Howdy, everybody;
I think everyone can agree that any rational belief system must be based insofar as possible on verifiable fact, although possibly not limited to it. If you have a belief system that actually contradicts the truth, you are in serious trouble. In fact, this is the primary yardstick used to measure insanity.
Of course, having a belief system that is based on truth does not guarantee your safety (or popularity) if the majority of people around you do not share your beliefs. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake, by the church, for his belief that the earth revolves around the sun once a year. His viewpoint was dismissed out of hand by the religious leaders of his time, because they did not bother to examine the facts on which his belief was based. Had they done so, and worked out a solution as the modern day church has done, our science would probably be several hundred years advanced at this point. Of course we know now by direct observation that Bruno (as well as earlier astronomers) was correct.
My point here is that the truth, or verifiable fact, is the best tool available for exploring the universe around you and trying to understand it. Science is a system for discovering the truth (fact) with high confidence. The standard procedure in science is: a hypothesis is made; experiments are made to test the hypothesis; if verified, it becomes a theory; if disproved, it is discarded.
A lot of people throw around the word "Theory" without knowing the precise definition. In this article I use the word "theory" in it's precise definition as related to science. Sadly, most of the public, much of the media, and even some "scientists" do not use it correctly. In common (inprecise) use, the word theory is used as a synonym for hypothesis. Not in this article. The reason I am stressing this is that most people do not realize how much testing goes in to a hypothesis before it becomes a theory.
Any scientific theory has passed every test, and every attempt to disprove it has failed. A theory has a lot going for it: it has been subject to sustained efforts to prove it is wrong - and those efforts have failed. That doesn't guarantee it is absolute truth, because it may be disproved later by new information or tests; but at the moment, it is the truth as understood by science. A theory is NOT just an opinion expressed by a scientist. A theory has stood in the face of every test anyone has conceived to apply to it, without fail. In common use, people say theory when they mean hypothesis - but in the world of science, theory means a concept that has been tested and found to be true for all known cases.
Those tests mentioned above are why you sometimes hear about a theory being changed. Sometimes, new information makes some part of a theory invalid, but a change or two is made and it becomes valid again. At this point, the theory goes back through the testing phase just as when it was a hypothesis. So science is a dynamic process which is self correcting and always changing based on new knowledge.
As it happens, I am a Christian. I am also strongly science oriented. And I do not believe that it is possible that there is any conflict between observed reality and the Bible. If there is, either my facts are wrong, or I have misinterpreted the Bible. I have yet to find any observable, provable fact which actually contradicts the Bible. It's true that there are many things in the Bible which cannot be proved (or disproved) by science. That's OK. That's where the faith part comes in. But nothing I have seen in my studies has invalidated the Bible. If you think about it, that is a very strong statement for the truth of the Bible. But by the same token, bear in mind that the Bible is very much subject to interpretation - as is science.
It is necessary to reconcile observed reality and religious beliefs. Let's face it - something's got to give. If you know something is true for a fact, and you believe something that conflicts with the fact, the belief has to be adjusted or discarded. Any other solution is not rational.
Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection (evolution) has been subject to attempts to disprove it for many, many years, and so far it has not been disproved. This theory says that species evolve over time by natural selection; that is, say, a mutation occurs in an individual. If it is a useful mutation, and benefits the individual, that individual may pass it on to any children; but if it is not a useful mutation, it causes the individual to tend not to survive long enough to reproduce. This process, over long periods of time, produces change within a species, and in fact can produce new species. Note that evolution is observable in everyday life - it is the process by which dogs and horses (and many other critters) are bred.
There is another way to look at evolution that is not so widely known. It is called Theistic Evolution. This is the idea that the theory of evolution is correct in it's observable effects, but rather than random processes causing mutations and change, these things are directly controlled by God. Or alternatively, God set in motion the process of evolution because He knew it would produce the desired results. One of the interesting things about this is that the observable process is exactly the same as conventional evolution. To a dispassionate observer, the observed events of the process are identical.
This idea allows a person to reconcile this theory with a belief in God and the Bible. But since God wants our belief in Him to be based on faith, He set it up in such a way that the observable facts can be explained with Him or without Him - so each of us has to decide whether to believe in Him. This is the free choice aspect of Salvation in the Bible. Not only do you get to choose whether you want to be saved and have a personal relation with Jesus, but God set up the whole universe in such a way that you can't have that decision taken away from you by obvious facts to turn you one way or the other.
The individual is free to choose either viewpoint. The Bible says that God made us. It certainly appears that this is the way He did it. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure He will sort me out later.
There are many other areas similar to this in science and the Bible where there is apparent conflict until you look deeper. For instance, I am struck by the apparent similarities between cosmology (the Big Bang Theory) and the book of Genesis. Even the multi-verse brane hypothesis is pretty interesting in this context. But that would be the subject of another discussion.
So it appears I have gone to some trouble to reconcile my beliefs in Jesus and the Bible and the universe as understood by science. I don't want to abandon either. Science is a valuable tool for understanding, which is very reliable; and my belief in Jesus is central to my happiness in this life (and the next one).
John 14:6 (NIV) says, "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
This shows that Jesus placed a very high premium on truth, so much so that He actually identifies Himself with it. Science is useful for discovering the universe around us, which was created by God and Jesus - this is a very valid, rational way to explore the universe.
We must be unflinching in our search for truth. It takes us where it takes us. But Jesus will be there, waiting for us, when we find Him. After all, He's the Truth.
-Pop
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Gun Free Zones
Howdy, friends;
Many of you will by now be aware of the huge debate over gun-free zones engendered by the Virginia Tech massacre.
Briefly stated, there are two camps:
One camp believes that gun control will solve their problems - they think that the solution is to get rid of all the guns, and all of America will become a gun-free zone. I personally think this is both impractical and naive, because if guns were outlawed, it would work about as well as prohibition did - or for that matter the current prohibition on drugs. That is to say, it just won't work, except to disarm the law-abiding victims.
The other camp believes that gun-free zones get people killed because the only people who have guns in gun-free zones are criminals - people who don't care that the law says it is a gun-free zone. So gun-free zones become kill zones.
I've been thinking about this. If a business, school or government entity wants to establish a gun-free zone, why not make them legally liable for enforcing it? After all, by taking away the right of the individual to have with them the tools of self-defense, by implication they are assuming the responsibility for the safety of the people in the gun-free zone. Require those who would inflict a gun-free zone on us to provide enough armed guards, and scanners and security personnel such as exists at the entries to the safe zone at airports, to guarantee that it really is a gun-free zone.
If the creator of the gun-free zone doesn't want to take on the responsibility (or financial burden) for the protection of the people therein, then they shouldn't have the right to remove the individual's tools of self-protection.
What the law should create at minimum is a level playing field for the good guys. Right now, the bad guys have a distinct advantage (mandated by law) since the gun-free zones are typically not enforced except at airports and courtrooms. And they know it, too.
What do you folks think?
-Pop
Many of you will by now be aware of the huge debate over gun-free zones engendered by the Virginia Tech massacre.
Briefly stated, there are two camps:
One camp believes that gun control will solve their problems - they think that the solution is to get rid of all the guns, and all of America will become a gun-free zone. I personally think this is both impractical and naive, because if guns were outlawed, it would work about as well as prohibition did - or for that matter the current prohibition on drugs. That is to say, it just won't work, except to disarm the law-abiding victims.
The other camp believes that gun-free zones get people killed because the only people who have guns in gun-free zones are criminals - people who don't care that the law says it is a gun-free zone. So gun-free zones become kill zones.
I've been thinking about this. If a business, school or government entity wants to establish a gun-free zone, why not make them legally liable for enforcing it? After all, by taking away the right of the individual to have with them the tools of self-defense, by implication they are assuming the responsibility for the safety of the people in the gun-free zone. Require those who would inflict a gun-free zone on us to provide enough armed guards, and scanners and security personnel such as exists at the entries to the safe zone at airports, to guarantee that it really is a gun-free zone.
If the creator of the gun-free zone doesn't want to take on the responsibility (or financial burden) for the protection of the people therein, then they shouldn't have the right to remove the individual's tools of self-protection.
What the law should create at minimum is a level playing field for the good guys. Right now, the bad guys have a distinct advantage (mandated by law) since the gun-free zones are typically not enforced except at airports and courtrooms. And they know it, too.
What do you folks think?
-Pop
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Why are Guns the Best Tool for Self Defense?
Howdy, Friends;
Why do we need guns for self defense? (Note - this discussion does not apply to long guns or hunting.)
You've probably heard them called 'equalizers'. Well, they are. They allow anyone to successfully defend themselves against single or multiple large assailants. And in fact, disparity of force is one of the factors taken into account when self-defense cases go to court.
Nobody has invented anything that comes close. Pepper spray doesn't work effectively in all cases. Tazers only have one shot without reloading, so if you miss, you're defenseless. Both of these are short range, as well. Both of them likely do not perform well in the rain, for instance, although I have no data on that.
A reasonable replacement for guns for self defense would have to be something non-lethal that has all of the good characteristics of a gun, such as: multiple shots; high certainty of success; small enough to carry concealed; safe to carry; extremely reliable; decent range; will work in all weather; cannot easily be defended against; cheap enough to be able to own one, along with whatever you load it with; will cause the aggressor to not move until the cops have time to show up. Also must work on dogs, bears, snakes, etc. The science-fictional "stunner" ray gun.
Of course, as soon as somebody invents this 'stunner', and if we give up our guns, the crime rate will skyrocket. A lot more people would be willing to "pull the trigger" if it was non-lethal, as they wouldn't risk the death penalty if caught. Stunning (and robbing and raping) shoppers in the Wal-Mart parking lot would become a whole new worldwide sport. Another new sport for thugs using such a device might be to shoot drivers in passing cars on the interstate, as well. Much carnage, difficult to catch the perpetrator - thugs might see this as great fun. Think about the D.C. Serial Snipers back in 2002. Multiply that by 1000. You anti-gunners may want to be careful what you ask for.
And, such a device wouldn't be an adequate weapon for the intent of the 2nd amendment to keep the government in check. Might still need to keep a gun somewhere to help along those lines if ever needed.
Footnote: Without fail, everywhere it's been tried and all other factors the same - passage of right-to-carry laws results in a decrease in violent crime. The statistics are there if you care to look. http://www.gunfacts.info/ is a good place to start. Be aware that the far left gun-grabbers put out a lot of unsubstantiated claims and outright lies.
On reflection, I'll keep my guns. Nothing better is currently available.
-Pop
Why do we need guns for self defense? (Note - this discussion does not apply to long guns or hunting.)
You've probably heard them called 'equalizers'. Well, they are. They allow anyone to successfully defend themselves against single or multiple large assailants. And in fact, disparity of force is one of the factors taken into account when self-defense cases go to court.
Nobody has invented anything that comes close. Pepper spray doesn't work effectively in all cases. Tazers only have one shot without reloading, so if you miss, you're defenseless. Both of these are short range, as well. Both of them likely do not perform well in the rain, for instance, although I have no data on that.
A reasonable replacement for guns for self defense would have to be something non-lethal that has all of the good characteristics of a gun, such as: multiple shots; high certainty of success; small enough to carry concealed; safe to carry; extremely reliable; decent range; will work in all weather; cannot easily be defended against; cheap enough to be able to own one, along with whatever you load it with; will cause the aggressor to not move until the cops have time to show up. Also must work on dogs, bears, snakes, etc. The science-fictional "stunner" ray gun.
Of course, as soon as somebody invents this 'stunner', and if we give up our guns, the crime rate will skyrocket. A lot more people would be willing to "pull the trigger" if it was non-lethal, as they wouldn't risk the death penalty if caught. Stunning (and robbing and raping) shoppers in the Wal-Mart parking lot would become a whole new worldwide sport. Another new sport for thugs using such a device might be to shoot drivers in passing cars on the interstate, as well. Much carnage, difficult to catch the perpetrator - thugs might see this as great fun. Think about the D.C. Serial Snipers back in 2002. Multiply that by 1000. You anti-gunners may want to be careful what you ask for.
And, such a device wouldn't be an adequate weapon for the intent of the 2nd amendment to keep the government in check. Might still need to keep a gun somewhere to help along those lines if ever needed.
Footnote: Without fail, everywhere it's been tried and all other factors the same - passage of right-to-carry laws results in a decrease in violent crime. The statistics are there if you care to look. http://www.gunfacts.info/ is a good place to start. Be aware that the far left gun-grabbers put out a lot of unsubstantiated claims and outright lies.
On reflection, I'll keep my guns. Nothing better is currently available.
-Pop
Friday, April 20, 2007
The Right to Defend Yourself
Hello, All;
My heart goes out to the families and friends of the fallen at Virginia Tech. Perhaps this event has affected the timing of this entry, but I had already planned to write about self defense, so there is only a coincidental relation.
I legally carry a concealed handgun. I carry everywhere the law allows me to carry. (Those of you who know who I am, please maintain my anonymity. Thanks.)
If I had been in one of those classrooms at Virginia Tech, I probably would have died, too, because I would not have been carrying my gun in a gun free zone. Apparently, all but one of those students were also law-abiding citizens.
The law prevented that percentage of people who might have had the wherewithal to defend themselves with equal force from doing so.
The only effective weapons in the gun-free zone were held by - you guessed it - somebody who did not give a rip about whether he was breaking the law.
This is why gun control laws do not work to protect people. Again, and again - only law-abiding citizens would be de-clawed by an act of law. Even removing legal means of purchasing guns would not help - it just means that the crooks would buy guns via black market and us law-abiding citizens would not have guns. This is the achilles heel of the entire concept of gun control law - it only affects the good guys. (Here's an excellent diatribe on the practicality of gun control: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2007/04/meditations-on-gun-control.html ).
Instead, there should be NO gun free zones. If the law trusts me (after suitable qualification) to carry in public, why are there areas where they don't trust me? In Texas, a person with a CHL permit is statistically 14 times less likely to commit a crime than the general population, and 5 1/2 times less likely to commit a violent crime. (http://www.gunfacts.info/ , page 9-10). If there were no gun-free zones, most people bent on murder would at least have to consider that someone might stop them. And indeed, if some nut case were executing everyone around you and you had a gun (or other weapon), wouldn't you try to take him down? Therefore, if you and I are together somewhere, you are safer with me than you would be without me.
How about the police? Why can't they defend you? Well, for one thing, chances are, they're not where you are at any given moment. The police are a deterrent, and they sometimes catch the baddies after it's all over, but they are not usually on hand to actually protect you. This is not putting them down, this is just the way the universe works. You must ultimately take responsibility for your own self defense.
Everyone should understand - there are predators among us; and to them, you are food. They will take what they want from you without remorse or pity, and they won't loose sleep over whether they hurt or killed you to get it. And sometimes, as in the case at Virginia Tech, they're just nuts. They do not feel your pain. They are, however, cowards. They don't like the idea that somebody might shoot back.
I believe firmly that I have the moral and legal right, as well as the strongest obligation, to try to defend myself and my family and friends, although most of them are perfectly capable of defending themselves.
The best discussion I have seen of the morality of concealed carry, as well as many practical aspects of it, can be found at http://www.corneredcat.com/ - a website I very much recommend to anyone with an interest in concealed carry and self defense by use of handguns. It is authored by a fine lady named Kathy Jackson and is intended for women, but is very well-written and applicable for anyone. Particularly, read the parts about how all this ties in with being a Christian.
Some who read this will probably think I go around being scared and that's why I carry a gun. Not at all. But in my time, I've seen the changes in society and the world, I've seen the advent of major amounts of drug abuse, the failure of the family become widespread, and I've seen terrorists strike inside the United States. I've seen an amazing lack of manners and respect for other people become widespread. I've seen several homes broken into within a mile or so of my home, and I've seen the map showing registered sex offenders in my area (and that's the ones they know about!). If you see it is likely to rain, you get an umbrella. If you think chances are pretty good that sooner or later you're going to want to stop some baddie from doing bad things to you, you get prepared.
And I did. You should, too.
Good evening!
-Pop
My heart goes out to the families and friends of the fallen at Virginia Tech. Perhaps this event has affected the timing of this entry, but I had already planned to write about self defense, so there is only a coincidental relation.
I legally carry a concealed handgun. I carry everywhere the law allows me to carry. (Those of you who know who I am, please maintain my anonymity. Thanks.)
If I had been in one of those classrooms at Virginia Tech, I probably would have died, too, because I would not have been carrying my gun in a gun free zone. Apparently, all but one of those students were also law-abiding citizens.
The law prevented that percentage of people who might have had the wherewithal to defend themselves with equal force from doing so.
The only effective weapons in the gun-free zone were held by - you guessed it - somebody who did not give a rip about whether he was breaking the law.
This is why gun control laws do not work to protect people. Again, and again - only law-abiding citizens would be de-clawed by an act of law. Even removing legal means of purchasing guns would not help - it just means that the crooks would buy guns via black market and us law-abiding citizens would not have guns. This is the achilles heel of the entire concept of gun control law - it only affects the good guys. (Here's an excellent diatribe on the practicality of gun control: http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2007/04/meditations-on-gun-control.html ).
Instead, there should be NO gun free zones. If the law trusts me (after suitable qualification) to carry in public, why are there areas where they don't trust me? In Texas, a person with a CHL permit is statistically 14 times less likely to commit a crime than the general population, and 5 1/2 times less likely to commit a violent crime. (http://www.gunfacts.info/ , page 9-10). If there were no gun-free zones, most people bent on murder would at least have to consider that someone might stop them. And indeed, if some nut case were executing everyone around you and you had a gun (or other weapon), wouldn't you try to take him down? Therefore, if you and I are together somewhere, you are safer with me than you would be without me.
How about the police? Why can't they defend you? Well, for one thing, chances are, they're not where you are at any given moment. The police are a deterrent, and they sometimes catch the baddies after it's all over, but they are not usually on hand to actually protect you. This is not putting them down, this is just the way the universe works. You must ultimately take responsibility for your own self defense.
Everyone should understand - there are predators among us; and to them, you are food. They will take what they want from you without remorse or pity, and they won't loose sleep over whether they hurt or killed you to get it. And sometimes, as in the case at Virginia Tech, they're just nuts. They do not feel your pain. They are, however, cowards. They don't like the idea that somebody might shoot back.
I believe firmly that I have the moral and legal right, as well as the strongest obligation, to try to defend myself and my family and friends, although most of them are perfectly capable of defending themselves.
The best discussion I have seen of the morality of concealed carry, as well as many practical aspects of it, can be found at http://www.corneredcat.com/ - a website I very much recommend to anyone with an interest in concealed carry and self defense by use of handguns. It is authored by a fine lady named Kathy Jackson and is intended for women, but is very well-written and applicable for anyone. Particularly, read the parts about how all this ties in with being a Christian.
Some who read this will probably think I go around being scared and that's why I carry a gun. Not at all. But in my time, I've seen the changes in society and the world, I've seen the advent of major amounts of drug abuse, the failure of the family become widespread, and I've seen terrorists strike inside the United States. I've seen an amazing lack of manners and respect for other people become widespread. I've seen several homes broken into within a mile or so of my home, and I've seen the map showing registered sex offenders in my area (and that's the ones they know about!). If you see it is likely to rain, you get an umbrella. If you think chances are pretty good that sooner or later you're going to want to stop some baddie from doing bad things to you, you get prepared.
And I did. You should, too.
Good evening!
-Pop
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Switching from Windows to Macintosh - Chapter 13
Hello, World!
Still loving the Mac! I have almost eliminated any need for Windows programs. The very few I do need, I run in Parallels Desktop or on my other machine. One thing that bothered me was the lack of alternatives to Excel on the Mac. Thankfully, I've finally found one that works well. Go to http://www.neooffice.org and take a look at NeoOffice. NeoOffice is OpenOffice for the Mac. Spreadsheet support is excellent - I pulled in a multipage Excel spreadsheet, and the only thing I found a bit strange was that it changed the text I had in some graph legends, replacing it with the column and row numbers. Not bad at all. Best of all, it's free!
I mention only the spreadsheet, but NeoOffice also offers a Word compatible word processor, as well as presentation tools and a database. I am not as familiar with them, so I'll offer no comment at this point. If I had known about this suite when I bought my Mac, I could have saved $79 I spent on iWork 06.
I bought a copy of Ecto, which I've been using in trial mode to bring this up to date. It is a good program, designed to make posting or revising a blog easy.
I am still astounded that the Mac lifestyle includes leaving many programs running all the time for instant access. At this moment, I am running ten (10) programs simultaneously, and that does not include the finder or desktop. Several of these are big programs, too. The system has not detectably slowed down. I left all this running, cranked up Parallels Desktop, launching Vista, ran Solid Edge, printed a drawing, closed Solid Edge, Vista and Parallels Desktop. While I was in Vista, it downloaded and installed one of it's updates. There is no noticeable slowdown of the system, that I can tell.
I'm still amazed.
Have an excellent Easter holiday, and remember Who it's about!
-Pop
Still loving the Mac! I have almost eliminated any need for Windows programs. The very few I do need, I run in Parallels Desktop or on my other machine. One thing that bothered me was the lack of alternatives to Excel on the Mac. Thankfully, I've finally found one that works well. Go to http://www.neooffice.org and take a look at NeoOffice. NeoOffice is OpenOffice for the Mac. Spreadsheet support is excellent - I pulled in a multipage Excel spreadsheet, and the only thing I found a bit strange was that it changed the text I had in some graph legends, replacing it with the column and row numbers. Not bad at all. Best of all, it's free!
I mention only the spreadsheet, but NeoOffice also offers a Word compatible word processor, as well as presentation tools and a database. I am not as familiar with them, so I'll offer no comment at this point. If I had known about this suite when I bought my Mac, I could have saved $79 I spent on iWork 06.
I bought a copy of Ecto, which I've been using in trial mode to bring this up to date. It is a good program, designed to make posting or revising a blog easy.
I am still astounded that the Mac lifestyle includes leaving many programs running all the time for instant access. At this moment, I am running ten (10) programs simultaneously, and that does not include the finder or desktop. Several of these are big programs, too. The system has not detectably slowed down. I left all this running, cranked up Parallels Desktop, launching Vista, ran Solid Edge, printed a drawing, closed Solid Edge, Vista and Parallels Desktop. While I was in Vista, it downloaded and installed one of it's updates. There is no noticeable slowdown of the system, that I can tell.
I'm still amazed.
Have an excellent Easter holiday, and remember Who it's about!
-Pop
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Switching from Windows to Macintosh - Chapter 12
Howdy, Everybody;
The Mac transition is essentially complete - I use the Mac for pretty much everything now.
The Logitech mouse problem has been interesting. I started using the VX Revolution again after using a wired mouse for a few weeks. The spontaneous reboot problem has not reoccurred. I noticed that the Logitech control panel software does not recognize the mouse. I tried to download the Logitech Control Center program, lcc213.dmg three different times. The Mac gives me a message that the file is not a complete disk image, and mounting it might damage my computer. So now I'm of the opinion that the problem is not the hardware, but the LCC program from Logitech is probably corrupt. They have not to date reposted an uncorrupt file to their website, even though about a week ago I emailed Logitech to advise them of the problem.
I've tried the trial version of Mariner Calc, which reputes to be able to read Excel files. It was able to pull in the data and equations from an Excel spreadsheet, but lost all graphs and formatting. I'm not impressed, so I'm not going to buy this product. Sigh. I guess I can either run Excel emulated, or buy the Mac version.
Y'all have a nice day!
-Pop
The Mac transition is essentially complete - I use the Mac for pretty much everything now.
The Logitech mouse problem has been interesting. I started using the VX Revolution again after using a wired mouse for a few weeks. The spontaneous reboot problem has not reoccurred. I noticed that the Logitech control panel software does not recognize the mouse. I tried to download the Logitech Control Center program, lcc213.dmg three different times. The Mac gives me a message that the file is not a complete disk image, and mounting it might damage my computer. So now I'm of the opinion that the problem is not the hardware, but the LCC program from Logitech is probably corrupt. They have not to date reposted an uncorrupt file to their website, even though about a week ago I emailed Logitech to advise them of the problem.
I've tried the trial version of Mariner Calc, which reputes to be able to read Excel files. It was able to pull in the data and equations from an Excel spreadsheet, but lost all graphs and formatting. I'm not impressed, so I'm not going to buy this product. Sigh. I guess I can either run Excel emulated, or buy the Mac version.
Y'all have a nice day!
-Pop
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
