Once again another Triple Crown disappointment at the majestic, mysterious Belmont. The last 30 years horse racing has not seen a Triple crown winner, the streak continues after today's Belmont. Horse Big Brown had one the first two legs of the Triple Crown by winning at both Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes but not Belmont. Big Brown had been made the 2-5 favorite for Saturday's 1 1/2 mile "Test of Champions" at Belmont Park.
Big Brown failed in his bid to become horse racing's 12th Triple Crown winner when he finished dead last to Da' Tara, the winner today.
"I had no horse," said Big Brown's jockey, Kent Desormeaux.
So what went wrong?, " I have no idea."
The bay colt's disappointing performance followed convincing victories in the Kentucky Derby and Preakness. He failed on the same track where 10 horses had been beaten over the last three decades. The last horse to win the Triple Crown was Affirmed in 1978.
Belmont has been the most difficult of the three to win for the Triple Crown.
Anyone say, hoof injury?
Because I hate it! I grew up in West Virginia, "mountain momma, take me home." My neighbors were very few, and my family had a lot of land to do with as we pleased. We were responsible enough to take care of our land.
Today, now that we live in the "city," we are surrounded by houses. None of the homes have
sufficient land. Sure we have neighbors, but that is good and bad.
There are researched problem associated with suburbia:
Everyone has a pet!
A lot of noise
A lot of traffic
A lot of kids running around busy streets
Lack of diversity
Easier access to drugs and substances
amount of electricity used to power homes
Nothing ECO-friendly or Green
Increase in violence
Increase in obesity
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17160 (advantages not very convincing)
Instant in Season - My Utmost for His Highest, April 25th
Be instant in season, out of season." 2 Timothy 4:2
Many of us suffer from the morbid tendency to be instant "out of season." The season does not refer to time, but to us - 'Be instant in season, out of season," whether we feel like it or not. If we do only what we feel inclined to do, some of us would do nothing for ever and ever. There are unemployables in the spiritual domain, spiritually decrepit people, who refuse to do anything unless they are supernaturally inspired. The proof that we are rightly related to God is that we do our best whether we feel inspired or not.
One of the great snares of the Christian worker is to make a fetish of his rare moments. When the Spirit of God gives you a time of inspiration and insight, you say - "Now I will always be like this for God." No, you will not, God will take care you are not. Those times are the gift of God entirely. You cannot give them to yourself when you choose. If you say you will only be at your best, you become an intolerable drag on God; you will never do anything unless God keeps you consciously inspired. If you make a god of your best moments, you will find that God will fade out of your life and never come back until you do the duty that lies nearest, and have learned not to make a fetish of your rare moments.
It is a sticky situation:
on one hand ID does a good job of showing flaws in Darwinism and evolution. Which can be helpful for Christian evangelists...
"The problem is, and it's a big one, for evolutionists is that there is very, very little evidence that backs evolutionary biology aside from survival of the fittest. Darwin himself said that for his theory to be valid, the fossil record must contain literally millions of transitional species. Where are these millions? Show them to me and I'll believe.
The fact is, they aren't there. They have not been found, despite the billions of other fossils we have in our museums across the globe. God and His Creation are enough. No evolution required."
On the other hand it does nothing to prove the existence of Christian God
In fact true Christians should NOT be ID supporters.
because ID is not enough! you need more! If you really are a Christian and believe the Bible than you will know that ID does not cut it.
It is a little sketchy to be a Christian who supports ID.
You are giving the wrong ideas off about your personal faith
you are giving off the wrong ideas about ID
and you are giving off the wrong ideas about Christians in general
intelligent design only demonstrates that materialist atheism is not true. It does not provide a basis for the distinctive doctrines of Christianity.
Proof of the existence of God is central to Christian apologetics, and therefore a part of Christian evangelism. ID offers a proof of a designer, which certainly is evidence for the existence of God because I’d say that philosophically… logically… God makes the most sense for the identity of the designer).
But this is dangerous grounds to stand on. If you are a Christian, I suggest reading the Bible and basing your world view on it...Creationism.
So after the past week you have seen posts agianst Darwinism, about Expelled (the movie), about academic freedom, and the differences between Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID). Constantly I remind you that I am a Creationist and not a proponent of ID.
Why am I supporting it or giving it a fair chance? Why do I care? I am fighting for academic freedom. I believe in knowing all sides of the issues. I believe they should teach the controversy. I believe that idea of religion should be pushed aside a little bit and the science should be taught in classrooms. What I mean by that is I believe that in a classroom a teacher can be politically correct and teach Creationism, ID and evolution (all three sides of the debate) without pushing one side over the other. It must be done. The controversy must be taught without bias. Forget about religious views and show what each group believes.
Today more and more students are coming out of schools ignorant. They are without knowledge and do not even know the difference between ID and Creationism. Students are coming out brainwashed in the ideas of evolution. People are afraid that if ID and/or Creation is taught in schools that their kids will come out brainwashed in those ideas....but they what they missing their own point, students are currently being brainwashed! We need science taught objectively and all angles need to be presented. Yeah it would be difficult for a teacher to do, but it MUST be done!
If students want to be religious that is fine. But in the classroom they should learn ALL sides. They can study and or be a part of the religion outside of class period, that is great. I want people to know that facts and know the truth. I think the truth will really set people free. I believe that when presented with ALL angles, ALL sides, that people will make their own choices. People will follow the evidence and find what really is Truth, but when only ONE side of the story is giving at school, students are ignorant. Society is ignorant.
All I am asking is that we should have the freedom in America to study ALL vantage points in schools.
"Teaching the controversy [regarding evolution versus intelligent design] is good education," Laursen says, adding that he is "not shocked" to see such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union "opposing academic freedom and promoting censorship."
Ravi Zacharias said it well: “To the extent that you can make your opponent’s position look ridiculous, to that extent you probably do not understand it.”
If professors do not have the right to study intelligent design, how will the general public ever legitimately study Intelligent Design (ID)? Also how will we anyone illegitimately come up with “evidence?” If you believe that there isn't any credible evidence why do you care if people study it or not?
The point is that I am angry about the close-mindedness and elite “big science” that does not even allow for study of ID. In all seriousness I am not an ID proponent. I do not believe in it at all. I am a Creationist. But I want to know what it is about. I want everyone to have the right and freedom in America to study ID freely, just as they should have the right to study evolution or Creationism or whatever.
You might say that “there is no credible evidence for Intelligent Design.” Well that is fine, why though should people be kicked out of a job for mentioning ID? If the evidence is so bad why not encourage people to study it? What do you have to loose? Are you afraid that evidence will destroy your beloved "evolution argument!?" And if it does, so what? Why not allow people to follow where the evidence leads? Maybe it will lead to evolution, my point is let people study all angles and all sides of the debate!
I am ticked because there are plenty of false lies that Universities are teaching as facts, and people are free to learn about them! For example, theories in social sciences like psychology and sociology. Everyone learns about them and yet everyone studies them. They are even told how these theories are flawed and sometimes these theories are supported with evidence.
The point is both sides of the story are presented and professors and students are free to learn about them… but ID on the other hand is not allowed. My heart is crying out about academic freedom! Please do not be so close-minded and say that because there is no credible evidence that no one should be allowed to learn about it, because that is elitist and close-minded.
Theories that are not supported are the foundation to everything we have every studied. Our nation is build on learning and having the freedom to learn and study everything. Science in American history shows that experimenting and studying theories that might be false is the best way to learn what is true. I want to have the freedom to find out what is true. I want to study all aspects freely in America.
How is it that Evolution and Darwinism are just theories and the are not supported with hard evidence but no one is giving them a hard time?
Yet when people mention other unsupported theories say Intelligent Design, minds are closed, institutions lock the doors and theories are crushed..
The truth is Creationism and ID are 2 completely different things. People try to say that ID is just a watered down version of Creationism, it is just a political way to slide in Creationism....well frankly both of these are just plain false!
The truth is Orthodox Christians are not ID proponents, I am not. Most Christians honestly do not even know what ID is about!!!!!
And the for the ID proponent's sake....most of them are NOT Christians or religious at all!
True Christians cannot nor will not support ID. Scientologists are more likely to support it than Christians are. In fact Richard Dawkins is more likely a supporter of ID than a your informed practicing Christian.
What is ID? (well Expelled did not do so good at explaining terms...for any term, really!)
1. "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".
2. It is a modern form of the traditional y and philosophical arguments for the existence of a designer
3. that designer could be anything, not necessarily even "god"
4. supported by The Discovery Institute (which is NOT a Christian Institution) Sure they take money from Christians (wouldn't you?) who want to support it and Christian Apologists have worked with the Discovery Institute on projects but the they are 2 independent groups with 2 independent views and beliefs.
What are the differences between Creationism?
Intelligent Design adherents believe only that the complexity of the natural world could not have occurred by chance. Some intelligent entity must have created the complexity, they reason, but that "designer" could in theory be anything or anyone.
Creationism comes in many varieties, from the strictest biblical literalism to the theistic evolutionism of the Catholic Church . Between those extremes, there are "Young-Earth" and "Old-Earth" creationists, who differ over the age of the planet and the details of how God created life. But in all cases the Designer is the Christian God. They are based out of the Bible.
At a recent completed trial Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board:
Creationism they claim, is inextricably linked to the creation story in Genesis. ID, by contrast, is a solid scientific theory resting upon a firm foundation of biological fact. And while theological inferences could certainly be drawn from it, such inferences are unrelated to the theory itself.
This is key!
People are adding theological implications that are not necessarily being claimed by the ID supporters...Why?
"the easiest way for Darwinists to discredit intelligent design is to push it off as a theory or political theory for "creationism." It is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists to delegitimize ID theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. It is laziness.
The scientific method (for ID) is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Where does one draw a line between science and religion?
According to intelligent design network people should and can be objective when studying science. People can make their own personal decision on religion but all sides can be taught equally and p in a politically correct fashion at our schools. This is part of academic freedom. That we should fight for!
Like I said I am not a ID proponent, I am a Creationist. I believe in the Bible and that God created all that is in 7days, but I can and will support and express this view in more detail at a later date. But I am all about academic freedom and letting people be free to study all sides of the debate.
learn more and find out what to do at: