It is 10am and I am wondering what I will do with my day. Early morning leader's meeting for Monday's Bible study was canceled due to the snow, so I got an extra two hours of sleep! That brought me up to 6.5 hours and made me almost coherent when I got back up to head out for the 2 hour drive to Rockford to stand in for my daughter. I was to report back on how O's selection of bridesmaids' dresses look on this particular young woman. But, the same snow that canceled the early morning Bible study continued to fall (and still is) and canceled this trip as well.
So, here I am with a day "to myself". That's an odd happening these days. The house almost always has another person in it, but today it is quiet with the lively one in MI with her fiance at his beloved grandfather's funeral. Most of my Bible study prep is done for Monday, the laundry is going already and I'm well into my second cup of coffee! Except for the sound of the washing machine and drier, it is quiet. Across from me, the tree lights are white glowing pinpoints of light next to the glass doors with their shades raised so I can see the falling snow. It is lovely to just sit here and look at the snow and the tree.
I could take down the tree but will not. I am quite determined to have a picture of it fully decorated with both O and her fiance in front of it first! This is the last year that it will have "her" ornaments on it since next year they will have their own tree to decorate and many of the ornaments are gifts from me that will go with her as she begins her new life!
I should, and will, continue the laundry for it is easy to do - sheets and towels require little but "changing over". I could clean the house, for it surely needs it, and perhaps I will, at least a bit. More likely, I will take a large portion of the day to just read and think quietly. I find that the more time I have for Bible study and for reading books about God and His character and how one applies this knowledge to the practical aspects of daily life, the more time I want to spend doing exactly that! I have been progressing very slowly in the book of Mark in my personal study (BSF is going through the life of Moses this year. So far we have gotten through Exodus), so it would be lovely to get through an entire chapter in Mark today! Oh, and the bookshelf contains so many books I long to read. Then there is that wonderful bag full of yarn to make up into an afghan for Drew, and the wood that waits to be carved into Christmas ornaments, and paints and pencils and paper......
What would you do if you suddenly found yourself snowed in with a day "all to yourself"?
45 comments:
Read with Deb, we'd be reading with some background music from Mozart, Bach or whoever as that at times lately seems to help me concentrate and keep going- due to being so tired- and Deb is entirely flexible, at least for the most part! ha.
Reading seems to help me in many ways, and I'm ditto with you on the importance of being in God's word. I listen a lot to "The Bible Experience" lately, and Deb likes it as well- so I keep going through Scripture that way, a part of my day as I get around.
But hope your day is blessed and that you get more days like this one at good times. I think we need rests like that.
I like sleeping. I also like reading a good book, though I'm a slow reader.
Maybe sit back and watch a good movie, and even fix some popcorn.
It's been a while since we had any snow here in Baltimore.
I love when we have a good old snow storm. It's apian for me when I go back to work, but initially snow is a cool thing, and a blessing from God.
...If I were snowed in all by myself??
--First, I'd watch a couple episodes of Monk. (I'll try to remember to bring one of the discs for you Sunday!!)
*Then I would look out the window, hoping my bride is having a good time.
--Then, I'd cook something creative for a meal or even just a snack. Hopefully, I'd have the good sense to clean up after myself, 'cause I tend to use a lot of dishes when I cook.
--I'd go over my daily Bible reading, and take the time to read all the notes and comments (but only after ignoring them until the text is completely read).
*I'd look out the window again, wondering when she's coming back.
--I'd probably fiddle with the camera and take pictures of the pets or the kids' toys.
*Scrolling through family portraits, I would think of her.
--I would get online and check email and facebook.
*I'd go upstairs and take a nap, resting on her pillow.
--If she's not back yet, I could plug into Guitar Hero and see if I can be a rock star for a bit.
I don't think I ever have a day to myself ... or at least, I haven't had one in a while. I guess if I had a day off, I'd like to spend it with my wife. Doing something with the kids would be in the mix too.
Well, the snow was interesting - and it was interesting again last night and seems as though it will be interesting again tonight and tomorrow. For those of you outside the US - the temp is below 0F already - not counting windchill.
My day, you ask? I spent a lot of time answering emails, reading as predicted, and quietly watching the snow and thinking, just about life and it's twists and turns and the good results of some rather seemingly disasterous decisions.
And ESI - you'll be old one day too and the kids will be grown and gone, so there is hope for a day for at least the two of you - a whole day!
"..the temp is below 0F already - not counting windchill."
Seems there is record breaking cold weather at hand.
" NASA Earth Observatory. Some 58,000 square miles of ice formed per day for 10 days in late October and early November, a new record."
Doesn't this put a big fat hole in all this "global warming" nonsense?
What would I do with a snowed-in day? Well as this year is the 150th Anniversary of the publication of one of the most important scientific books ever written, I would like an excuse to browse through my copy again.
I refer of course to Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species which revolutionised biology and the way we view life on earth. It should be read by everybody.
>Doesn't this put a big fat hole in all this "global warming" nonsense?
No, not at all. the fact that you use the emotive (manipulative) word "nonsense" is evidence of your preconception (prejudice). Local extremes of temperature are absolutely in accord with predictive models.
I offer the suggestion that you regard annual mean global temperatures rather than your "local weather" and try reading the peer-reviewed scientific literature rather than the quasi-scientific misinformation put about by the fundamentalist publishers!
It is cold too here in Vienna, and has been snowing, I have been skating today!
If I had a day to myself and couldn't go out, I would do some yoga, do some meditation and read and read and read.
I once said to my mother that I longed for a day just to myself, and she cynically replied 'you wouldn't if it was like that every day'.
One of these days I really must read Maalie's beloved Darwin. I have never actually read it nor any of Dawkins. There are so many lovely books and so little time to read them!
"try reading the peer-reviewed scientific literature"
I have. From both sides. But it seems if you have evidence from the side that says global warming is way too hyped up, then you are thought of as a loon.
The nonsense would be for experts such as Al Gore, who is no expert at all, and has no answer for why there are record breaking cold fronts.
It's going to be 5% here in Baltimore, I'm glad for global warming, or I suppose it woul have been 15 below.
I'm no expert on all this, but there seems to be at least some nonsense in this global warming frenzy. I'm not saying there are no effects from mankinds burning all the fuels they do, but I think they don't have the evidence they claim to.
The Earth is a "Big" place, and its atmosphere immense. The fumes we send up are minute in comparison, but these global warming people like Gore make it seem like the atmosphere is full of automoblie exhaust.
That's hype, and that's nonsense to me.
I didn't mean to hijack this post and thread Susan. But it is an important issue, because if Obama gets on a roll with this, it's going to cost us tax payers hundreds of billions more dollars.
I simply wnat the truth, and the facts.
Oh, I should add that if I had a day to myself, a "man-spa" would also be in order. (To me, a "man-spa" means shaving my ears and nostrils and sitting in a massage chair for a few minutes.)
Llama - I totally prefer Darwin to Dawkins for reading. I think I would have liked having Darwin as a friend as he seemed to be a gentle, curious sort. Yoga sounds good and might even help right now as I admit to feeling extremely old and decrepit.
Maalie - skating - I envy you. I'm hiding indoors and trying to work from home to prevent exposing my joints to the subzero (F) weather! And btw - it's NASA DATA, not local observation, therefore data that will need to be considered in the big picture over time.
Don - I think it will take a few years more of tracking the data to see if the warming trend holds or if increased ice formation from this winter causes a moderation. If it all melts in the summer due to a higher temperature we haven't moderated much.
Maalie and Don - phrases like "nonsense/big fat hole and quasi-scientific misinformation/fundamentalist" are probably inflammatory. So, play nicely boys!
"If it all melts in the summer due to a higher temperature we haven't moderated much."
What if it doesn't?
And suppose it does, and yet the following winter is even colder?
I suppose I will never understand these kinds of things.
Sorry about the overthetop lingo. I think I'm growing a little more mature in this area by discussing it.
I get so mad at the manipulation everywhere, and so I throw the baby out with the bath-water and loose my cool.
Thanks for letting me share Susan. Your a good person, and a true sister in Christ.
I wonder how God looks at global warming?
Sleep, read, drink tea. Then do it all over again. :)
I liked your description of the tree and the snow. Peaceful.
Halfmom: Fair point, well made.
Why, thank you kindly King Maalie! It is nice to recognized as a peer.
Hey, Don Sands,
Good luck to your Ravens today! I root for the Steelers in the NFL since I went to school with Big Ben's father, same class with he and Ben's mother (now deceased). Woody wanted Ken, Ben's father, but he ended up going to Georgia Tech and bad knees kept him from going on, but he was a fine qb himself, just shorter- like my height.
But your Ravens are doing quite well. Should be a good one.
Thanks Ted.
GO RAVENS!!!! GO FLACCO!!!! BEAT THEM STEELERS!!!!
SUPERBOWL BOUND!!!!
Have a blessed Lord's day.
Steelers 24 Ravens 14. I'm down in the dumps. Oh well, it's only Football.
Darwin and Dawkins are worlds apart. Darwin was the genius who laid down the framework of modern biology in his theory of evolution based on natural selection. Dawkins is an interpreter and communicator. He is very clear, and direct, which makes his writings so popular among students. However his writings are very uncomfortable for those who insist that the bible be taken literally (fundamentalists). When he says: "We now no longer need to invoke the supernatural to explain the origin and development of life on earth", he is absolutely right, and that truth will never go away (but note that he doesn't say there is no God, only that we don't need to invoke one).
Unable to refute the evidence, they (fundamentalists) often resort to attacking the person, for example, by accusing Dawkins of arrogance. The question is not: "Is he arrogant?", but: "Is he right?". To attack Dawkins is to simultaneously attack Darwin and the whole of the peer-reviewed biological literature. Science is about challenging the evidence, not the man.
Sorry about your Ravens Don
Maalie, I dunno. I don't ever remember Darwin writing about space aliens seeding either life or the building blocks for it and I've heard those words,via film of course, from Dawkins. So I'm afraid that I just can't equate the two men or their writings or theories.
And just FYI - generally speaking, when people use the word "fundamentalist", in the manner you use it (though I am not accusing you of this, only referring to those that I know personally on this side of the pond), it tends to be spat out and totally interchangeable with idiot/fool/moron. So, just so you know, I do consider it to be insulting as you know that I am none of those things, regardless of what I choose to believe.
Still skating in Vienna?
Oh, Halfmom, that is quite news to me. I understand a fundamentalist to be "one who adheres to fundamentals". No insult intended and I beg to continue using the word as I understand its meaning from the English dictionary.
Of course you pick up on an oft-quoted remark of Dawkins that is taken right out if context. He was asked in a live situation if he could ever conceive of a notion of 'intelligent design'; he responded suggesting a hypothetical instance of aliens, blah blah blah. He does not believe it himself. But of course those that attack him, rather than the evidence that he perpetrates, will continue to delight in misquoting it.
Evolution by natural selection here to stay. There is no going back once the truth is out. You can't crank a ratchet backwards, or undo knowledge and understanding once it has been acquired. Any more than you can undo the invention of the atom bomb.
"But of course those that attack him, rather than the evidence that he perpetrates, will continue to delight in misquoting it."
Some will, and some I'm sure don't.
How about this quote Maalie, (I've been reading a little up on all this, though it's really over my pay grade):
"The Oxford University zoologist Richard Dawkins, one of the foremost advocates of evolutionist thought in the world, comments on this reality that undermines the very foundation of all the arguments he has been defending:
For example the Cambrian strata of rocks… are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.59
Phillip Johnson, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley who is also one of the world's foremost critics of Darwinism, describes the contradiction between this paleontological truth and Darwinism:
Darwinian theory predicts a "cone of increasing diversity," as the first living organism, or first animal species, gradually and continually diversified to create the higher levels of taxonomic order. The animal fossil record more resembles such a cone turned upside down, with the phyla present at the start and thereafter decreasing." -http://www.harunyahya.com/
Dawkins and Darwin. Don't compare the two. Please. (with all due respect to Dawkins, but he's gone off the deep end) :)
I hope this isn't erased.
I may get erased, but since this is coming up on this blog, I must say on my reading now that while I accept much of Darwin at this point anyhow, I don't accept Dawkins and his anti-god rhetoric. But I look forward to reading more and plan to listen to Dawkins read "The God Delusion". He and a woman do so, and she is even more antagonistic and vitriolic against any faith in a god, or something beyond time and space.
I wonder just how you can know there is no god. And also how people can fail to see all the good people of faith have done.
We're celebrating the huge important impact of one here today, in MLK Jr.
Here is an interesting post on global warming from a wise man, intellectual and friend of mine who works at RBC Ministries. And indeed his is an RBC Ministries blog, and he writes to a constituency largely more conservative than I am (although I hate to use conservative/liberal labels, because they can be quite misleading.
And Susan, you'll be interested in Dean's noting of BJU in S Carolina, where he went to school. I do think Dean used to think humans significantly contribute to global warming, though I don't know. I once saw five models, and one posited global cooling. The rest global warming on different scales. And NASA's model was the strongest in projecting global warming. Also there are ups and downs in given trajectories, of course.
But this is a parenthesis, as it seems it's on to evolution. And I do think, by the way, there is young earth creationist science worthy of the name science, even though I think they are mistaken from what I read.
I had a feeling Maalie that you didn't realize the connotation of what you were saying. As long as you aren't intending it rudely, then I'll try not to respond defensively. But even in that, there is plenty of cause for misunderstanding for the Bible itself acknowledges that some is narrative, some instructive, some prophetic, some poetic. So, to say that someone is a fundamentalist is to suggest that they take things at "face value" only rather than being able to discern the underlying meaning in the literary form. And that is, of course, offensive in and of itself. So, use it if you will but do understand that you may be questioned as you do - for the sake of clarity if for not other reason.
As to Dr. Dawkins - it was a live interview that I saw. Granted, I do not think I saw the complete interview, or at least I didn't get the feeling that I did, so the rather sizeable portion of discourse could still be shown in such a fashion as to present what he was saying out of context. However, I don't believe it's the first time he has said or even written such - and he's not the only very strict evolutionist to hold such a view - my mind is going blank on the other's name - sorry. It would make me happy if it were out of context, but only because it made him look embarrassingly like a blithering idiot and I hate that for any well-respected scientist - whether I agree with his conclusions or not.
And, as you know, "There is no going back once the truth is out. You can't crank a ratchet backwards, or undo knowledge and understanding once it has been acquired,", is simply your conclusion, not proven fact because it cannot be proven. It is simply, to you, the least parsimonious conclusion. That does not make it the least parsimonious conclusion to me.
I would be quite interested though, to know what your answer is to the quote/question that Don left you. It is not something I’m that familiar with and doesn’t even ring a bell the way the quote is phrased - so do please answer him with your opinion.
Don,
Sorry about the Ravens. Go Steelers! Though if the Cardinals win that will be good, too. I like both teams, though I have to root for Big Ben and Pittsburgh.
"..the quote/question that Don left you. It is not something I’m that familiar with and doesn’t even ring a bell the way the quote is phrased - so do please answer him with your opinion."
Here's a quote that I perhaps should have included, but I didn't want to put too much, nevertheless, perhaps this might help:
"How the Earth came to overflow with such a great number of animal species all of a sudden, and how these distinct types of species with no common ancestors could have emerged, is a question that remains unanswered by evolutionists."
Interesting Don - my bet is likely that is happened over hundreds of millions of years, which removes the problem of rapid diversity. But I will be interested to hear what Maalie has to say.
Don, What's your source on that?
Ted,
The author is a Turkish scientist, and a moralist Muslim. I was just clicking around and found his site. http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_1_02.html
Here's another interesting quote: "INTERESTING SPINES: One of the creatures which suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age was Hallucigenia, seen at top left. And as with many other Cambrian fossils, like the one at the right it has spines or a hard shell to protect it from attack by enemies. The question that evolutionists cannot answer is, "How could they have come by such an effective defense system at a time when there were no predators around?" The lack of predators at the time makes it impossible to explain the matter in terms of natural selection."
Don,
Thanks much.
I came here to erase some of my recent comments again, as I felt i was out of line as far as conversation here goes. The appeal was to Maalie.
I'm bowing out of here, as I really did butt in to this conversation, and for that, I'm sorry.
All I can say about Philip Johnson is that he is a self-confessed born-again Christian, a fundamentalist in the strict sense of the word. He believes in the literal truth of the bible.
What he claims about Darwinism simply isn't true, he distorts the truth.
Please read the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject, and even go to some natural history museums and see the evidence for yourself.
I cannot offer explanations in a blog comment that would take me a whole academic semester to teach. You should cast aside all your preconceived notions about Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark and start learning again from scratch, with a purely open mind.
The problem is that if one has chosen to be a fundamentalist, they don't WANT to have an open mind and seek the real truth about how the world operates.
Or vise versa, Maalie my dear.
I feel that your response is a little too glib, Halfmom, and I cannot agree entirely with you. Certainly, it is true that there have been scientists who became entrenched and closed-minded in their opinions (Lamark is a good example). However, science by its nature IS open-minded - it has to be. Hypotheses are constantly being refined, reformulated, or even rejected as new evidence from observation or experimentation comes to light. If thie were not true your doctor would still be blood-letting you with leeches.
On the other hand fundamentalism is, by definition, closed-minded, adhering to the doctrines of an ancient book. Even to the extent that the whole of human diversity arose from just two people (genetically impossible - you know that); and that the whole of species biodiversity has stemmed from what could be crammed into Noah's boat that could not have been built before the neolithic revolution (genetically impossible, you know that); and not to mention that bats are birds!
"The problem is that if one has chosen to be a fundamentalist, they don't WANT to have an open mind and seek the real truth about how the world operates."
That maybe true for some, I agree. But not for all.
I have an open mind, and am unafraid of evidence.
"I cannot offer explanations in a blog comment that would take me a whole academic semester to teach."
That makes sense.
And one more quote to ponder:
"Scientists should admit that science does not provide any evidence against well-formulated theology. On the other hand, religion should not oppose scientific progress." -Martin Nowak Professor of Mathematic and Biology at Harvard
> Scientists should admit that science does not provide any evidence against well-formulated theology
I agree. Science does not seek to do that. However, science can show that there is no requirement to invoke a supernatural entity in order to explain the origin and development of life on earth (and other natural phenomena outside my sphere of competence). And since the scientific explanations are more parsimonious (make fewer assumptions) than theological, they are preferred.
There is ample evidence to explain, for example, that the whole of humanity could not have been derived from just two people so recently in the history of life on earth.
"There is ample evidence to explain, for example, that the whole of humanity could not have been derived from just two people so recently in the history of life on earth." -Maalie
Do you think "all the various ethnic groups independently evolved and just happened to arrive at this point, capable of reproducing with those in other ethnic groups?"
"Some evolutionist have recently argued that the DNA for an entire human race can conceivably be traced back to a single woman in Africa. The mere theoretical possibility of tracing all presently existing human beings back to one set of parents isn't a sceintific difficulty."
For the Christian, who believes Adam was created by God, as well as Eve, and so our first parents, "Adam and Eve were created with DNA containing the potential for the kind of visible variation that now exists." [Quotes are from Dr. Keith Mathison]
Susan. if you want to discontinue this evolution discussion that's good with me. But since Maalie made a comment, and I had some comments of my own, I thought I'd engage maalie if he wanted.
I don't want to drag this on, if it's boring and awkward for others.
You guys go right ahead and discuss if you want to here - you know my rules - as long as you're really listening to one another respectfully then I don't have a problem with it. It's when it starts getting less than civil that I draw the line.
Maalie - even if there hadn't been more than one paper in Science and Nature talking about mitochondrial DNA being traceable back to a single female source believing that such diversity of race came from two people - or that such diversity of animals came from the ark is not problem.
I have a rather creative imagination - and I consider myself to be finite and rather dull compared with God. Remembering that He can speak things into being that were not, it seems to be quite a little thing to throw some diversity into His routine.
After all, remember that I believe in a God who spoke all of creation into being, so what small feat would it be for Him to just speak some diversity into it later on?
Truthfully, I'm pretty jaded right now about how independently logical science and scientists are right now. I've seen far to much building of hypotheses based on someones belief and not on the data they have to think that science is any different in that respect than religion.
> more than one paper in Science and Nature talking about mitochondrial DNA being traceable back to a single female source
I am afraid that is a gross misrepresentation of the fact. If you trace mitochindrial DNA backwards you will eventually reach a single woman, true. But that does NOT mean that there was only one woman alive at the time - there could not have been. It means that the descendants of the other woman have merely integrated with each others descendants. I concede that this is a conceptually difficult subject area and that is why it takes so long to teach, and to understand, the full implications of the subject.
Like Donsands, I shall now withdraw from this (at least for the time being) not out of peevishness, but because I find myself up against prejudice. In any case, I am just off on holiday with Lorenzo!
Have a terrific holiday with Lorenzo!
Donsands: Thank you, we plan to go skating :-)
Halfmom, I apologise if I did not seem very constructive in my last comment.
I ask you to read this about Mitochondrial Eve, scrolling down in particular to the paragraph marked "misconceptions".
This is of course just the sort of misconception that is seized upon by fundamentalists (in the strict sense of the word). The most elementary mathematics will tell you that the whole of humanity, and its various races, could not possibly have descended from a single pair of people.
Post a Comment