How to Live Your Life (but only sometimes...)

    Hello again. This post is about how to live your life. But only sometimes. As a matter of fact, only on Sunday. I'm not here to tell you that you can't eat nachos or go to sleep on piles of wool socks. But I am here to tell you that Sunday isn't a typical day, and that's where we'll start.

    Sunday was first originated on the seventh day of creation. God loved his work, and He wanted to sit back and enjoy it. He actually sanctified the seventh day, meaning that it was literally set apart. It isn't a normal day. After Christ's resurrection, the Sabbath changed from the last of the week to the first. So the importance hasn't changed, only the day. The day is still set apart by God for God.

    This means that everything we do on a Sunday should be in meditation on God. This doesn't mean that you can't have nachos because you can't focus on God, but it does mean that you can't do certain things. What things? It differs from person to person, but the principle remains the same: glorify God on Sunday. Period, end of discussion.

    Simply, if you can avoid things that will hinder your ability to meditate on God and praise Him, then don't do those things!

    Let me put it in different terms: when you can have "best," why settle for "okay?"

    I'll put it in a scenario, to make it easier for you to understand. Say you want to watch a movie. Not just any movie, but Ender's Game. And, as a little bonus to yourself, it isn't a sin to watch movie on Sunday, and you can even focus on God! (If only occasionally.)

    What's wrong with this picture? Most people would say "nothing." But they would be wrong. Think about what your motive would be when you watch any movie, on Sunday or not: "this will entertain me." The operative word there isn't entertain; it's me. And that's fine. Scripture never condemns entertaining yourself.

    But on Sunday, a day that God created solely to rest and to worship him, I want to watch a movie why? To entertain me. And focusing on God is an added bonus.

    This is the messed up view of Sunday. It is perfectly fine the rest of the week, but not for a day specifically set apart, as outlined in the Fourth Commandment. As David put it in Psalm 119:36, "incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!" Should we not strive to be like David, in his more godly moments? On Sunday, our focus needs to be like David's focus in this passage. Not on ourselves, but on God.

    A lot of activities are fine. And for some, there is no general rule. Others should just be dismissed out of hand. I'll leave it to you to decide what things go under which category. But keep this in mind.

    Take example of Eric Liddell: he loved running. He said many times that when he ran, he felt the glory of God. He went to the olympics he was so fast. But his race was scheduled for Sunday. He refused to run on Sunday, and actually switched places with another man just so that he wouldn't have to run on Sunday. He loved running, shouldn't he be allowed to do what he loves? No. 

    Adam loved working. But he didn't do it on Sunday, because it was a day of rest, a day entirely set aside for God's glory.

    This Sunday, maybe set aside some more time to meditate on God's word and reflect upon his glory. Cut back on the movies, read your Bible some more. But whatever you do, "remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Exodus 20:8).

    Thank you for your time.

Nye vs Ham: The Epic Debate of Our Time

    You've probably heard about the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye. They were debating the following resolution: Is Creation a viable model of origins in today's modern scientific era?

    There will probably be a lot of people who say that Mr Ham won, and a lot of people saying that Mr Nye won. But really, who did win? If you didn't watch it, I'll break it down for you.

    Mr Ham's first case showed us the difference between observational science and historical science, and that we all have the same facts but our interpretation of the facts was different. He continued to say that with Evolution, we can have no laws of logic, we can have no morality, and we can have no laws of physics. He then outlined the most basic problems with the evidence for Evolution, such as the problems with dating methods and the fact that no organism has ever become more complex. And finally, he said that Creationists can be scientists, thus already winning the debate. "Viable" literally means "capable of working successfully." Since he showed that yes, indeed, without Creationism we wouldn't have the MRI (at least not as early as we did) and showed that Creationism and science don't even come into conflict. Well, he won that one already.

    However, he and Mr Nye were debating on two different terms. Mr Nye basically said (to sum it up in a sentence) that if we have Creationists running around in science, we won't advance. Ham had already established (and this, by the way, was a dropped argument) that Creationists can be scientists, and therefore, his whole point about "we will be overtaken by Japan and China if we allow Creationism to run free" was invalid. And he literally replied "I don't know" to the questions "Where did the molecules for the big bang come from?" and "how did our consciousness evolve?" He basically said the same thing that Darwin did. "Well, we don't even know the most basic things about our own religion, but some day someone will find out!"

    I have a question for Mr Nye: what if they don't? What if no one ever finds any good evidence, like the missing link? There are so many basic, fundamental flaws with your religion that no amount of specifics can help.

    And this is why Mr Ham won. He had a groundwork. In fact, he even pointed out that the Evolutionary worldview can have no groundwork. And Mr Nye dropped this point. Completely. Didn't even acknowledge it.

    Is this the only reason? No. I'll put down the dropped arguments by both sides so you can see the ridiculousness:

    Arguments that Mr Nye won (because Mr Ham dropped them):

1. The layers in which we find fossils are even, and no animals are in a layer that they aren't supposed to, thus proving that they evolved
2. Kangaroos could not have traveled from Asia to Australia without any fossil records.
3. The skulls that are intermediate, indicating a missing link
4. Scientists predicted the background noise as a result of the big bang
5. Billions of stars are many light years away, proves old earth

    And the arguments that Mr Ham won:

1. No logic without God
2. There is a difference between historical and observational science
3. Evolution led to racism, but Creationism showed that we all had the same origins
4. No technology required Evolution to build
5. There can be no morality in the Evolutionary worldview
6. There are no examples of any organism gaining more information in its genetic code
7. Dating methods have problems, and even then, 90% of them contradict a billions of years theory
8. Bible is infallible (to which Mr Nye responded "so we're supposed to believe your interpretation of the Bible?" Yes, Mr Nye, you are. He is an expert, and even then, his interpretation of the Bible is not founded on nothing. There is overwhelming evidence in favor of the Bible)
9. No life has ever come from non-life
10. No organism has ever become more complex by itself

    Okay, reading those lists, who won? Oh, and let me refute each thing he said in order (what Mr Nye said; you can't refute any of the main points Mr Ham made):

1. Cambrian explosion.
2. AIG has an answer for that on their website. Floating log mats (alive, not dead)
3. The AIG website has a lot of articles about skulls. They explain them pretty well. Look 'em up.
4. Science predicted the background noise? And that did what do exactly? Make some thermonuclear awesome bomb? No. It just predicted that there would be a background noise. And even so, there's a problem with this "prediction," and it only created another problem for the Big Bang model.
5. AIG has an excellent video on this. Watch it, even if you are a young-earth Creationist.

    So, we can really see that what Mr Nye said has no ground. To the most basic questions, he had no idea, and Mr Ham had an answer. And Mr Ham was forced to debate like Mr Nye (specifics) instead of how Mr Ham prefers to debate (groundwork), and still successfully defended the resolution. And when Mr Nye went over to Mr Ham's way of debating, he completely lost. He was crushed, because you can't have any groundwork for Evolution. There is none.

    So, in reality, although Mr Nye did make some points that weren't addressed, the points that Mr Ham didn't address were much less significant than the points that Mr Nye didn't address. Because the points that Mr Nye made can be refuted. And sure, maybe I forgot some, but he put the nail in his coffin by saying that he wanted to be patriotic. Sorry, Mr Nye, but Mr Ham showed the importance of Creationism, and that it too can do great things, and that if we don't teach it in schools (although he only mentioned it once) then we will not be exercising the freedom of speech that is guaranteed to us as a result of the constitution (he didn't mention this last part, but it was implied). So, Mr Nye lost in all three areas: fundamentals, facts and the resolution (he came the closest on the facts, but even his facts were refuted).

    Thank you for your time.

About Me

    Hi. I've posted a bit recently, and I wanted to let you know about how I will be operating.

    I am one person. I only have my opinion, and the truth (the Bible). I like ranting. I am just like a bunch of other bloggers, except that I won't usually be posting about trivial things like "how to brush your hair properly" (although that is similar to my first post). I like impacting people, because I believe that if I impact even just one person per year in a good way, I am much more helpful to society than a person who impacts thousands in just a couple days, in a questionable way. I am a firm believer in the Butterfly Effect.

    I am a debater, so I can be (correction: am) long winded. I like it that way. It's easy to be long winded. But I also like to have something meaningful to say. So if I start off on the wrong foot, bear with me. My conclusion often does not match up completely with my introduction.

    But what about this blog itself? I won't give you any long history, but I decided that I wanted to post about things I care about. And I will do this about every Wednesday. I try hard.

    Occasionally, I will post more often, or less often. But bear with me, and check about every Wednesday. My goal is to eventually post twice a week. But I'm not there yet.

    That was the shortest blog post yet, so I need a random question. Here goes: do you believe in the Butterfly Effect? If so, has it changed you at all? If not, why not?

    Thank you for your time.

Why You Care About Politics

    This title might be a little misleading. But really, you do. At least, you should. If you don't, either you have a really, really good reason, or you're lazy.

    Wow, what a way to start, right? Probably not the most politically correct thing I could have said, but it's true. Let's start off on the right foot, instead of the left. I prefer my right foot, because it's more accurate. My right foot tells me that 65% of Voting Age Americans are dissatisfied with our current government. Really? Hmmm, our country is run for the people, correct? If that's the case, then why are so many people dissatisfied? Two reasons: one, people who are old enough don't vote, and two, people who aren't don't care.

    First reason: people don't vote. Seriously? Your vote is one of your most important rights. If you have a system of government where you are guaranteed the right to vote if you are above the age of eighteen, then why don't you use it? It might seem like it doesn't do much damage, but it's like a soldier. If a soldier thinks that his job isn't useful because he only has one gun, then why should he be in the army? It would be ridiculous for him to leave, simply because he doesn't have enough power.

    It might seem like enough people vote, but actually, 42.5% of our voting age population does not vote in the Presidential Elections (this doesn't even include senators, representatives, laws, etc.). The main reason is "I can't fit it into my schedule!" according to the same site. Well, if you can't do that, then maybe you should be happy with our current system of government, because you have decided that other things in your life are more important than letting your voice be heard.

    With the current statistics, a minimum of 7% of our Voting Age population have only themselves to blame.

    Let me repeat that: if you aren't satisfied for our current government, and you don't vote, you have only yourself to blame.

   Seriously, your vote literally cancels out another vote. In theory, anyways, without regard to voting fraud. But in theory, if you vote, your vote counts just as much as someone else's.
 
    I will pull up another instance. Ever heard of the butterfly effect? Look it up, there are many good articles about it. Basically, what it says is that a flap of a butterfly's wings could cause a tornado - or, in theory, prevent one. There were a lot of tests regarding this, and it was shown to work every time. Andy Andrews has written a wonderful book about this, and what it means for people, instead of weather. What he showed is that the smallest actions can lead to drastic changes in the future. Your smallest action (not voting) could lead to thousands of people in the future deciding that they don't have time to vote. This could seem like a slippery slope, but then again, so does the whole theory. But it's not. Do some research. Every person needs to vote so the country can be accurately be represented.

    So your refusal to vote, if you're old enough to, could potentially lead to the destruction of the Second Amendment, or enable some horrible president in the future to be elected. By not voting, you are saying that you are disregarding the effects it could have. And they could be drastic. Your mentality could affect an entire generation. Or, it could do absolutely nothing. Based on the current statistics, it seems like the first is more likely.

    Second reason: non-voting age population doesn't care at all. Why should they care at all? Well, if they care, they will already be ahead of most adults when they get to the age.

    If they care, they will know, not only that the government is flawed, but exactly why, how, and what needs to be fixed. They will understand the tiny things that affected the world, and they will know which president they need to vote for. I'll bring up a real world example to let you know what I mean by this last point.

    It seems like the main reason that people voted for Obama is because he promised to give them jobs. Well, if you look at this logically, the best way to do this would be to actually put less taxes on employers. That way, they can actually make more jobs. Also, the new minimum wage hike pretty much seals the death of job creation. If the employers are being taxed heavily, and they have to pay people a minimum of $10.10, they won't be employing as often. Over 100,000 jobs need to be created each month just to maintain the current rate of unemployment. And if this new minimum wage is employed, those jobs will become harder and harder to come by.

    Obamacare. It's an absolute failure. A small percentage of people did not have enough money for insurance, and an even smaller percent of those actually wanted insurance. Rather than just addressing this small percentage, he decides that the entire population needs to pay for insurance, whether they get it or not. How do I know this? Politics.

    NSA vs Edward Snowden. Terrorist attacks and why they happen. War on drugs. Watergate Scandal. Freedom of the Press vs National Security. Problems with the Military. Feminism.

    All of these are politics. Think about this: if you knew about all of these, if only a little bit, would you not be able to have an opinion on why our country is headed downhill? Answer honestly.

    Why do you care, if you're not old enough to vote? You'll know the problem behind the economy when you get older. And then you'll know the problem behind the crime rate, and the government, and the military, and terrorism, and constitutional violations. That is, if you decide that you care.

    And if you're old enough to vote and don't, I hope you have a really, really good reason. If you do, comment below. If you're serving in the military overseas, then you have an excellent reason. Look up the eLect voting system and contact your representative about it.

    Thank you for your time.