The Cardinals signed Matt Clement today. Earlier I proposed throwing money at Colon or Prior. But Clement was third on my list. If he proves to be fully recovered from his shoulder problems he will be a bargain and an asset to the team. If he isn't up to speed then he was a low risk gamble that didn't pan out.
The BCS has several deserving teams worthy of a top spot. I don't see how this bowl season has helped determine a champion in any way whatsoever. West Virginia, Kansas, USC, Missouri, and Georgia all seem to have as much of a claim as either LSU or Ohio State. The only thing the BCS has done so far is eliminate Oklahoma, Hawaii, and Virginia Tech from the discussion.
The National Academy of the Sciences spoke out strongly for evolution and against creationism today. They said something to the tune of "the case for evolution is clear and compelling." According to the TV news coverage part of the "evidence" is a fossil of a fish with fins that act like four legs. Ta da! evolution must be true! Or could be merely a fish with fin feet? This kind of thing makes my blood boil (that's right, I have evolved into a more complex organism that can withstand boiling blood in my veins). How in tarnation is a fish with fins used in feet-like ways evidence of evolution?
I watched Evan Almighty the other night against my wishes. It was good. I was surprised. In fact, it was fairly insightful in several parts. Also, I watched Luther for the first time last night. Another movie that was better than I expected.
I've been listening to The National and Arcade Fire on the recommendation of some folks over at Brian's blog - pretty good stuff.
Doug Wilson has been working his way through John Piper's book on N.T. Wright. For those interested in any three of those dudes I would think you'd enjoy his posts. So far Wilson has been full of praise and support for Piper's work. I've enjoyed it because it saves me from reading Piper's or Wright's books.
I was introduced to this today and thought y'all might be interested in it - a free audio Bible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Clement's done I think, but if not he'll help y'all out.
I almost rented Evan Almighty last night but didn't because I expected disappointment and got Amazing Grace instead. Haven't watched it yet though.
I am sick and tired of the whining I hear coming from UGA fans. Look, if you don't even get to your conference championship game, then you cannot play for the national championship. It's that simple. Now shut up and go back to worshiping Mark Richt.
are you angry about evolution or how they draw conclusion from, what you see as, little evidence?
A fish with fin-feet is not evidence of anything but the existence of a fish with fin-feet. I doesn't substantiate evolutionary claims at all.
If you make a series of assumptions it might be said of the fin-footed fish that he fits within the evolutionist hypothesis, but that is way different than claiming it as evidence, let alone compelling evidence.
What I am angry about is the obfuscation of actual scientific practice by political, social, and philosophical influences.
I thought this substitution was interesting: What I am angry about is the obfuscation of actual 'theological' practice by political, social, and philosophical influences.
I get what your driving at; that the presence of one criteria (i.e. fish with fin-feet) does not validate the entire line of thinking. It is just odd to me that Christians (for the most part) chalk up 'science' to something that is only trying to disprove God when really it can only prove God.
I was watching PBS the other night and they were talking about the Noah account in the Bible and had both side of the coin giving their opinions. One 'scientist' stated that Noah can't be true because there is no way you could fit all the insects (let alone all the mammals ect.) on the ark. Then they cut to a Christian 'scientist' who said that the Bible is only clear that Noah took two of each kind; that he took two dogs and two elephants and two deer and they they, over time, evolved into all the species we see now.
"I thought this substitution was interesting: What I am angry about is the obfuscation of actual 'theological' practice by political, social, and philosophical influences."
Yes, it is interesting. And equally angering.
"It is just odd to me that Christians (for the most part) chalk up 'science' to something that is only trying to disprove God when really it can only prove God."
Yeah, you keep saying that. But what passes as science these days works just like what you find odd - it tries to disprove God instead of being true science. But we've been down this road before...
so why do you keep brining it up?
Bringing what up?
Post a Comment