cicada slumber

[cicada-slumber-blog]

עליון‎ אל

El Elyon

[cicada-slumber-blog]

[cicada-slumber-blog]

Leaving for a backpacking/cycling/massive-homework-cramming trip! Because this is a really critical and busy time for me, I'm not sure when I'll be back on for good. But I'll try to reply to some things when I get back. xoxo 

[cicada-slumber-blog]

All I know is we said, "hello"

And your eyes look like coming home

All I know is a simple name

And everything... has changed

[cicada-slumber-blog]

This morning I woke up early to shower and wash my hair and get started on homework. I've been pretty stressed because homework is a load and I haven't been getting enough sleep and college application deadlines end this month and to make things easier, my dad is hauling the whole family out to Big Bend for a backpacking trip in a few days, which means I lose a whole week. Just a lot of pressure.

My room was still sleepy gray and dim when I got out of the shower. I crawled onto my bed and reached for the blinds like normal but then froze. I noticed light peeking through and sparkling out of the cracks in my blinds. I really saw it in that moment. And I knew what was about to happen and that made me really excited for some reason. I sat there for an extra second before I twisted the blinds open and then the sunlight flooded in my face and the sun shone bright and new and real and blinding in my eyes and I blinked and smiled so hard. I was just opening my blinds, but somehow that made me so happy this morning. 

[unbelievableundefeatable]

i don’t even understand how people can say “you can believe in evolution, but i can believe in creationism” …like you totally do not understand that evolution is a reality? that is is a valid reality that is pretty absolute in its presence in the scientific community because we are able to apply…

[symphonyofmars]

You forgot vaccines. It’s the best to point out that the flu virus is constantly evolving and needs newer vaccines to combat it. Ask them if they ever get the flu vaccine or if they think god will save them.

[unbelievableundefeatable]

ah yes. thank you for this. i had forgotten. are you my watson in this post then?

[cicada-slumber-blog]

The problem with this argument for evolution is that it isn’t arguing for Evolution at all. The problem that comes up here comes up very frequently. Define “evolution.” Are you talking about macroevolution (changes from one species to another) or microevolution (changes within a species)? Actually…NO ONE really disagrees with microevolution. Even Christians. It’s been witnessed e.g. in vaccines and animal breeding. BUT…macroevolution has 1) not been witnessed 2) is not supported by the fossil record.  Vaccines and evolving viruses are examples of micro but not macroevolution. A more resilient virus is still just a virus. And interestingly, animal breeders have found that they can improve their stock only so far…they seem to run into a genetic limit. And besides all that, selective animal breeding is not even an example of natural selection…who breeds the animals? Intelligent breeders. It’s an example of design not natural selection. Advocates of Evolution take what has been witnessed—microevolution—and extrapolate it to explain macroevolution (which hasn’t been witnessed). It’s a leap of faith. So tell me why Evolution makes more sense than Creationism? 

[unbelievableundefeatable]

Both Micro and Macro evolution are seen in Viruses and Bacteria. because their life cycles are so much shorter than ours and their genomes less regulated/ proofed, they are able to evolve much more rapidly than an organism with a more complex set of genetic regulators and genetic material. so we are able to see the minute changes in HIV from one generation to the next and we are then able to see the cumulative effects of those changes as, for example, HIV jumped from Chimps to Humans. there are blurred lines to macro and micro evolution as well, because when does a population of organisms stop being a “sub species” and start being their own species? when has their been enough changes in that organism to suggest that it is now a new species?

animal breeding is quite analogous to natural selection. I’m probably going to mix up a few terms here and there but excuse that. in nature, you have a selective agent which will decide which organisms will survive well enough to reproduce in a certain environment and which shall not. these organisms are chosen because they have some set of characteristics which makes them able to survive more effectively and sufficiently in their specific environment, whether that means they have a mutation where they can carry oxygen more efficiently, or they have a “deformed” foot that actually allows them to climb better. in having these mutations it means that the organism can survive better and then pass on those genes in the next generation.

same with animal breeding. I’ll use dogs here. You want a dog that can survive the cold. so you want a dog with a long, thick coat. with each breeding round you will choose which animals breed based on their coat thickness. the thicker coated dogs will be breed producing more thick coated dogs. some dogs will have thicker coats than others, and so you will continuously choose only the thickest coated dogs until you have a dog that looks completely different from what you started with. you, the breeder, are the environment. you create the set of constraints by which the organisms must survive under and you choose which of the traits will help those organisms survive long enough to reproduce.

dogs are a great example of speciation and macroevolution because they are a very good analog to evolution on a grander scale. just like tigers and lions, a chihuahua and a great dane are “technically” able to reproduce, and therefore “technically” still the same species. But if left in a dog park uninterrupted, there is a very very very slim chance that a chihuahua will mate with a great dane because of physical restrictions. in effect, by one of the speciation definitions, they are two separate species…though they would probably be classified as sub species. we have evidence of macroevolution in the lion and the tiger- going back to them. these big cats are a continent apart, the tigers in Asia and the lion in africa. they are completely different in their social behaviors, hunting methods, appearance, size, and proteome (all the genetic material which codes for all the proteins in an organism). yet, they still hold reminants of a common ancestry (aside from being big cats). they are able to crossbreed and produce a viable enough offspring- a Liger. now, the liger grows bigger than either of its parents and it i remember correctly its growth is attributed to the fact that it can’t regulate its growth hormone levels effectively and it also would never happen in nature because its parents are too far apart and probably have different conditions in which they need to breed. point being however, is that they are wildly different yet still similar enough to reproduce, which points to a distant common ancestry and means that we are also watching evolution in action as these creatures slowly lose their similarities over time.

long term evolution has not been witnessed. but we can still see the remnants of macroevolution all around us. we are not extrapolating only from cases of microevolution. it should also be noted that micro and macroevolution have quite blurred lines. because when has an organism gained enough changes to become “different enough” to be considered a species. But the ability for a theory to work well enough to give us advancements in our understandings and technologies on a much grander scale means that there is validity to that theory.

evolution isn’t a perfect theory, and it has room for improvement and its ability to explain phenomenon. but it is better than creationism or intelligent design in that it doesn’t ask a person to ignore the fact that there are such things as deformities, or vestigial structures, inefficiencies in body design (such as the human eye). it isn’t god’s will that these things happened. it’s that the survivability of all members of a species are not equal.

the same could be said about gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a law. and the theory doesn’t always fit every situation (very small scale and very large scale situations). But it works here on earth and it works for the situations that humanity encounters often. the tennants of the theory and what is suggests to be laws of reality have lead to the advancement of technologies from across all aspects of life. our understandings of how to build machinery to fly, how to build resistance machines for exercise, trajectories for missiles, or how to get astronauts home safely from the moon have all come from the theory of gravity being applied. the fact that these things work means that the theory as it stands is more valid than any other theory that suggests anything other than what the current theory says. all other theories of gravity must include the current theory because it has shown to be true in a situation. it can be modified, but it must in some way have some validity because we can build off of it.

hope that gives you a more thorough explanation.

[cicada-slumber-blog]

>>

Blahhh I really ought to have been writing my college application essays instead. But this is so much more interesting. :b Anyway, here is my response:

  When I speak of macroevolution, I think of a cow turning into a whale, etc. And when I speak of microevolution, I think of different breeds of horses (or dogs) arising from an original breed(s) etc. Would you agree with those definitions? I think I get it when you say that the lines between micro and macroevolution are blurred—especially when you consider that the evolution is supposed to take place over millions of years. It's kind of like watching the transition of night into day in terms of light. There does come a point, though, when you realize that it is fully daytime and obviously no longer night. I understand the problem in recognizing ongoing evolution...but as far as I understand, there should be a significant number of transitional fossils by now and there aren't. I'm willing to look at whatever you have that might help me understand your position, though. I'll be honest and admit that I still have no idea what you meant about the HIV.

  Artificial selection (breeders) is something fundamentally different from natural selection. Breeders often breed stock for purposes absent in nature, often for sheer delight in seeing how much variation can be achieved. What artificial selection actually shows is that there are definite limits to the amount of variation that even the most highly skilled breeders can achieve. Breeding  of domestic animals has produced no new species, even over whole millennia. Also, take into account that selective breeding probably cuts a lot of time in the evolutionary process where naturally it would take millions of years.

  In what cases has a deformation or something similar led to a new type of animal? Is this a possibility arrived at through logical deduction or scientific observation? In all likelihood, the reality would be that something like a forelimb evolving into wings would become awkward for climbing or grasping things long before they even became useful for gliding.

  Ligers are so sweet. I was so excited when I found out they existed haha. But my problem is the same here...where does science prove that ligers, as mammals, can become a type of reptile, or fish, or bird, etc? Is there NOT a genetic limit whatsoever? Is it possible that in a very distant future my offspring may evolve wings or the ability to breathe underwater? Is it possible that plants may one day evolve the ability to run, or move away from bad environments to preserve themselves? Forgive me if these sound like absolutely ridiculous postulations, but without a genetic limit, couldn't anything happen? Again, I'm open to hear whatever you have to tell me.

  As for vestigial organs, in the past, there were like 180 structures in the body that were considered vestigial. These were later discovered to, indeed, have purpose. It seems Evolution cannot distinguish between developing and degenerating structures. Just because we don't know a structure's purpose doesn't mean it's logically got to be a remnant from an ancestor. Again, where is the actual scientific evidence rising from all the postulation? If you have something, I'm ready to look at it.

  So evolution is a theory. And gravity is a theory, but we use it on earth because it works for our situations. But what about outside those situations? Also, if science is the study and observation of the physical and natural world, it's limited. It can't tell us that there isn't a spiritual world. For all science knows, there is one. And if there is one—even if there just might be one—we need more than science. Only when you assume that "There can absolutely be no God/supernatural/spiritual etc. at all costs" is science enough. I think that science tells us about a supernatural world kind of like a trail marker at the edge of a boundary pointing off towards the distance. Science tells us that there are things it can't explain. But we are people, not fields of study. We are both physical and spiritual, and shouldn't have to remain only within the study of science if the evidence points to something more than that. 

[cicada-slumber-blog]

To all the girls: Today is a sloppy day, I understand. But you'd be surprised at what a difference a trusty octopus hair clip, strawberry chapstick, and a swipe of mascara can make. Insta mood-boost. Add a mug of coffee or tea and you're ready to tackle anything. 

[cicada-slumber-blog]

When I grow up someday and have my own home and kids, we're going to slowly replace all of our dishware with handmade ceramic bowls and mugs and plates that have been hand-painted and are personal and precious pieces of art. 

[blushfairy]

[cicada-slumber-blog]

waaahhhh!!!!! this is such. a perfect. picture. 

[unbelievableundefeatable]

i don’t even understand how people can say “you can believe in evolution, but i can believe in creationism” …like you totally do not understand that evolution is a reality? that is is a valid reality that is pretty absolute in its presence in the scientific community because we are able to apply…

[symphonyofmars]

You forgot vaccines. It’s the best to point out that the flu virus is constantly evolving and needs newer vaccines to combat it. Ask them if they ever get the flu vaccine or if they think god will save them.

[unbelievableundefeatable]

ah yes. thank you for this. i had forgotten. are you my watson in this post then?

[cicada-slumber-blog]

The problem with this argument for evolution is that it isn't arguing for Evolution at all. The problem that comes up here comes up very frequently. Define "evolution." Are you talking about macroevolution (changes from one species to another) or microevolution (changes within a species)? Actually...NO ONE really disagrees with microevolution. Even Christians. It's been witnessed e.g. in vaccines and animal breeding. BUT...macroevolution has 1) not been witnessed 2) is not supported by the fossil record.  Vaccines and evolving viruses are examples of micro but not macroevolution. A more resilient virus is still just a virus. And interestingly, animal breeders have found that they can improve their stock only so far...they seem to run into a genetic limit. And besides all that, selective animal breeding is not even an example of natural selection...who breeds the animals? Intelligent breeders. It's an example of design not natural selection. Advocates of Evolution take what has been witnessed—microevolution—and extrapolate it to explain macroevolution (which hasn't been witnessed). It's a leap of faith. So tell me why Evolution makes more sense than Creationism? 

[cicada-slumber-blog]

Could you please inform me of the evidence of a God?

Gladly.

I know this is long, but books upon books have been written to answer this question from a whole bunch of angles, and reading this is not the same as reading a stack of books, but it's a lot quicker. In REASON I address the problems with...well, basically not believing in God from the view of science. In EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN I talk about irreducible complexity, DNA a little bit, and cosmology and there's also a neat-o extra video about muscle contraction. In THE BIBLE I list reasons why the Bible is trustworthy and therefore why you can believe what it says about God. 

REASON

I think you might first ask whether the universe is an open/closed system. If it's open, it's affected by God/some other power and the question would be whether this power is personal or impersonal. If it's closed, you're in a whole different ball game—namely, the naturalistic/materialistic one.

Naturalists have to believe in Darwinian evolution to explain life. Darwinian evolution has a lot of problems with it  (I have a list), though, and while it's taught in schools as fact, it's not. It's not more than a theory...it was theory when Darwin wrote it, and since then, hasn't really improved its situation. Furthermore, scientists call Darwinian evolution "real science" and ban creation-science from schools saying that it's religion NOT science, and that science and religion have nothing to do with each other. But Darwinism has been stretched into having implications about morals and stuff. And that's actually very understanding, because if you stick to Naturalism and Darwinism, you have to face things like racism (savages=intermediates), rape becomes just a means to preserve and perpetuate one's genes, there's the chilling mention of eugenics, and truth becomes just whatever increases our prosperity/chances of being naturally selected. Plus, you've got to attempt to answer the question of where things like beauty, poetry, religion, altruism, homosexuality, masturbation, adoption, celibacy, come from. Darwinism can't explain a lot of these things and some of them are even totally contrary to it. It's been argued that natural selection somehow made us reasoning beings which enabled us to transcend the impulses that created us. But this is never scientifically explained... Naturalistic scientists kick creation-science out for being religious and unscientific (which I disagree with of course), yet Darwinism creeps over to be in both fields. It's uncomfortable to be consistent as a Naturalist.

Getting that out of the way makes it a lot easier to consider that there just might be a God.

EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN

I'm currently taking human anatomy and physiology and every single week I'm blown. away. by the complexity of the human body. This week I learned about muscle contraction. It's FREAKING CRAZY how complicated a simple muscle contraction is. Here's a youtube vid showing just how complex it is while explaining it pretty clearly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct8AbZn_A8A

There's something really important that you may not have thought/heard about. It's called irreducible complexity which is basically where even one PART of the smallest microorganisms has to have all its parts in order to work and in order for life to be possible. Cilium and flagellum are examples.  Gradual evolution is impossible...all those parts have to show up at once. Creation makes sense here, of course, but not with any other explanation that I'm aware of.

Also DNA is incredible. DNA is a chemical language that holds more information than all 30 volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica. Information doesn't arise from natural forces within matter. It has to be imposed upon matter from outside by an intelligent agent.

And finally, I'm sure you've learned about how exquisitely calibrated the universe is. Cosmologists have discovered that its fundamental forces are intricately balanced, as though on a knife's edge. Gravity is an example. If it were only slightly weaker, all stars would be red dwarfs, too cold to support life. If it were only slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants, burning too briefly for life to develop. Then there's the "Goldilocks dilemma." How did the numerical values of the universe turn out not too high, not too low, but just right? There is no physical cause that explains why the universe's fundamental principles should conform themselves so precisely to life's requirement. And it looks a lot like design.

THE BIBLE

The Bible contains over 300 detailed prophecies about Jesus 800 years before he lived, there are also prophecies dealing with kings, nations and cities, and predictions about the Jewish people/Israelites. The Bible and these prophecies are easily accessible. If anyone wanted to disprove the Bible through its prophecies he could try and if anyone ever succeeded it'd most likely be all over the news. But that hasn't happened. The Bible is trustworthy. The Old Testament was meticulously hand copied by scribes before the invention of the printing press. The number of letters, words, and lines were counted in each manuscript, and if a single mistake was discovered, the entire manuscript was destroyed. The New Testament has over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, 8,000 Latin, and 1,000 manuscripts in other languages. The works of Plato, Aristotle etc. typically have 1-20. The Bible is internally consistent, meaning it doesn't contradict itself. The Bible is historically consistent, meaning it doesn't conflict with history. Its consistency is pretty freaking incredible when you consider that it is 66 books written by 40 different authors over a period of 1500 years in 3 different languages on 3 different continents. And through all of it runs a single theme. Try to tell me that it was all a grand conspiracy.

 This is just some of the evidence—the stuff that really popped out at me since I started reading in August. There's also math and physics (not my forte at all, but still super interesting. I'll have to read about it again to really grasp and own it) and personal testimony of course. I also have miracle stories from India where my father and pastor went last winter.

 But seriously, what you choose to believe based on the evidence is paramount. I personally began to believe in God as a little girl because I loved that Jesus loved me, and as I grew up I experienced God. Evidence had nothing to do with why I became a Christian, but I find it fascinating to study and appreciate the solidity it lends to my faith. I have found that I don't have to blind myself to believe. Believing in God and what He says has, on the contrary, opened my eyes and made sense of a lot of things that I see the rest of the world struggling with.

I hope this was helpful in answering your questions, or even in helping you to ask more questions. I encourage you to scrupulously seek truth and be open to wherever that leads. 

 Best wishes to you. 

[cicada-slumber-blog]

After reading from Darwin and the whole Bible and about history, archaeology, geology, philosophy, biology, sociobiology, math, physics, and maybe even more, I've concluded that anyone who doesn't believe in God because he says there's a lack of evidence, needs to find a new reason. 

[cicada-slumber-blog]

I really want to spend a day hanging out with all the old people in my church. Some of them have been in wars and written books and gotten doctorates. Some of them have, you know, been missionaries in foreign countries for over 20 years. I want to learn their names and hear their stories and see pictures from when they were young. I bet so many of the old ladies were absolutely beautiful and the old men strong and handsome. I want to know their love stories. I want to ask them all for their thoughts and fill a notebook with their advice. The older generation is an often forgotten treasure-trove. I used to overlook them and yawn at their hymns. But now I see that their creases are like proverbs carved in stone, each tracing out their lives—every laugh line and crinkle. And now when they sing the hymns they grew up with, I recognize the beauty in the words and see on their faces a love for their Savior that is loyal after all these years and still burning even as their bodies are fading. 

[cicada-slumber-blog]

Ew. this tea tastes like floral bathwater. 

[cicada-slumber-blog]

Does anyone else have the sixth sense for when the microwave's about to beep? 

[cicada-slumber-blog]

Robert keeps hugging me :(

[cicada-slumber-blog]

I've been taking life too seriously. I need to be more apathetic.