--where proper grammar and punctuation is always strictly optional-- -----
Saturday, September 29, 2007
[23:00:48]
part of my response to a guys response to my post on condoms, aids and the vatican..
>> thats just the physiological part of condom use. then theres the
>> problem with condom use promotion. "quick dont think of a pink
>> elephant!" whats the first thing you think of? thats right, the more
>> we promote condoms on all media, the more sex is on everybodys mind,
>> the more people will want to do it.
>
> I rather think that the wish of people to have sex is build in.
it sure is, but from personal experience, actually theres a fable that illustrates this perfectly. ive heard different versions of it, one attributed to ghandi. anyways, theres this guy who owns two fighting dogs, one red, one white. and he pits them to fight every week, and every week he bets on a given one of the two, and every week he picks the winner correctly. so a guy asks him, "sir, how is it that you always know which one is going to win?" the guy says "well, thats simple, its the one i fed that week"
i used to be addicted to porn and masturbation and such.. it was really uncontrollable.. i wasnt actually sure whether it was right or wrong (this was when i was younger, before i was a christian) but at times i would want to stop and so i would cut it all off and i was able to spend months without it.. but if there was anything on TV, any flash of anything, or sometimes even noises.. it would trigger everything in my mind.. but it wouldnt make me want to go and.. relieve myself. however, i did notice that as time went on, it would get easier, and the urge would decrease. after i became a christian, i became convinced it was indeed bad, and not because somebody told me, but because i could see the effects it had on myself. so i decided to stop it all completely, and not feed the red dog. after some time (not that it was easy) those uncontrollable desires died down, and i wasnt under that urge to relieve myself every night.
my point is that the more exposed we are to sex and all that, the more its going to be on our mind, and the more we are going to want it. obviously sex is a desire people have, its natural. as a christian i believe its a God-given desire, but as with everything, it carries a responsibility to it, and we believe that God established sex as something to be kept within marriage, due to all the great things that come with it, and keeping it in that structure leads to stronger, and longer lasting relationships. and also, it prevents things such as STD pandemics from occurring.. such as is the case with aids, and syphilis and gonorrhea which are making a comeback of late here.. (i know! didnt we all think those had been eradicated?)
most people can "control" their sexual urges to within consensual limits, but we have to also think about those people who arent right in the head and then go and do bad things because of it. because they have been letting the red dog feast itself at every moment. and the fact that the media doesnt even give us a 5 minute break from sex talk, doesnt help at all.. (i once counted 5/28 articles to be sex-related in our main newspaper here in a given day.. i mean, thats crazy)
Friday, September 28, 2007
[23:19:26]
me answering an atheist guy blaming the vatican for the prevalence of aids in the third world:
>> what are the morals we should follow? whose morals are correct? how do
>> we agree upon a common set of morals? or even.. what are morals?
>> (answer
>> all if you want, but mainly the first question is of interest)
>> ...............
>
> This is also something they can't cope with. It is very common for one
> of us to eg criticise the Vatican for its part in the spread of AIDS
> in the Third World due to its active campaigns against condoms, and
> get a response insisting we have no basis for our this concern.
>
sorry, wont be answering the rest of the post.. i did however want to address this.. just in case you didnt know, im not catholic, so i in no way am in favor of the vatican or any of that, except in the cases where it agrees with the bible. that said, you cant blame the vatican for the spread of aids in the 3rd world, since the spread of aids has not much to do with condom usage and everything to do with promiscuity. i tell everyone this, but ill repeat it again. if you grab a condom package, and read the label, what do you read? "effective 99.9% of the time, IF USED CORRECTLY".. so, of 1000 people who use the condom correctly, it will fail in at least ONE of the cases. oa search on google turned up that according to the UNFPA, the number of condoms donated in 2005 was 1.8 billion. so, of those 1.8 billion people receiving free condoms, and assuming they ALL were well educated in its use, and did use it properly in ALL cases, 1.8 million of these times it failed. thats of course giving all the benefit of the doubt. however, if you consult a fertility doctor, they will tell you that in terms of pregnancy prevention, condoms are about 80% effective. and lets face it, the sperm is much much smaller than the HIV cell. people dont use condoms properly all the time, or even all the time in the first place. so, obviously the promotion of condom use is not effective.
thats just the physiological part of condom use. then theres the problem with condom use promotion. "quick dont think of a pink elephant!" whats the first thing you think of? thats right, the more we promote condoms on all media, the more sex is on everybodys mind, the more people will want to do it. the more people will be doing it. simple. so promoting condoms under the guise of "safe sex" is really very misleading. good business for condom manufacturers, but not really good for all those people who "oops! i wanted to have sex, but because we couldnt find a condom in the heat of the moment, we didnt use one.. " or who fumbled it around, or who used it incorrectly, or who, oh well, were one in a thousand.
so, let me ask you this, what two african nations are the only to have declining rates of aids infection? ill tell you, uganda and zimbabwe.. wanna know why? uganda adopted the "ridiculous" strategy called ABC's. where the first thing they pushed the hardest on was Abstinence.. if you couldnt douce the fire in your britches, they pushed "Be faithful".. stick to a single partner.. and failing all those, thats where Condoms come in.. as the third measure of protection. if youre not having sex, you would get a sexually transmitted disease. if you are having sex, stick to one partner, and ONLY one partner (both of you).. therefore, you only get what that other person has, and not what a third or fourth or... same concept behind marriage.. and as a third measure (that is obviously applicable to the second) you have condoms. which arent as safe as the first two.. but there it is as a final option.
and zimbabwe you ask? haha, well, thats the funny one. if youve been following the news, you know zimbabwe's inflation rate has exploded.. and there was actually a study that noted the correlation between the rising inflation and decreasing rate of aids infection.. complete with interviews.. some of note i can remember was a guy basically saying "yeah, its become really hard to maintain mistresses or pay for prostitutes, we now have to make sure first our wives are taken care of, and we cant afford to have mistresses now that we are so poor".. while that is just one (really paraphrased) quote, that was the conclusion of the study, people are becoming more monogamous due to their own poverty and this is leading to decreasing aids infection rates.. funny only because people keep saying aids is a disease associated with poverty.. which clearly is not at all..
and then i have to end with the vatican. you blame the vatican for third world aids infection rates, due to its severe disapproval of condoms. well, if these people really are not using condoms because they are following what the vatican is saying, then by that logic, they should also not be having sex outside of marriage. and if so, that means people are marrying as virgins, and hence their chances of getting infected with aids is reduced drastically to nil. so obviously this isnt the case, because people getting aids are getting it through sexual behavior that is not with their spouse. else it wouldnt spread. so saying that they dont use condoms cuz the vatican says its bad is non-sequitur.
quick question, how many of the people infected with aids are married in monogamous relationships who have each only had a single sexual partner in their life? you can give me a rough estimate, even as a percentage if you prefer.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
[22:08:16]
the complete message of the gospel in a single 4min video.. its pretty good. watch it if you cant tell me the gospel in 4 sentences.. (and even if you can!)
[17:13:48]
argh, what is it with my spelling today?? i obviously meant "afghanistan" with an "h"
[17:11:59]
me responding to someone who invited me to a group demanding the withdrawal of troops from afganistan
hey [person's name], sorry i wont be joining your afghanistan group, i actually think pulling the troops out of afghanistan would be disatrous for the people there, much like it was when the US pulled out of vietnam (and how it affected neighboring cambodia too, with the communists in both slaughtering their enemies like crazy, killing many more in the 3 months that followed the withdrawal than died during the whole of the war) it may suck that theyre there, but it would be way worse if they left
Bamboo is a group of woody perennial evergreen plants in the true grass family Poaceae, subfamily Bambusoideae, tribe Bambuseae. Some of its members are giants, forming by far the largest members of the grass family.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
[23:03:14]
post i made on a video criticizing people who criticize condom use
condoms, (actually the promotion thereof) by the way, have helped more in the promotion of the behavior that leads to AIDS infection. and if you read the wrapper, it says something like 99.9% effective IF USED PROPERLY.. which means of 1000 people who use it PROPERLY, at least one of these will fail.. of 1,000,000 1,000.. you get the point.. and ask a fertility doctor how effective condoms are at preventing pregnancy (the sperm is much smaller than an HIV cell) and theyll say something like 80%
holey, my grammar in that post is terrible. thats what char limits will do i guess..
Sunday, September 23, 2007
[22:20:28]
and britians got talent.. it sure does:
[22:07:13]
hooohoo.. maan.. WHAT is wrong with that mayo???
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
[11:40:44]
sooo, last saturday was my wife's birthday!! and the 6th was my spiritual birthday!! and yesterday was my father's birthday.. so in honor of both the three of us, a little song:
happy birthday toooo us
happy birthday tooooo usssss
happy biiiiirthdd--
sorry, copyright laws prevent me from singing the whole song, unless someone is willing to shell out the $10,000 it would end up costing us.. and by us i mean me.. crazy huh? thanks to bahb for the link..
[11:39:43]
gah man.. ive been craving a dr pepper here at work for the longest time.. its going on weeks now.. gahh!
Sunday, September 9, 2007
[21:42:19]
answering some atheist who said i could ask him about evolution and he would try to answer to the best of his ability:
ok, so tell me, how, if science is based on observation, can it conclude something to be factual that is by DEFINITION not observable? or when was the last time speciation was observed? sure, micro evolution is readily observable, where within one species a trait is lost, or one is pronounced through the loss of others in the species that didnt demonstrate that trait. but it still doesnt become a different species. speciation is not and has not been observed. also, if you ran the numbers for the millions of years it takes for one species to come about, from another, (no really, run the numbers) that would mean that species must be CONSTANTLY changing, like, yearly new traits must come about.. and there would be no fixed state for species as they would have to constantly be changing, ie, the whole transitional fossils problem. darwin himself said that there should be an overabundance with transitional fossils, and all we find are fossils of static creatures, and then a sudden "jump" to the presence of another completely different static one.. ie, there should be more transitional fossils than static ones.
thats the first batch, let me go on, since you asked.
on speciation. speciation is defined as the coming about of new species, and species in turn is defined as those members of a group that can procreate with each other. so, for a new species to appear, that would require that new species to not be able to procreate with the members of its own family/former species.. which means it cant procreate at all, unless the whole species suddenly also "evolved" in one go. which itself also violates occams razor.. but of course the entire theory of evolution is an agregious violation of occams razor.. good thing its just a rule of thumb tho, right? despite what atheists try to make us believe about it when they use it to say God doesnt exist (even tho, using this rule of thumb forces us to say God exists, since its the simplest explanation, but i digress)
so you say that no, evolution is small changes within a species until we reach a whole new one, years later.. again, transitional fossils galore should be the case.
next, the "evidence". if its not observable, then what is evo based on? well, fossils. and the dating? well, those same fossils. by the way, fossils are NOT made of biological material, by DEFINITION. and the only way to even remotely date something biological is through carbon 14, which is notoriously unreliable after about the first couple thousand years.. not to mention the fact that its based on sooo many assumptions for example: regular carbon14 isotope ratio when the biological system was alive is a biggie.. how do they know what normal carbon 14 levels were back millions and jillions of years ago? another example? how do they know that those isotopes did not decay at varying rates? things in nature arent linear and predictable, and lots of things such as the industrial revolution with pollution in general, and radioactive tests (etc) that have caused the environment to change drastically, affecting these rates in ways we dont know nor can calculate. and again, thats just for biological systems. we are talking fossils here. ROCK. how do we calculate the age of a rock? ill give you a clue: we cant. its all guesswork. remember mount saint helens blowing its top in 1980? well, incredibly enough they found a thousand year old chunk of wood wrapped in a million year old slab of rock.. the rock was millions years old.. how did the wood get in there? and by the way, as you noticed, i said it blew its top, right? well, the point in saying so was that that piece of thousand year old wood was actually just a tree that had been on that mountain just days earlier. the age of rocks is based on strata, mainly. ie, layers of rock. so geologists sit there and say "well, that strata is above that one, so its so and so many millions of years after the one below it.. " its not scientific at all.. its guesswork, and as a matter of fact, if those guesses dont agree with the general concensus (which is based on more guesses) then its not accepted.
thats just rocks.
and then we get back to evolution. its funny cuz most people think theres only one evolutionary theory but theres several, for instance lamarckian evo, but thats not accepted by the consensus, so i can just skip that one. the favorite is darwinian survival of the fittest. its lovely. it says the strong survive.. or.. the smartest survive. (techinically its the fittest, but strong or smart can make you the fittest according to situations) ignoring the unbelievable moral repercusions this ideology has (just ask australian aborigines) lets take it from a merely scientific standpoint. ie, where we say that those with the best traits are the best suited to survive, and those will be the ones to survive. ie, if you are in a situation that requires a certain trait to survive, all those without it will die. ie, that trait will not be passed on. so eventually only the "best" traits are passed to future generations.. right? this is called a destructive process, and ignores the fact that those traits that are lost are lost for good, and the fact that the "best" traits had to already be there. so we are constantly _losing_ traits, not gaining them. so you then answer, "well, thats because these are constantly being gained through mutations etc.. " well, mutations as have been observed in at least humans are seldom if ever useful at all. actually we know the most common of these mutations as "cancer", the other most common ones are "vestigial limbs" which are also never useful (unless for aesthetic reasons and people suddenly think it fashionable to have extra dangly useless limbs..) and even then, these arent passed on to the next generations.. so, so much for that.
so what else do we have left. oh yeah, math and physics.
well, we have the mouse trap, without the base board, the mouse trap is useless. without the spring, the mouse trap is useless, without that spring bar, the mouse trap is useless, and without the activating switch, the mouse trap is useless. a mouse trap cannot have "evolved" into being by different parts evolving into existence. so you say, "well, perhaps it evolved from parts that had different functions, and then suddenly it became a mouse trap".. obviously this is an analogy to biological evo. lets take for example the sperm and the egg. vastly more complex not just chemically, but in function too, to the mouse trap. and without even one of those parts functioning properly, the human cannot procreate. so, the sperm and the egg couldnt have evolved from other parts that did "other" things.. but then you point to how other animals procreate and say THAT process evolved.. well, then i guess it had to have evolved in lots of lots of really USEFUL steps at each point, and this for every living being on earth and every different form of procreation.. and these would again, have to constantly be changing, since evolution hasnt taken a break, right? so we should be able to observe people (and other living organisms) having lots of useful changes to the way they are procreating (etc) but, thats not observed. if a single instance of this was, it would be huge news, because.. well, it doesnt happen! (whereas it should be the norm)
and then we get to math.. statistical math to be precise.. where for each single one of these events (of which millions are required, especially for each species and intermediate "proto-species") the probability is insanely high.. times the amount of these that would be useful, times the amount of these that would actually be passed on, times the amount of these that would also survive with the new traits.. suddenly the statistical probability for these would be in the order of what statisticians define as mathematically impossible (ie, so improbable they dont award it enough possibility to occur).. but you say, "just cuz its mathematically improbable, doesnt mean it didnt happen that way" sure. ill buy that. still, its quite the long shot.. (i cant find the actual number, but i think that for just a useful strand of DNA to occur is something like 1 in 10^27..
theres others.. but you can try answering those for me to begin with... by the way, please do NOT send me to someone else to "go read what they say" or go "see someone elses vid".. i want you to answer me. i can look these up myself, and guess what answers ive run into when i did? so if you cant answer them, just tell me "i cant answer them" and leave it at that.
[21:26:38]
One survey, recently reported by the U.S. government, concluded that men had a median of seven female sex partners. Women had a median of four male sex partners. Another study, by British researchers, stated that men had 12.7 heterosexual partners in their lifetimes and women had 6.5.
But there is just one problem, mathematicians say. It is logically impossible for the mean number of partners for men to be different from the mean for women in any given population with equal numbers of heterosexual men and women, although the mean, or mathematical average, can differ from the median, the middle point of a range. Surveys typically report the median.
[...]
"By way of dramatization, we change the context slightly and will prove what will be called the High School Prom Theorem. We suppose that on the day after the prom, each girl is asked to give the number of boys she danced with. These numbers are then added up, giving a number G. The same information is then obtained from the boys, giving a number B.
"Theorem: G = B
"Proof: Both G and B are equal to C, the number of couples who danced together at the prom. QED."
if youve ever wondered what that "K" in the amd processors (K7 etc) means:
AMD's first completely in-house x86 processor was the K5 which was launched in 1996.[6] The "K" was a reference to "Kryptonite", which from comic book lore, was the only substance that could harm Superman, with a clear reference to Intel, which dominated in the market at the time, as "Superman" .[7]
maaan, ive been looking for this for a while.. what is DNA: a tour of the basics.. if you want to learn about basically the most undeniable proof for a creator God, here it is, the language of life.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
[23:09:49]
whoa, you know what i just realized? the shortest, grammatically correct sentence in the english language is also the name of God!!
