BLAAAAAA...........g @sobemurky-blog - Tumblr Blog

Final revision

I just finished reading “Three Cups of Tea” by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin. I read this book for my capstone project because I hate our education system. When I first started reading this I thought I hated education in general but have come to realize that it is the system I hate. I wanted to read the book because it is about a guy who dedicates his life to building schools for children, mostly girls, in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I thought that for someone to dedicate their life to this and for these villages that are so desperate for education, there must be some value in it.

In the beginning of the book Greg has just failed an attempt at climbing K2 and is separated and lost from his expedition. He eventually wanders into the village of Korphe and is taken in by the village leader and nursed back to health. The villagers treat him very well and give Greg the best of everything they have. While he is recovering he sees the village children writing in the dirt outside for their lessons and promises them he will come back and build them a school. He goes back to America and his nursing job and starts raising funds. He sends 580 letters to people of influence campaigning for school funds and doesn't even come close to raising enough funds for the school. He eventually gets in touch with a wealthy mountaineer who gives him the money needed to build the school. Greg sells off his car and any other possessions of value to buy a plane ticket back to Pakistan. When he gets to the village they tell him that they have to build a bridge before they can build the school. Greg goes back to America and almost loses all hope of raising enough to build the bridge. Finally he talks with a friend who gives him the inspiration and courage to call the guy who funded the school to ask for more money to build the bridge. The wealthy sponsor agrees to fund the bridge. Long story short, they finally build the bridge and school and from there it’s history. Greg leaves his home and family many times to go back to Pakistan and Afghanistan to build more schools. He endures many hardships and experiences 9/11 from Pakistan. He explains that when America was attacked, that most of them were saddened by what happened. He also explains that most Americans don't really understand what is happening in Pakistan and Afghanistan the majority of the media coverage is not accurate.

Greg sees the Taliban and Al Queda funding extremist schools and recruiting impoverished children for their terrorist group. Greg believes that if America spent more money on helping to educate the children and less on bombing the innocent and making enemies with the muslims that are not responsible, than eventually the terrorist groups would fade out.

My opinion has always been that the first thing we do when we take over another country or land is we “educate” the children of who ever we are taking over. I feel like it is indoctrination and not education in most cases. In Gregs’ book he describes the education being done by teachers from their native land and not so much indoctrination. Hitler used “education” to make his evil little minions. I did answer my question on whether or not education is a good thing. I believe that it is a very good thing now if done right. When people know how to do things like read and write and do math it opens up a lot of doors for people.

We are a country of entitlement. What I mean by that is everybody here thinks we are entitled to just about everything. We have been blessed with so many good things that we just think of them as normal things that we should have. If we don’t get them than it’s not fair and we deserve all these things and someone needs to make it right and give us it right now. We have become oblivious to how good we really do have it. We have schools that not only educate our children, but transport them to and from school. We also have many scholarships and grants available for higher education. But at the same time we are also sheep being led to the slaughter. With this sense of entitlement and numbing, we have stopped questioning things and have been led along like sheep to the slaughter.

In the book when it talks about the Taliban “educating” the impoverished, it is more of a army training camp for a lot of the students. So not all “education” is good. The bible says to “teach a child up right” so I guess I have to come to the conclusion that a GOOD education is priceless, a wrong education is like a death sentence. To put it another way, every coin has two sides.

When education is done right, it improves our lives. One of the women in the book almost dies after having a baby just because she didn’t pass her placenta and nobody knew what to do or what was even wrong. Someone with an education saves her life just because they had been educated in health care. Greg ends up paying for one of his first graduates’ tuition so she can attend a medical school. With that education that village will now have someone to save lives and lower the incredibly high mortality rate.

I think that our country should be educating in more relevant fields of study, like learning actual trades hands on, and stay out of trying to indoctrinate our children with their ideals. Our schools should not be allowed to teach our kids their political ideas or their religious ideas. They need to leave that up to the parents. Some schools are teaching about homosexuals and that it is not wrong and we need to accept the idea that it is okay. I believe that we should accept everybody for who they are, right or wrong, because we have all fallen short of the glory of God. I believe that the ground is level at the foot of the cross. But I don’t believe that the school has any right to tell my child what they think is right or wrong.

We have to be careful about what we teach our children and not just assume that every education is a good one. We also have to be careful about what other people are trying to “teach” us as well. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, It is a God given right to have free will. That is why I believe that our government and teachers should stay out of those areas and not try to enforce their beliefs on other people and just stick to the facts.

Education is a very powerful thing. It can do so much good or it can be very destructive. Two examples…Hitler and Jesus. Hitler raised up an army that almost destroyed all of the Jews and committed such heinous acts that no one will ever forget. And Jesus, who not only taught the Word of God and life saving plan, but he also died an undeserved death on the cross so that I can have eternal life in heaven. :D

Mortenson, Greg and David Oliver Relin. Three Cups of Tea, New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2006

The Living New Testament. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc, 2004

Unit 5

In this unit, I really had a change of mind about "comics" AKA graphic novels. I have always thought of comics as something kids and dorks read. I am pretty sure I had a few comics as a kid, but I could not tell you what they were because I never read them. As a kid I liked them just because of the pictures and I thought they looked cool. After reading "The Veil" or a the peice of it out of the book, I had a total change of heart on graphic novels. Our class descussion had me pretty curious as to what all they were. That descussion broadened my view of what graphic novels...or comic books as I've always known them, really are. I would actually like to read the full graphic novel "The Veil". I never relized that there was actual useful information in "comics" I always thought of them as like "Superman" or garfield. I do love the sunday comics. Most of them anyways. Another set of comics I was exposed to as a kid was "the far side" (atleast thats what I think it is called). As a whole I enjoyed unit 5...even though I didn't read hardly any of it :( oops. I really enjoyed the movie review. I mean the one that I reviewed. Not the review on the Facebook guy. I really didn't enjoy that review at all.

movie review

"Way out west there was this fella I wanna tell ya about. Goes by the name of Jeff Lebowski. At least that was the handle his loving parents gave him, but he never had much use for it himself. See, this Lebowski, he called himself "The Dude". Now, "Dude" - there's a name no man would self-apply where I come from. But then there was a lot about the Dude that didn't make a whole lot of sense. And a lot about where he lived, likewise. But then again, maybe that's why I found the place so darned interestin'. See, they call Los Angeles the "City Of Angels"; but I didn't find it to be that, exactly. But I'll allow it as there are some nice folks there. 'Course I ain't never been to London, and I ain't never seen France. And I ain't never seen no queen in her damned undies, so the feller says. But I'll tell you what - after seeing Los Angeles, and this here story I'm about to unfold, well, I guess I seen somethin' every bit as stupefyin' as you'd seen in any of them other places. And in English, too. So I can die with a smile on my face, without feelin' like the good Lord gypped me. Now this here story I'm about to unfold took place in the early '90s - just about the time of our conflict with Sad'm and the I-raqis. I only mention it because sometimes there's a man... I won't say a hero, 'cause, what's a hero? Sometimes, there's a man. And I'm talkin' about the Dude here - the Dude from Los Angeles. Sometimes, there's a man, well, he's the man for his time and place. He fits right in there. And that's the Dude. The Dude, from Los Angeles. And even if he's a lazy man - and the Dude was most certainly that. Quite possibly the laziest in all of Los Angeles County, which would place him high in the runnin' for laziest worldwide. Sometimes there's a man, sometimes, there's a man. Well, I lost my train of thought here. But... aw, hell. I've done introduced it enough."

If you haven't guessed by now, I am doing my review on "The Big Lebowski". Apparently I was the last person on earth to see this movie because I think everyone else has already seen it. I thought it was a great movie and had one of the greatest opening lines EVER!! The plot was original and had some good twists to it. It kept me interested for the whole movie and I really liked the characters. I love the Dude. Even though lazy is not a quality I tolerate well, I still really liked the Dude. Walter is a crazy ass hole and at times in the movie his character seemed to be totally wrecking everything for the Dude. I was thinking that he was a total idiot and in the end of the movie it turns out he is right about everything...except the old dude faking crippled. There was a lot of foul language in the movie. I'm pretty sure that the "F" bomb is the most used word in the movie and would account for 50% of the script. There was also a lot of boobs in the movie that I could have went without. The nudity was very random at times as well, as in not important to the story in any way but some how still made it into the movie (Im wondering why there was no male nudity, HMMMMM????) Other than that it was a fantastic movie and I thoroughly enjoy it :D

Final proposal

1. I have chosen schools yet again for my final project. I chose it probably because I hate school and every thing it stands for so badly. I also chose it because It is interesting to me why we do have schools and if there is such a drive for education there must be some good behind it. I am going to challenge my own thinking on schooling and try to see what it is that is so good about schooling and where America went so wrong with our education system. I won’t be studying our system so much as I will be looking into other cultures that do not have schools and there view on why they are so good. To do this I will be reading “Three Cups of Tea” by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin. The book is about a mountaineer that goes to Pakistan and Afghanistan to build schools for remote villages. I think that by reading this book it will show me what I have taken for granted, or it will prove to me why I dislike schools. I guess when I am finished reading the book I will report back on how it has or hasn’t changed my opinion or any new insight I gain.

2. I am going to do option C. It is a topic of my own (aren’t you surprised!) I will basically do a review of the book. I will go through and give a summary of what the book is about. I will touch on some key points or just some points that I found or find very interesting or touching. I will then relate that to how it has changed my opinion or how it has reinforced my current opinion. I will then at the end reevaluate everything that I thought and see how I feel about education at the end of this book. Depending on what the book tells me or doesn’t tell me, I might have to do some side research on the subject of why schools are so important to underdeveloped countries.

3. There are four class days that I have to read this 23 chapter book, Which is insane and suicidal for me considering I can barely read a 5 page essay a week. But my plan is to read 6 chapters for every class. !!!!! wow!!!! 4/10 chapters 1-6 4/12 chapters 7-12 4/17 chapters 13-18 4/19 chapters 19-23. And I think I just committed suicide.

denby

Here goes another pathetic attempt at 300 words reviewing another review of a review. I guess I didn't catch the irony that Denby used to build his review. He did say the facebook guy was socially retarded, is that the irony? Or that he couldn't even maintain a friendship with his one and only true friend. He sounds more like a total jerk to me than a social retard. I got self centered out of that. I think that people that are not jerks and care about other people can have normal healthy relationships. Probably more so than the "popular crowd". Some people that I know that don't come across as really social or normal for that matter, but are still nice and care about other people have stronger relationships then people that know lots of people and would be considered very social. I really don't think that it's ironic that a social retard would develop a social networking site. It actually makes all the sense in the world to me. Some one who has normal relationships wouldn't be as likely to think of ways to socialize without actually haveing to see/meet someone face to face because they are busy with REAL relationships. This 300 word limit is really killing me smalls. Especially when I have two 300 word exploratories and then another 200 word response. thats like 1600 words a week. I can't even dedicate that kind of writing to a personal journal. Not that my life is all that exciting. So back to the social retard...I mean the OTHER social retard. ha ha ha. UM more irony??? not sure. Is it supposed to be ironic that he makes all that money for nothing, cause it sounds like all he does is sit around in sweat pants and eat pizza? Or that even as a millionare he can't make friendships work. Sounds like he hates the world. My question would be, if he doesn't spend the money and doesn't like people, then why is he doing what he does?

roger ebert exploratory

Basically in Eberts writing, he goes through and summarizes the movie. I have never seen the movie so i don't know how accurate he is on describing the movie. I'm not really sure how to write 300 words reviewing a review. How over analyzed is that?! I can't tell you how he argues his points because after reading it, I didn't really remember much of what he said. Apparently he isn't as good at reviewing movies as he is said to be. Mostly what I caught was that the "dialogue was good" and not dumbed down. Apparently Im one of those people who have to watch the dumbed down movie cause I don't really get what he is saying. I guess it's a movie that you have to know worldly things to catch onto whats happening. I'm not exactly current on world matters so would probably be lost. holy moses are we at 300 words yet? so Im not sure what else to say about this review. I guess I'll just re summarize it. So he says it's about the guy who created facebook. That he is basically a rude and socially retarded Harvard student. He gets into trouble for posting a site with girls pictures and then some how invents facebook. He makes lots of money, meets some guy in silicone valley who tries to get him into partying and drugs. The socially retarded facebook guy still can't be social and lives a recluse life in a normal house. He said the movie can make you feel sorry for the guy and/or think he is a total jerk is what I got out of it. So basically I think that reviewing reviews is lame and a huge waste of time. I am seriously starting to doubt whether or not I'm cut out for this whole school thing.

Unit 4

Unit four was about the image. What I took from it is advertising and people. It’s kinda of scary for me to think that there are a majority of idiots that buy into advertising and what society tells them. It kind of fits in with the whole education unit in a way because our society has trained up people to just do as they are told and not to question anything. Every body has the same “program” with minor variations and we expect different results? In a way people read way to much into advertising. I know I have better things to do than to analyze what some corporation is trying to sell me. I would save time by not even looking at an ad or watching it. Thank God for the fast forward button. Or better yet, I could spend my time doing productive things instead of watching crap TV or looking at crap magazines. The women's magazines are basically the same thing every single month anyways. It’s the same stupid so called blow your mans’ mind sex moves, a handful of beauty secrets that are no secret anymore and a load of advertisements. Our world has become very media focused and people are getting very lazy and stupid. This might be why China is going to own us some day. We are not producers anymore, we are consumers. This is probably why there is SO much advertising. Back to the over analyzing advertising…In a way it is good to analyze it, because it’s good to question things. On the other hand, if I never watched advertisements and led a pretty recluse lifestyle and then turned on the TV, I wouldn't have to analyze it or read into it. It would be blatantly obvious to someone who wasn't desensitized to it. It’s all about sex and shocker value of things. Image is a very good and important thing, we just have to be careful of what images we put into our heads.

neverquitwillnotgiveup

Joshua Nicholls

3/11/12

English 1101

Berger Exploratory Writing

“Ways of Seeing”

Berger makes his primary argument that “the social presence of a woman is different in kind from that of a man.” He use that Adam and Eve story in the bible to help him back his argument. That...

sobemurky-blog

I reblogged Josh's exploritory because he used boogers example of the adam and eve story. I did not touch on this in my exploritroy so I will touch on it now, since I forgot how much it peeved me when I first read boogers writing. A very big pet peeve of mine is when people take the bible out of context. If booger would have read the REST of the bible, he would have found that it does not support his women are inferior or subsevient to men. Women were created as help meets for man and if you investigate further you will find "He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the Lord" Proverbs 18:22 And in the Bibles book of judges you will read about Deborah who was a judge of Isreal and a prophetess. The judges from the Bible were very important leaders that were ordained by God . She also led an army that defeated sisera. And yet more scripture "Haven't you read the Scriptures?" Jesus replied. "They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.' And he said, 'This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one.' Since they are no longer two but one, let no one separate them, for God has joined them together." Matthew 19;4-6

"And you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the church. He gave up his life for her." Ephesians 5:25

This are just a few examples of scriptures from the bible that clearly do NOT support boogers moronic ideas.

reading the glaze

This essay is basically reinforcing boogers essay in ways, by comparing the viewed as being "owned". He differs in that he is stating that the models looking at the "veiwer" are making a contact or "relationship" with the viewer and also making a demand. he then goes on to describe the different kinds of demands that can be made with different gestures. The euphoria adds model is looking at the viewer I see her as an individual because she is making eye contact. It has been said that the eyes are the windows to the soul. I have to kind of agree with this statement. I think that eyes say a lot and to look some one directly in the eyes says a lot about a person....It says different things in different cultures, but it still says a lot. I think that the kind of "relationship" that the model is trying to establish is "you want to be like me....and smell like me, cause I'm desirable". The model in Gucci is similar except I think she is saying "you want to smell like me cause this boy toy can't keep his hands off me" The Reeboks add is very impersonal and is a type instead of an individual. I say this because the "legs" are anonymous. The viewer is supposed to want the legs to be there legs and so they need these shoes to get before they can have them. Im not sure what to say about the got milk. It's just weird and kinda creepy. The dude has a bandade on his face, and a pair of ladies stalkings on his head??? And some really large obnoxious jewelry and his chest is a billboard for milk. It's just creepy. I think they are aiming for the model to be an individual, but I'm just thinking he is creepy and not someone I want to look at or make eye contact with....because he is awkward and creepy.

more naked girls

So I thought that the writing by leppert sucked too. Although it was better then the bergers I still barely followed it. The only thing I got out of this one...other than it sucked and people like to over analyze the shit out of things...is that he disagreed with berger. He did not think that all representations of female nudes were sexist. From what I gathered, he actually thinks that women hold power with the simple fact that men want what women have. His ideas fit in more with my "weird science" analogy. His idea of women being desirable and that gives them an "edge" is what happens in the movie. The science experiment has control over men because they all want what she has so bad that they'll do anything she wants.

I personally think that this is entirely to over analyzed. I think that what ever you think is kind of what you get. If you think that men are above women than if your a man your going to treat women like they are below you, if you are a women and think this was, then men will treat you like you are below them cause you think you are. If you think that women are equal you will treat them equal if your a man and if your a women you will act equal so men will be more likely to treat you equal. Then there are women who think men are idiots and that they are far superior and act that way and won't deal with men who don't treat them superior. So basically I think you are what you think you are. If you do not agree with someone then you generally won't associate more than you absolutely have to. So in essence you surround yourself with people who support your ideas or your "world".

I disagree with the statement that women only think of themselves as being viewed. I feel the opposite. I feel like a fly on a wall who loves to watch how weird people are. I feel like the viewer not the viewed. About the only time I thought about how I would be viewed by men is when I worked in the bars. The only reason I thought about it was because the better I looked and the more the guys liked me, the more money I made. I wasn't a helpless female who was an object. I was a devious schemer who swindled drunk idiots out of their hard earned money. So who is the sucker with no control? Any man who thinks of women as possessions is an insecure moronic loser. and that's pretty much my opinion on that little piece of writing by leppert.

Weird Science Trailer (by UniversalMovies)

NAKEY!!!!

I did not like this writing, not because of the subject but the content sucked. This guy made no sense at all to me. It was like reading some of my own incoherent babbling. HA. I did catch what he explained to be the difference between naked and nude. He says that to be naked is to be oneself and that being nude was being naked for someone else and not being oneself any more. To be honest he lost me at the whole men act and women appear and the exceptional nudes in the European tradition of oil painting crap. He used examples but I did not see what the H he was talking about. The only thing I caught out of it was that men are pigs who like to look at naked chicks. I did also catch that the one guy wanted to paint one chicks face with another ones legs ect.... only because when I read it I immediately thought of the totally rad 80's movie "weird science". For anyone who has not seen this righteous 80's flick, it is about two high school nerds who use their computer to create the "perfect" girl. Unlike this reading though, the "perfect" girl is not an "object" that they own but rather has the power over them....and every thing else in the movie.

The writer also completely lost me when at the end he says to picture a nude in the book as a male and then to "notice the violence which that transformation does" !!! Really! What is this guy talking about! And what is he smoking! This guy is nuttier than squirrel poop. . So in conclusion, even if I did use some of this nut jobs specific examples it is still about as useful as tits on a bull because I don't think that he makes any point other than men like to look at naked chicks and think of them as objects.

midterm reflection

What have I learned about myself as a writer? Nothing that I didn't already know. I am a very stubborn and opinionated person, I knew that before I began this unit and this unit has just reinforced the fact that I am opinionated and stubborn. I think that I have a different writing style; whether that is good or not I’ll let the readers decide. If I have something to say or an opinion on something I will say it, but other than that I do not like to talk or write unless I feel like I have something important to say. I don’t like to make up things to write….like I feel I am doing now to meet a 500 word limit. I have learned that I do not like to conform unless I agree with it. I guess that if you agree with it, it isn't really conforming. I don’t feel like I have learned to write any better I am just learning what the “teacher” is looking for and learned to jump through yet another hoop. I have always just written what I think and I don’t really sensor anything or try to sugar coat or cater to what other people would like to hear.

I do know that I hate writing in most cases. I have written articles for my church to be posted in the Idaho state urinal, I didn't like doing that but they still turned out ok. I know how to write and can be good at it if I apply myself; I just really don’t feel like applying myself ever. I do love to read, but if I don’t like someone’s writing style than I have a really hard time following what they are writing, or even staying awake for that matter. It might surprise some but I have thought about writing books. Not because I want to make money or be published but for the pure and simple fact that I am interested in certain things and no one has ever written a book about these things that satisfies my curiosity.

I have learned in this class that I go off on tangents and have a hard time staying focused. Sometimes I feel like my brain is like hammy from over the hedge on red bull. I feel like I think to many things to get it all down on paper in one coherent writing. Basically in the whole scheme of things I feel like school is a huge waste of time for me. It has sucked the joy from my life. Sometimes the things that are small or seem stupid are the things that bring the most joy. I am happier to sit on a hill side contemplating life and the scenery and all of my other senses than I am getting raises, promotions and recognition through school and work. People have really missed the forest for the trees in life. I hate striving for “success”. Today success is measured by material things and how people view you when really it should be measured by your happiness. So I guess I'm the real sucker for knowing better and still beating my head against the wall. And I feel like I need to throw in an explanation for my “how do you boil a frog” at the end of my paper. The whole point was to make people think, If I explain it, than all it is, is my take on it. I wanted it to be an open ended question to make people try and figure it out on their own and spend time thinking on their own.

Family photo

I have several different photos of my "family" for a reason. I am a part of very big family that includes all of humanity. God is my father and everyone on earth is my brothers and sisters. The pictures I have above are more like sub-group family photos :D. My family in the Giant Radio Flyer are my sisters in christ. The photo was taken at a women of faith conference in Washington. This "family" doesn't really know my other families. All of my family sub groups are very seperate from each other but very dear to me. The next photo of my "sisters" at the dinner table are some of my closest friends. They are the family I am closest to on earth besides my Dad and son who are in the last photo. These are just a few of my family members and a hope of mine is that all of my families will someday exist as one big connected family and in a way, someday they will be.

Charlie Robison-Photograph (by Dualtone)

Final Draft

“at the present time there exists upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instinct, social customs, and to an extent, in structure. There are the Ethiopian or Negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.”

This Statement was taken out of American high school biology textbook by Hunter, titled “A Civic Biology”

What are we teaching our children! My goal is to make you question what people accept every day without any questioning. Stuff that we have become so desensitized to that we go through our days without ever giving it a second thought. Today in our schools they are teaching our children evolution. They are not taught any other theories or given any other options to consider. Dr. Kent Hovind said, “If there are two or more ways of looking at something and you teach all possible theories, that is called education. But if only one theory is taught, that is called indoctrination.” Most public schools taught the creation theories until 1925 and It was illegal to teach evolution in most states until the 60’s. There was a big controversy and trial over this fact and one Atheist lawyer by the name of Clarence Darrow said, “It is bigotry to only teach one view of origins. Students should be taught both the creation and evolution theories”. So why are we now ONLY teaching evolution?!

My personal thoughts on evolution are that it is racist propaganda. The first evolutionist taught that we evolved from apes and that the “blacks” were more closely related to them which would make whites superior. A great example of this is Ota Banga. Ota Banga was a pygmie from Belgian, Congo. He was brought to America in 1904 and later displayed in the Bronx zoo with the orangutans in the primate exhibit. He was a supposed “missing link”. Life was not good for poor Ota Banga in the zoo and a New York Times article stated “There were 40,000 visitors to the park on Sunday. Nearly every man, woman and child of this crowd made for the monkey house to see the star attraction in the park ? the wild man from Africa. They chased him about the grounds all day, howling, jeering, and yelling. Some of them poked him in the ribs, others tripped him up, all laughed at him.”

So whatever happened to Ota? According to Jerry Bergman’s writing at http://onehumanrace.com/docs/ota_benga.asp “After Ota Benga left the zoo, he was able to find sympathetic care at a succession of institutions and with several sympathetic individuals. But he was never able to shed his 'freak' label. Employed in a tobacco factory in Lynchburg, Virginia, Ota Benga grew increasingly depressed, hostile, irrational, and forlorn. Concluding that he would never be able to return to his native land, in 1916 Benga committed suicide by shooting himself with a borrowed pistol.

The story of his suicide was published by Hornaday in a 1916 Zoological Bulletin. Even at this late date, Hornaday's evolution-inspired racist feelings clearly showed through. He even stated that 'the young negro was brought to Lynchburg about six years ago, by some kindly disposed person, and was placed in the Virginia Theological Seminary and College here, where for several years he labored to demonstrate to his benefactors that he did not possess the power of learning; and some two or three years ago he quit the school and went to work as a laborer' (emphasis mine). (18)

Hornaday then recounts that, after leaving college, Ota lived at a 'colored home' near the school, earning his livelihood by working as a laborer in a tobacco factory. In Hornaday's words, the suicide was committed because 'the burden became so heavy that the young Negro secured a revolver belonging to the woman with whom he lived, went to the cow stable and there sent a bullet through his heart, ending his life.’ “.

Now for the scientific side of this; there are six different kinds of evolution. I’m going to focus on micro and macro evolution but first I want to define science using another quote from Dr. Kent Hovind. “The word science means “knowledge”. Science is the study of what we know. In order for something to be truly scientific in the strict sense of the word, it must be observable, testable, and demonstrable.” He then goes on to say “The entire subject of origins (both creation and evolution) is actually outside the field of science. No one alive today has observed the creation of the universe, and we cannot “do it again” in the laboratory to demonstrate how it happened. Nor is anyone alive who observed the “big bang theory” or the creation of life from non living matter. Any theories about origin of the universe are inherently religious (what we choose to trust, to believe in).” Now back to micro and macro evolution. Micro evolution is the only evolution that has actually been observed. A better term for micro evolution is “variation”. Yes we can alter species through selective breeding (whether naturally occurring or human intervention) We do know that all dogs evolved from the wolf, so from a wolf you can get a poodle. We also know that you can’t take a poodle and eventually get wolfs. Evolution should be called a DE-evolution. When wolves breed to get new breeds you are actually losing allels not making new ones. We also know that you can’t breed a wolf to a tiger. They may seem very similar, both have four legs, both eat meat, both have tails and wet noses…ect, but they are a different species. Apes and humans cannot make a baby either…..BECAUSE WE ARE A DIFFERENT SPECIES! I know that evolutionist say that we are not directly related to apes and there is a so called missing link, but at which point did everything become a different species? If you trace the “evolution” chart back far enough than we are all related to frogs and fish too. This is called macro evolution, which obviously has not been observed. As for “lucy” the “missing link” which is found in most textbooks today including my anthropology textbook, experts agree that lucy is not a missing link and that she is just an unusual monkey. Ther is evidence that a few may still live in the jungles of Sumatra today. Another hoaks that the evolutionists with white supremacist motives tried to pull over on us is the “Piltdown man” He was in the textbooks for over 40 years before they proved it was just a human skull fused with the jawbone of an ape! The ironic part of this being….My anthropology teacher taught about the Piltdown man, admitted it was a sham, and still uses the Piltdown man for examples in his lecture! WOW, denial!

As for the horses with four toes theories…About every horse book I have ever owned has excepted this as a fact, as did I until I began my research. Dr kent states “Modern horse skeletons have been found in layers older than (atleast according to the evolutionist view of geology) the so called four toes ancestors. Also, an animal nearly identical to the hyracotherium is a small, four toed, meat eating animal that is still alive in South America today! In addition, the fossils in South America show one-toed horses in lower layers than their supposed three toed ancestors.” More information can be found on this at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n1/horse .

The creation theory hasn’t been observed either but at least the accounts we have from the bible have been backed up with archeological finds and isn’t just complete speculation. A great flood described in the book of Genesis would explain all the fossils and how they were buried in sediment forming layers as they settled. The larger denser plants and animals would be on bottom (along with things that were already on the bottom such as clams) putting the more mobile and intelligent animals at the top (last to drown) Dr Kent says it like this “Most textbooks teach the concept of what is calle “geologic time”. The authors frequently promote the theory that layers (strata) of the earth represent different time periods laid down over “billions of years.” Creationists believe that nearly all of these layers were formed rapidly during a global flood. The general lack of erosion between the layers and the existence of many fossilized trees that extend straight up through many different layers indicate that these alyers were not formed slowly over millions of years”

Seems to me, that there is as much evidence for creation as there is evolution. So why do we never hear any other takes on this? How many Christians send their children to school and have teachers and the government mandate what our children learn and we remain silent and some of us ignorant to what is going on? America is sitting back and slowly the government is taking away our God given rights while we do nothing, most of us probably not even aware of what is happening. I will end this with the question “How do you boil a frog”?

Sources sited

http://onehumanrace.com/docs/ota_benga.asp

“A civic Biology” by Hunter

http://www.creationtoday.org/about/dr-kent-hovind/

And Dr. Kent Hovind

“ Kent Hovind became a Christian at age sixteen and immediately desired to serve Christ with his life. His keen interest in math and science throughout his high school career prompted his enrollment at Illinois Central College as a science major. After two years of undergraduate work there, and feeling God calling him to full-time Christian service, he completed his bachelor of religious education degree at Midwestern Baptist College of Pontiac, Michigan in 1974.

For fifteen years Hovind taught high school math and science, during which time he completed his master’s degree in education. While researching and writing his doctoral dissertation on the subject of creation vs. evolution, he saw the tremendous need for exposing evolution as a dangerous, religious worldview, and for arming Christians with scientific evidence that there are no contradictions between true science and the Bible. In response to these needs, shortly after finishing his Ph.D. in religious education, he began a full-time ministry of presenting the foundational truth of creation and the utter fallacy of evolution with a mission of strengthening the faith of believers and winning the lost to Christ. His award-winning seven-part Creation Seminar continues to travel around the globe with translations in thirty-two languages.”

I have a great piece showing how evolution is a one-sided issue, but it won't let me post link here. Do a google search for Stephen J. Gould Evolution as fact and theory. If you can't find it let me know and I'll bring it printed out on Thursday.

Hey thanks man! I will google it for sure.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

BLAAAAAA...........g