humanity pissed of God, etc. As well, looking at the Bible in context with itself, we don't know how long it took for the earth to come about (i.e. 7 days, then peter says a day with the Lord is a 1,000 years with hyperbole and metaphor dripping from his lips)"

To which they replied: "I had a friend who i bible studied with and i asked how could the earth be only a few thousand years old, he said it was that god made the earth that old on the first day that he made it 6000 yrs ago i am telling you this story to try and illuminate for you the absurdity of the stories in the bible to begin with..."

To which I replied: "But that means your friend doesn't understand what Moses was trying to communicate, not that the Bible is absurd, I see nothing in Bereshit "The Beginning / Genesis" that is stating "The earth is 6,000 years old", that isn't the point of that book. Again, it ISN'T a science book, I see the so-called "mutual exclusiveness" of science and spirituality as a false dichotomy, it isn't an either /or. I have studied a lot of science and keep up with it, I read peer reviewed papers all the time in astrology, astrophysics, biology and physics, the things I learn only strengthen my faith, I find science fascinating, I just know its limitations…"

So I ask you all, do you find Science and Spirituality to be mutually exclusive, if so or not, why? I’m just asking

9 polar bears observed on risky open ocean swims…and?

Here is a link to this story. Sorry in advance to any of you “green” people. Though I believe we should take care of the environment, there are a lot of seals out there who are happy at the possibility of their being LESS Polar bears…I’m just saying…

Catholics, the Pope and Bill Maher…

Last week it appears that Bill Maher made a joke about the Pope and the Catholic Church, trying to compare the Catholic’s sex scandals and child sexual abuse to the FLDS church issues down in Texas. He went in the joke and said that the Pope was a “Nazi”. Seems like the Catholic Defense League responded to this very aggressively, and Mr. Maher gave somewhat of an apology.

Honestly, I like Bill Maher, however; I don’t like how he beats into the ground how religion is evil, fairy tales, etc. Not so much because I am a follower of Christ, more so because he hides behind rationality, logic and reason, and uses very little rationality, logic or reason when he evaluates religion. So, since I already have a bone to pick with the guy, I watched the show where he made the comments and the next show before I decided to write about this issue.

Overall, I can see where he was trying to go in the joke (i.e. the Catholic church BLEW it on how it handled the sexual scandals that happened and if it had of been anybody else some serious jail sentences would have followed for those who committed the crimes and those who covered them up), however; what we have now instead of people seeing the validity of what he was trying to say is people focusing on the “Nazi” statement.

Thus, Bill Maher becomes a victim of what HE in fact always does with the topic of religion, that being “focusing on the trees and missing the forest”.

People are focusing on Mr. Maher’s uses of the word Nazi and conveniently missing the VALID point regarding how negligently (criminally, ethically, morally AND Spiritually negligent in my opinion) the Catholic Church as an institution handled these many sexual abuse and assault cases that it had over the last 20 years.

If Catholics are in fact Christians first, they need to forgive Bill, take the valid criticism of their Church and correct a few things internally and move on.

As for Mr. Maher, I have this to say, in fact, I’ll put it in letter form, and will send it to him once I find his email address or someone gets his email address for me:

Mr. Bill Maher:

I love your show. Just wanted to say that I think you are getting roasted a bit too much about you recent comments about the Pope. Admittedly, though I am a Christian, I am not Catholic, so maybe I might be more sensitive if I were; however, I believe that you trying to make a valid point and it is sad that some people will miss that point (some willfully) and focus on your “Nazi” part of the joke.

I have been meaning to write you anyway. I have heard your many statements about religion and religious people over the years, some of those statements I can agree with, some I can understand even if I don’t agree, and sometimes I have to stop watching your show for a few weeks because you go beyond commentary and into purposed offense to people who choose to accept the existence of a God (or gods as it were).

Mr. Maher, I think you are an intelligent man, but it is intellectually fraudulent to posit again and again that anyone who prescribes to any type of faith system that incorporates a deity is not a rational being, not only because such a statement is riducles at face value alone, but also such a statment implies that people who do not incorporate that belief are some how more “rational”? A cursory look at history shows that many crimes have been committed in the name of ideas and philosophies be they: religious ideas, secular ideas, fiscal ideas, political ideas, etc., many of these crimes committed by groups and individuals who claimed to be “rationalist” without any hint of religious overtones (i.e. Stalin).

My primary bone of contention with you is that you put the overwhelming burden on “religious ideas”. I’d be the first person to agree with you that religious ideas are often manipulated by people with POLITICAL AGENDAS to accomplish their goals, it happens here (i.e. the current administration) and elsewhere in the world. It has happened since our earliest empires in history. However; were you fail in your analysis is in not acknowledging that scientific ideas have been used to do the same damn thing (recently a noted noble laureate made statements that many will use to predicate hate ideology).

Look at things that were once “science”: Social Darwinism, Eugenics, etc, these all have been used as an excuse to do evil to people; however, as also with religion, undeniably science has also been used for great positive change as well. You fail to make that distinction when discussing faith; you also fail to make the distinction between "religion" the institutions and the faith and spirituality of the individual. You claim that Christians believe this, that or the other, when in fact there is a broad range of thought within the faith that you purposely ignore in assigning a specific thought or view that may apply to some to the complete spectrum of Christianity (or people of faith in general).

That is where you come off as no different than people who believe generalities about gays, or Blacks or Jews, etc. People who conveniently ignore any evidence to the contrary of the generality that they desire to forward. That is PREJUDICE.

I am a Christian, so you PREJUDGE that I lack rationality, you PREJUDGE that I believe every word in the Bible as “word for word” or that I use the Bible to tell me everything in life from how to tie my shoes to how often I pray. That is prejudice pure and simple. Anyway, I could go on, but I have learned in life that people either get your point or don't (hell, you argued with Cornell West, what chance do I have? lol).

Other than that, I just wanted to add, that I admire your courage to say what you feel is true, rather I agree with you or not.

Sincerely DJ Black Adam

http://djblackadam.typepad.com

I'm just saying...

Dr. James Watson: Proof of the Science Fiction of Race and the Social Fact of Racism…

Dr. Watson, seems to have no fear of “political correctness” and he obviously didn't seem to fear "scientific" correctness either, since his position is not supported by science.

It's funny; I just had a discussion regarding the "theory" of evolution with a fellow that quoted the good doctor. I for one find it a bit disingenuous when folks talk about how much we owe "science" when anyone criticizes or even questions some of the hypothesis that are predicated on the "theory" of evolution (The equivalent would be for theologians to get bent out of shape every time someone criticizes religion, since people should appreciate the fact that without religion, we wouldn’t have the body of laws that form the foundation of western society)

I think it is disingenuous when this theory is presented as fact, kind of duplicitous at best. I know there is a difference between scientific "theory" and the regular ole Webster's definition of "theory", but let's look at the reality of the situation here.

Sure, mosquitoes changing generation to generation is an observation of generational organism change, which is a FACT. Now people want to call organisms changing generation to generation “Evolution” and narrowly define the "theory" of Evolution by this, then Evolution is a "fact". However, that is a bit misleading, because what is actually the “fact” that Neo Darwinism is explaining in that is “generational organism change” which may be a “part” of the broader definition of “evolution”, but is not the part that is what is generally pushed and defined in the social political discussion regarding “Evolutionary Theory” and how it relates to the origins of the Human Species.

Which is this, science posits that between 8 and 4 mya, gorillas, then chimpanzee divided from the line leading to the humans; partially based on the “FACT” that human DNA is 98.4 percent identical to the DNA of chimpanzees. Now, believe it or not I think that is a good guess, an educated guess even, BUT, it is not provable as of yet, and is not a “Truth” which is what many folks debating this "theory" and the "laws" supporting said theory are searching for.

The "THEORY" in evolution claiming that ONE species (The common ancestor to apes like chimps and humans), became the different species of Apes we have today simply cannot be proven at this point in time. Sure, I believe that theory is a possibility, but I don't see why people doubting this hypothesis are ridiculed amongst the so-called academia. So we can play semantics all day, but at the end of the day, the problem is even if you it was proven that ONE Primate species became many other Primate species, it wouldn’t prove the position on the non existence of God or the non-uniqueness of humanity. It has no bearing on my faith, simple as that.

As far a science goes, folks believe a theory to be fact and use it as a postulate to formulate other ideas, doesn’t mean that it will endure, like I have said with the flawed scientific facts of “race” which were later proved wrong, just because majority believes something, doesn’t mean it will endure or is unchallengeable.

Anyway, as far as Dr. Watson goes, he is saying a social reality that many in the "Scientific" community believe, but just don't talk about at parties. Which only goes to prove, even with their vaunted "scientific" knowledge, many still have archaic ideas about the SCIENCE Fiction of Race. Sure we can speak the language of “science” and ignore the broader social political ramifications of what the true discussion is, but to do so is intellectually fraudulent and deceptive.