Funniest First Date Ever!

Circulating email....

If you didn't see this on the Tonight show, I hope you're sitting down when you read it. This is probably the funniest date story ever, first date or not! We have all had bad dates but this takes the cake.

Jay Leno went into the audience to find the most embarrassing first date that a woman ever had. The winner described her worst first date experience. There was absolutely no question as to why her tale took the prize!

She said it was midwinter... Snowing and quite cold...and the guy had taken her skiing in the mountains outside Salt Lake City, Utah. It was a day trip (no overnight). They were strangers, after all, and truly had never met before. The outing was fun but relatively uneventful until they were headed home late that afternoon.

They were driving back down the mountain, when she gradually began to realize that she should not have had that extra latte. They were about an hour away from anywhere with a rest room and in the middle of nowhere!

Her companion suggested she try to hold it, which she did for a while. Unfortunately, because of the heavy snow and slow going, there came a point where she told him that he had better stop and let her go beside the road, or it would be the front seat of his car. They stopped and she quickly crawled out beside the car, yanked her pants down and started.

In the deep snow she didn't have good footing, so she let her butt rest against the rear fender to steady herself. Her companion stood on the side of the car watching for traffic and indeed was a real gentleman and refrained from peeking. All she could think about was the relief she felt despite the rather embarrassing nature of the situation. Upon finishing however, she soon became aware of another sensation.

As she bent to pull up her pants, the young lady discovered her buttocks were firmly glued against the car's fender. Thoughts of tongues frozen to poles immediately came to mind as she attempted to disengage her flesh from the icy metal. It was quickly apparent that she had a brand new problem due to the extreme cold.

Horrified by her plight and yet aware of the humor of the moment, she answered her date's concerns about 'what is taking so long' with a reply that indeed, she was 'freezing her butt off' and in need of some assistance!

He came around the car as she tried to cover herself with her sweater and then, as she looked imploringly into his eyes, he burst out laughing. She too, got the giggles and when they finally managed to compose themselves, they assessed her dilemma.

Obviously, as hysterical as the situation was, they also were faced with a real problem. Both agreed it would take something hot to free her chilly cheeks from the grip of the icy metal! Thinking about what had gotten her into the predicament in the first place, both quickly realized that there was only one way to get her free.

So, as she looked the other way, her first-time date proceeded to unzip his pants and pee her butt off the fender. As the audience screamed in laughter, she took the Tonight Show prize hands down. Or, perhaps that should be 'pants down'. And you thought your first date was embarrassing.

Jay Leno's comment... 'This gives a whole new meaning to being pissed off'.

Oh, and how did the first date turn out? He became her husband and was sitting next to her on the Leno show.

We were without electricity for 2 days due to the recent ice storm, and I swear I thought at times my butt was going to freeze to the toilet seat it was sooooooo cold. Luckily, my guys are always prepared, and they hunted down the kerosene heaters and lamps and we were able to keep a couple rooms quite toasty.

You don't realize how spoiled you are with all the modern conveniences until you lose all electricity for a few days!

My Boys getting Christmas Crazy...

Taking a little break

I've been deep in the trenches this week reading forums and blogs where discussion of these debate issues wage on relentlessly.

Honestly, it's starting to really get to me. The hatred and venom being shot back and forth is horrific, so I'm going to take a bit of time off and reflect upon my participation in this debate.

Have a great weekend, and enjoy the Christmas Season.

Blog Diets

I was watching the Early Show this morning, and they were talking about blog diets and how well they work. I know it was much easier for me to lose weight during the blog diet that took place here during the first 5 months of the year rather than just working at it on my own.


I'm hoping to start one up again Jan. 1. I know my sister is interested, and Kristine (Amused Muse) said she might join us.

Kristine, my sister and I are all in our early forties, so we are primarily interested in eating healthy rather than starving ourselves to get the weight off. A healthy lifestyle is much more important than looking good (or so they say).

Anywhoo...I'd love for people to join us. I know most of my readers are Darwinists, and the IDers who read my blog are probably worried about what the crazy soccer Mom gone activist is going to say next, so I'm not sure if I can get anyone to join us due to that fact. But, I thought it would be fun to invite anyone who is interested regardless of your thoughts about evolution, ID, religion, the culture war, etc., etc.

Bloggers are especially encouraged to join, because I think some of us spend far to much time sitting on our butts at our laptops when we should be out jogging!

**sobbing**

It gets even uglier...

I simply cannot believe how intense this debate has become. I also don't understand how on earth some of these professors can consider ID as a "movement that is endangering science". That's insane.

**reaches for another klennex**

More on Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez's Tenure Case

The tenure case has become so sordid, I just can't bring myself to comment about it...

Ugh, and Ugh.

Sigh...

John West in MN

Bruce Chapman gives us more information about West's lecture at the University of MN. Seems West was kind enough to introduce PZ and his groupies. He even gave PZ the high atheist honor of being compared to Richard Dawkins. Gosh, PZ must be gushing with pride!

Just as expected

Per my previous post, PZ/Laden et. al. cry victory. D'oh, isn't that what they always claim regardless of what actually transpires.

Laden claims the hound knocked West cold, and the handful of other Darwinists danced around his "unconscious, livid body".

Apparently, he took a picture to prove the beating...



Tsk, Tsk, such violent behavior.

Don't worry though, it sounds as if the crowd was not entirely made up of PZ's atheist followers. You can read Greg's account for yourself...but, don't believe a word of it. No doubt West did a superb job at explaining the facts to the audience.

The Hound of Hell...

...is hot on the heels of John West tonight. West is speaking at the University of MN, and it looks like PZ and the militia are ready to strike! Free beer and pre-seminar preparation will ensue before they take aim at their target.

I'm sure West is just shaking in his boots...lol. I can't imagine reasonable folks being impressed with the likes of PZ and his atheist fundamentalism. Poor thing hasn't figured out yet that he's the mirror image of all that he abhors about religious intolerance.

One has to wonder if some day he'll wake up, smack himself on the forehead and say to himself, "dang, I'm a religious extremist! What in the world have I been thinking?"

Nah, he just doesn't get it...

Physical Laws Revisited

The other day, I was wondering about physical laws and where they originated from.

This afternoon, I ran across an article by Paul Davies that was being discussed at Telic Thoughts. The article is very interesting and pretty much sum up the belief that I've always had that there are many areas of science which are based upon faith. It's a shame that, in some instances, this scientific faith is considered irrefutible "fact" (as is the case with Darwinian evolution).

In regard to physical laws, Davies writes:

You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified.

...

Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality.

...

The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.

...

[U]ntil science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

Chemically Run Meat Puppets

This quote from Denyse O'Leary had me rolling...

"Wait till you see what your materialist masters think about you, meat puppet. Bunch of chemicals running around in a bag."

She reminds readers that the little phrase that the dogmatic evolutionists (Genie Scott comes to mind) love to pass on to their religious friends - "there is no conflict between your religion and current materialists evolution theory" - is bunk.

Truthfully, they're full of it when they make comments like this. Surf the forums for a while...the materialists base their faith on the supposed "fact" that science trumps religion and evolution negates a designer. Hence, God is dead.

That doesn't seem to bother Theistic Evolutionists though. Their faith in a designer who, they seem to agree, has left absolutely no evidence of his hand in the process is mind boggling.

Miller Plays with his Mouse Trap

Behe's reply:

"The problem... is that it's not an argument against anything I've ever said. In my book, I explicitly point out that some of the components of biochemical machines can have other functions. But the issue remains - can you use numerous, slight, successive modifications to get from those other functions to where we are?

"Some of this objection seems a bit silly. Could a component of a mousetrap function as a paperweight? Well, what do you need to be a paperweight? You need mass. You need to exist. An elephant, or my computer, or a stick can be a paperweight. But suppose you go buy a paperweight. What would it look like? Most of them are nondescript, roundish things. None of them look anything like a precursor to a mousetrap. Besides, look at what he's doing: he's starting from the finished product - the mousetrap - and disassembling it and moving a few things around to use them for other puposes. Again, that's intelligent design!"

"The question for evolution is not whether you can take a mousetrap and use its parts for something else: it's whether you can start with something else and make it into a mousetrap. The problem for evolutionists is to start with a less complex system and build a more complex system. Even if every component could theoretically have a useful function prior to its assembly into the mousetrap, you'd still have the problem of how the mousetrap becomes assembled."

...

"When people put together a mousetrap, they have the disassembled components in different drawers or something, and they grab one from each drawer and put it together. But in the cell, there's nobody there to do that."

"In molecular machines, components have portions of their shape that are complementary to each other, so they connect with each other in the right way. A positive charge can attract a negative charge, and an oily region can attract another oily region. So if we use the mousetrap as an analogy, one end of the spring would have to have a certain shape or magnetism that just happened to attract and fit with another component of the trap. They'd all have to fit together that way until you had the whole trap assembled by itself.

"In other words, if you just had the components themselves without the ability to bring the pieces into position, you'd be far from having a functioning mousetrap. Nobody ever addresses this problem in the evolutionary literature. If you do any calculations about how likely this could occur by itself, you find it's very improbable. Even with the small machines, you wouldn't expect them to self-assemble during the entire life-time of the earth. That's a severe problem that evolutionists don't like to address."

(248-249)

HT: Frank

New ID Briefing Packet

On my side bar you will find links to the new ID briefing packet that the Discovery Institute recently released in response to the PBS-NOVA documentary "Judgment Day".

Great resource for educators!

Waxing the Beast

Merry CHRISTmas!

Go KSU

How did Physical Laws Evolve?

Just curious.

Human Chromosome #2

Ken Miller and Darwinists in general are very fond of using human chromosome #2 as a testament to their faith in common descent.

Evolutionists like to pose these points as their evidence:

All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.

Evidence for fusing of two ancestral chromosomes to create human chromosome 2 and where there has been no fusion in other Great Apes is:


1) The analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2. (1)

2) The remains of the sequence that the chromosome has on its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the ancestral chromosomes fused. (2)

3) the detail of this region (pre-telomeric sequence, telomeric sequence, reversed telomeric sequence, pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion. (3)

4) this telomeric region is exactly where one would expect to find it if a fusion had occurred in the middle of human chromosome 2.

5) the centromere of human chromosome 2 lines up with the chimp chromosome 2p chromosomal centromere.

6) At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere (4).

Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism.

Of course it's hard to explain in other terms if you've been slipped the Darwinian Blue Pill, but let's go ahead and consider the following...

The problem with the conclusion, and with much of the discussion, is that it mingles the evidence with the explanation--so the conclusion, as stated, assumes that there was a common ancestor between apes and humans, which makes it difficult to use it as evidence for a common ancestor. To untangle this, let's rewrite the conclusion so that it no longer makes this assumption:

The evidence that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two chromosomes is overwhelming. The two chromosomes it appears to derive from are directly analgous to chromosomes that are found in apes.

However, once you make this change, an explanation that agrees with creationist accounts of human ancestry just falls out. It would go something like this:

Humans were created in a separate creative event from the other primates, but with 24 chromosome pairs just like them. At some point early in human history, fusion of the chromosomes occurred to give us the 23 pairs we have now. All living humans are descended from those in which the fusion occurred.

The point is simply this: the evidence points to the fusion of human chromosomes, but gives no indication when this happened, except that it must have occurred to a creature that was the ancestor of all living humans. Since none of the apes share this fused chromosome, there is no reason at all to date this fusion any further back than warranted, so it becomes unnecessary to even posit the existence of a common ancestor between apes and humans based on this evidence alone.

What is interesting is this: at first glance, looking from an evolutionary perspective, this seems to have dealt a death blow to creationist accounts of human origins. (The main problem for the creationist is why God would have chosen to create humans with chromosomes that have useless bits in them i.e. the telomene sequences in the middle, and in a way that mimics fusion of 2 chromosomes).

But actually, the evolutionary interpretation has overstepped the mark -- it doesn't demonstrate common ancestry, it assumes it. All the way through it talks about the chromosomes of a common ancester etc. But by putting the evidence into the evolutionary framework ahead of time it has confused what the evidence actually points to. The evidence does indicate (assuming that the God-created-it-to-look-like-fusion explanation is invalid) that human chromosomes were once more similar to those of apes than they are currently, but that is all.

The article also states:

Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism.

The main basis for saying this appears to be the statement: "At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere". But of course, as the author explains later, we don't actually find the chimp 2q centromere -- there is no label on it saying "I'm a chimp 2q centromere". What we find is the remnants of centromere that is in the same place, relative to certain sequences, as the 2q centromere is in chimps. All this shows is that the ancestor chromosomes (i.e. before the fusion event) of current human chromosomes were closely analagous to chromosomes of apes, including chimps.

So the author claims we can rule out other accounts of human origins, but is unjustified in doing so. The reason for this logical mistake is that he/she has intertwined the evidence and the evolutionary explanation so tightly, and seen that they fit so well, that the author cannot imagine another explanation would fit. In reality, the evidence fits a creationist explanation equally well--there is nothing contrived or tricky about what I have presented, and if evolutionary theory did not exist, there is nothing in this evidence that would make creationists think of common descent. The idea that humans originally had a complete set of chromosomes that correspond to ape chromosomes, rather than only 23 out of 24, does not shake creationist ideas one little bit. We already knew there was a vast amount of similarity between humans and primates both in terms of physical characteristics and genetic material and structure. It is a mistake of the evolutionary mindset to assume that observing similarities necessarily brings you to the conclusion of common descent. Taxonomy based on physical characteristics was already a very well established science when the idea of common descent came on the scene, and people from both the intelligent design and the creationists camps have no problem in understanding physical and genetic similarities that are not rooted in common descent -- that is, it is easy to think of perfectly adequate reasons why a designer (either an unknown intelligence in the case of ID, or God in the case of creationism) might have reused designs.

A lesson for both sides to take away is the importance of detaching yourself from your current position in order to see where the evidence actually points. It is easy to imagine that because evidence fits with your position, and fits very well, it therefore not only confirms your position but disconfirms the rival theories.

Just something to think about...


EDIT: Here is another link on chromosome fusion.

When an educator brings up this particular chromosome fusion event, be sure to consider and share the following questions:

1) HOW did this fusion event happen?
2) At what stage in reproduction?
3) Do you have one fusion event in one person?
4) If so, HOW is that reproduced into the population?
5) Can this “human” with the fused chromosome reproduce with the primate with two separate chromosomes?
6) If not, then does this require two chromosome fusion events?

Pangea not matching up?

Hmmm,very interesting...

For a quarter-century or more, the prevailing view among geoscientists—supported by paleomagnetic records in rock—has been that the portion of the ancient supercontinent of Pangea that is now the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah shifted more than 1,300 miles north during a 100-million-year span that ended about 200 million years ago in the early Jurassic Period, when Pangea began to break up.

But new research by a team of geoscientists from the University of Michigan and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln challenges that theory, based on extensive climate modeling studies and sedimentary records found from Wyoming into Utah and Arizona.

In a paper published in the Nov. 23 issue of the journal Science, U-M geophysicist Rob Van der Voo and co-authors report findings that indicate the area must have remained at the equator during the time in question.

"It's a puzzle, a 'conundrum' is the word we like to use," said Robert Oglesby of UNL. "And in the Science paper, we're not solving the conundrum, we're raising the conundrum."

HT: Creation Evolution Headlines

Gorgeous...

Here is something that most of us will never see...a sunset at the North Pole with the moon at its closest point.

HT to those naughty boys at ATBC.