Archives for the month of: December, 2013

With my kids growing up listening to Tempboy Brandon, et al., on 91fm, I have an appreciation for Brandon that may be lost to most readers. Take my word for it, Brandon is a great guy. He even officiates weddings, and he’s good at it. Enjoy the review of KD’s opening night. (And visit Bricktown, in downtown OKC. We’ll all love to see ya!)

Interesting to note that the ranking minority Rep, Bonamici, gives an opening statement that essentially states that the meeting’s outcome cannot be different from the predetermined agenda. She states that the meeting is to prove the world is getting worse because of global warming, and the outcome cannot be to conclude that we don’t need to do anything about it. Quoting, “The lesson of this hearing cannot be that a potential link between climate change and severe weather is too difficult to determine or understand…”

It is sad that so many politicians are bowing down at the alter of scientism and progressivism. It is sad that they refuse to acknowledge that their proposed cure is far more damaging and costly than their feared purported disease.

Watts Up With That?

Ah, politics, the stench of spin is strong here. Note the picture below. Left to right are Dr. John Christy, Dr. David Titley, and Dr. Roger Pielke Jr..

In the text, Christy and Pielke don’t even exist, because, well, this was “A Factual Look at the Relationship between Climate and Weather.” and we can’t have factual testimony we don’t like in the press release, can we?

Really, if you are going to disappear people in your press releases, at least be savvy enough to use a photo only showing your man giving testimony. Idiots.

From the House Committee on Science Space, and Technology

Subcommittee Discusses Climate Change Impacts on Severe Weather

Subcommittee Discusses Climate Change Impacts on Severe Weather

(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Environment held a hearing entitled “A Factual Look at the Relationship between Climate and Weather.” The stated purpose of the hearing…

View original post 683 more words

Over at, they have posted a testimony written by Nathan Hale (modern, not from the late 1700s):

I’ve reused their title. It is Nathan Hale’s story of coming to a true faith by almost giving up his inherited faith (his faith, altogether) as he realized the truth of modern science and evolutionary biology.

It is a sad story with a good ending. Well, almost good. He is still worried about dealing with other people on the topic. That’s not good.

My own story is a good bit different. I never saw a dichotomy between science and faith. I was raised with a solid respect for facts, science, and truth. Truth, no matter where it led, no matter where it came from. Truth is truth.

I was in grade school when I first started arguing against YEC (young-earth creationism). It was just too impossible to suppose God would lie to us like that. It was something that clicked in me the first time I watch Blade Runner. God needn’t control us by deceiving us. God made us big enough to handle the truth. (Hmm… Three separate movie references in hardly more than a paragraph.)

I learned to keep my views to myself around my church-going friends and relatives, but I wouldn’t back down nor fudge when asked directly. Gradually that became a problem, which is why we are having church at home, kinda like we are having school at home with the two youngest.

Anyway, at this point, I’m still rather reserved and quite regarding my acceptance of evolutionary theory and my belief in a fully gifted creation, but I sure don’t worry about it anymore. If it comes up, I won’t be the one staying quite. I’ll stay polite, and you can call me on it if I slip out of my love walk, but if you want to argue, or you’d just like to get a glimpse of my views, just ask. I’m here, and I’ll talk. I’ll listen too. I’m still too young to think I’m old and wise, but I sure remember when I was young and dumb. Hopefully I got past the dumb part. Feel free to help me out in that regard if you see the opportunity.

The church we attended most recently still mostly accepts us. The church of my youth, were Mother still attends, they still accept us. We attend there when we visit Mom. So, what more can we ask? The kids are growing in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and I don’t have to constantly correct errant “science” and misinterpreted scripture any more.

Tennessee high school senior student speaks against Common Core. His name is Ethan Young. He presented his case at the Knox County School Board regular meeting on November 6, 2013. 

The point is Common Core State Standards is bad for the teachers, as well as the children, as well as the parents. Common Core is NOT OK!

Two letter acronyms are too ambiguous, thus KPI is used to label the concept of performance indicators.

Children and learning are not measurable with KPIs in the important things. Sure, there are quantifiable aspects to what we are trying to do with teaching and rearing our young people, but making “workers” is not the objective. We are making robots for that. We are not Borg.

First and foremost, our children are people, citizens, and worth our all. They are not “our future” in the sense we usually use the phrase, as though we own them and have the right to force them to turn out some predetermined way. They are their own. The future is theirs and what they make it. We owe it to them to educate and raise them with all the wisdom and love we have.

We must keep the decisions about schooling as close to mamma as we can. We need to homeschool, but we also need our public schools, and we need the parents most of all. Common Core State Standards takes the control and direction away from where it is most needed.

Common Core is NOT OK!

By Bruce Deitrick Price has information worth noting.

Common Core Standards: Throwing Gasoline on a Fire.

On a personal note, today, with the winter storm that came through Oklahoma, the blood supplies are low. The Oklahoma Blood Institute is going out of its way to get the word out that they need more blood. Go. Donate. Do it today, and make it a habit.

I donate platelets regularly (not as often as they like), and I typically donate red cells with it, which keeps me on the schedule I prefer, every other month.

Platelets are worth a lot to me. It was only a day, but it was a very good day, a day I will hold dear and close for the rest of my life.

My dad whipped cancer once. When it came back years later, he was fighting and winning again, but he had a setback. I don’t recall what it was called, but a rare cancer had developed too, and it was known to be fatal in six weeks. Right near the end of that six weeks, Pop was still going strong and positive, but it was clear there was no longer any hope other than a supernatural intervention and miraculous healing. (I believe in those, btw.) His doctor was a practical, thoughtful, and considerate lady, fully competent, as well, and she was clear that Pop only had a day or two remaining. He was so weak he couldn’t eat, or get up, or even comb his hair. For Pop, that was a big deal, even with so little left.

The doctor went ahead and ordered a full round of medications, fluids, and most importantly, platelets. Pop perked up, got up, combed his hair, and shared a meal with me. It was probably the best day I had with my dad. We’d had a typical relationship. Mostly close, but fought some too. His love was so true and certain there at the end. His confidence was so palpable.

Pop died the next day. I still donate platelets. It is worth a lot to me. You can be sure that donating blood will be worth just as much to a few people. They will truly appreciate it.

Schedule an appointment at one of our donor centers or a mobile drive or call 1-877-340-8777 today!
blood donor

Edmond: 3409 S. Broadway, Suite 300
Central OKC: 901 N. Lincoln Blvd.
Norman: 1004 24th Ave. NW, Suite 101
North OKC: 5105 N. Portland Ave.

Ada: 1930 Stonecipher Blvd.
580-436-0384 • 1-800-858-8296
Ardmore: 1420 Veterans Blvd.
580-226-2220 • 1-800-299-2220
Enid: 301 E. Cherokee
580-233-9323 • 1-800-299-9323
Lawton: 211 SW ‘A’ Ave.
580-353-6451 • 1-800-299-6451
Tulsa: 4601 E. 81st St.
918-477-0400 • 1-888-584-7557

Please contact our Customer Service team at 1-877-340-8777 or to schedule an appointment or to speak to a customer service representative.

At First Things blog, R. R. Reno writes about the Pope’s Apostolic Exhortation.

Insightful, with some good comments from readers.

My takeaway is to try to change the world by starting with small improvements in myself and my actions toward others.


Not worth much in the way of information, but:

  1. Kristan Jensen, Andreas Karch. Holographic Dual of an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Pair has a WormholePhysical Review Letters, 2013; 111 (21) DOI:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.211602

calculate that a pair of quantum entangled black holes would be a worm hole and equivalent to any pair of quantum entangled subatomic particles. (Apparently they use multidimensional string theory maths to show.)

Here’s the key point: if two people were inside the two black holes, they be in the “same” place, no matter how far apart, but, of course, what goes in, never comes out. Accordingly, no travel or communication through the wormhole.


I have always maintained that those who held flat-earth views in antiquity were the same sort of folk who read (and believe) the tabloids and believe things like alien-abduction.

Still, it was apparently common, though not universal, for the early church fathers to claim the earth was flat, well, shaped like the Temple, or tabernacle. They also rejected antipodes and antipodeans. It seems to me that young earth proponents need also to hold to these literalist biblical views, including the stationarity of earth.

BioLogos has this excellent article series:

Written by Pablo de Felipe and Robert D. Keay

Pablo de Felipe obtained a PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain). He worked as a Research Fellow at the University of St Andrews (Scotland) before joining the Spanish Medicines Agency. He is in charge of the Centre for Science & Faith, part of SEUT Faculty of Theology (Madrid, Spain).

Robert Keay earned the PhD in New Testament at the University of St Andrews (Scotland), where he also served as a Teaching Fellow in New Testament. He then moved to Northern Ireland where he taught for several years as a Lecturer in New Testament and Hellenistic Greek at Queen’s University, Belfast (N. Ireland). He has recently entered the ministry as Pastor of First Baptist Church, Wolfeboro, New Hampshire.

I’ll close by quoting from the end of their articles:

“The Ancient and Medieval debates over cosmology may seem irrelevant and at times bizarre to us now. However, this superficial response fails to recognize that they have much to teach us about the significant role of biblical hermeneutics in these matters, how Christians have approached specific scientific topics deemed to be important in the history of science, and how Christians sought to relate the Bible with these topics. Much more work is needed in the primary sources for understanding the relations between science and faith in the Ancient and Medieval Church, and it is encouraging to see more publications of scholarly works focusing on the Eastern contribution to these questions. We now offer a provisional categorization that reveals four main strands of thinking. But it should be understood that these categories are more theoretical than actual, for authors can be found in more than one category.


These theoretical categories, along with their exemplars, can provide models and lessons for understanding the later debates surrounding the movement of the earth, the age of the earth, the origin and diversity of species through Darwinian evolution, and the ‘Big Bang’ theory. To focus on first millennium discussions might help diffuse some of the heat and emotion surrounding the contemporary debates and also clarify the proper role of the Bible in such discussions, while also revealing strengths and exposing weaknesses of particular approaches to scientific questions. Throughout our discussion, we would do well to follow the advice of Philoponus:

. . . let the truer position prevail: let nothing come before the truth.[6]

. . . someone honoring what is true, wherever it may be found, honors Christ, the Truth.[7]


Here is a seed to a sound idea:

Dana Milbank
Dana Milbank, an opinion writer for the Washington Post, suggests that while compulsory service (the draft, for everyone, at 18, male and female) might be unpopular and impractical, it just might help save our nation. I think he is right. However, I cannot support compulsion!

There is never a reason to compel. I see persuasion as an illusion, but it is all we have if we won’t force, and I won’t cotton force in any regard. (Well, I’m assuming peaceable pursuits. There is no civil response to violence other than violence. Yes, on the personal level, the Lord commands us to turn the other cheek, but society cannot afford to do so. Otherwise, the bullies would rule.)

So, if I like the idea, what is my proposition?

I suggest we restrict the vote, ownership of real property, and running for office to those who have served. I like the idea of having no restrictions, nor exemptions for service. Serve two years in Federal service, or forgo being able to ever own real property. Let’s include any federal employment. Serve two years in the military, or don’t bother applying for a job with Uncle Sam.

Serve four years or forgo voting. And let’s put a six-year requirement as fundamental to being able to run for any public office. Further, I’ll suggest eight years minimum for the office of President. States should probably enact similar prerequisites.

There should be no restrictions or exemptions.

The US armed services have always tried to accommodate the wishes of the service members, but the needs of the service come first. Many an Army officer has applied for duty in a preferred location and received an assignment that isn’t on the preference list, which typically includes three. I think it is fitting to simply extend the missions of the services to include supporting civil service. In that way, each service could meet its mission and its needs, and each person could be placed in an appropriate service role. Regardless, all should participate in basic physical training and weapons and defense basics. There will have to be accommodation for capabilities in this regard. I do believe every person should receive this basic training because, ultimately, no one can defend you but you. (You owe it to yourself more than anything.)

At eighteen years of age, all persons residing in the USA would register and declare eligibility. If they chose to declare ineligible, they would simply move on in life, never being able to vote in national elections, never able to own a house or other real property, never able to run for elective office. Sounds like most people today, so it shouldn’t be a hardship. It would, however, eliminate some of the political wrangling that stirs up the masses to vote against the good of the country.

I also support some additional requirements on voting. We would have to monitor that though. It would get touchy, and political. Various immoral discrimination implementations would have to be guarded against. That has its own problems. Still, I think it is fitting to require something of those who can vote.

I mean, doesn’t it seem right and proper that anyone who is allowed to vote must also pay net taxes? Doesn’t it seem right and proper that anyone who is allowed to vote must demonstrate basic knowledge of civics and social competence and current affairs (other than pop culture)?

Anyway, I think making Federal military service (including civil service for the military) a requirement for some of our most cherished privileges. Perhaps it will help us continue to cherish and not take for granted.


I agree with more of what Dr. Ball has to say in the recent WUWT posts than I can disagree with.

Watts Up With That?

Why did the Royal Society need secret meetings?

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

Recent events underscore problems with understanding climate and how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) achieved their deception. Comments about my recent article appreciated it was a synopsis. The problems were central in my presentation to the First Heartland Climate Conference in New York relating to climatology as a generalist discipline in a world that glorifies specialization. The dictum in academia and beyond is specialization is the mark of genius, generalization the mark of a fool. In the real world each specialized piece must fit the larger general picture and most people live and function in a generalized world. The phrase “it is purely academic” means it is irrelevant to the real world.

A secret meeting occurred between Lord Lawson of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and members of the British Royal Society. Why…

View original post 1,600 more words

Worth noting:

Art in the Mantle of Science
Tuesday, November 26, 2013, 10:38 AM

Where Ms. Mullarkey points out that art has abandoned all traditional definitions, so it now scratches around to try to justify itself, and in our time, science is the authority, or so it is perceived

A nice quote:

“You can read artist Andy Thomson’s tractlet on “The Contingency of Gravity” here. Take care to grind through the hash of physics and metaphysics to the final line: “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change them.”

Keep the theory; just flip the facts. At heart, it is a totalitarian formulation that corresponds, with demonic ease, to our present political culture, one that has been metastasizing for decades. The substitution of rhetoric for fact and logic—sound over sense—endangers us far more than uncomely art.

It takes heavy doses of higher education to master a lingo engineered to upend the purpose of language by mystifying rather than illuminating. WeakForce is only a single day’s illustration of the lingua franca transmitted through university art departments to the culture at large. It keeps coming, a relentless reminder of Hobbes’ blunt observation that the universities “have been to this nation as the wooden horse to the Trojans.” “

I would support a plan like this,, because I believe it will be an improvement. However, it leaves the root of the problem intact. It leaves the federal government involved and funding education. There are necessary strings attached to federal money. We need rid of those strings more than anything else in public education.

We need to amend the constitution such that the first amendment includes the words “or education”.

Like this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or education, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Of course, the primary change we must make in public education is the elimination of all compulsion laws. Compulsory education is immoral. No good can come of it in the end.

%d bloggers like this: