Ken Ham vs Hugh Ross

Here is a very important debate, carried out most politely and thoroughly, between the main proponents of Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism.

I have a number of comments about the views expressed by Ken Hamm, the YEC proponent.

First, Ken says that we cannot make use of astronomy whatsoever, because we are fallen. I would have to say that's a mark against your theological view, especially if you are running a museum which speaks of physical proofs of your creation model.
Secondly, I wonder if it's not possible for a scientist to say something is dis-proven. For example, suppose I have a hypothesis that this cup of coffee always falls UP when I let go. I test the hypothesis by letting go, and it goes DOWN. Is this a TRUTH, even in the eternal, Godly sense, that I have DISproven the hypothesis that things go UP? In science, we can never be sure of what IS, but we very often can disprove that which IS NOT. Science is living with doubt based on what you know is not. I'm just doubtful of Ken's presumption that the fallibility of humans prevents us from learning anything about the past from astronomy.
Thirdly, Ken repeatedly discards any biblical reference that tells about the details of creation that is not in Genesis 1-11. This too I find to be very problematic.  Again, I reason why I think his biblical model is wrong.

Not much else I can type that would add to this piece. Enjoy!

iPhone Recursion

What happens when you point the export of a iPhone camera at an external display?

Amnesty International animation about Tibet

Shameless plug: tuna

Google blogger now allows one to post outright ads on your blog. In searching for something to advertise, I was disappointed in how few options there were for actually selling food. Perhaps it was too close to dinnertime when I was posting this. This tuna snack has served for a meal for me at work at least once in my career.

Cool NASA Video

Shows really cool video of everything NASA is doing. News to me.

35 minutes searching visual references, 15 minutes drawing w/o reference

Call it: the unveiling of the underwater diamond.
Lame, yes, but had Kirby on the mind. Trying out various layers on a Wacom Bamboo tablet.

Comic episode

Playing with Wacom tablet

My stackoverflow badge

Not that I have or ever will be able to make any contribution...

Letter to an Atheist

You may agree with me that the value system of, say, to pick three people, Al Franken, Michael Moore, and Rosie O'Donnell is completely different from that of what could be called "biblical literalism." You might also agree with me that the value system of Franken, Moore, and O'Donnell is incredibly more preferrable than, say, that of Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich. Where you and I would disagree, however, is whether the value system of Santorum, Perry, & Gingrich is a necessary requirement of biblical literalism. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you are either as uneducated as the boo-ers in the Republican debate audiences, or you are a disingenuous propagandist, if you insist that it's so. I would also say that even Penn Jillette agrees with me on this point, as evidenced by exactly how he condemned Michelle Bachmann in a recent interview. I'd also claim that you can do nothing nicer to the "debate boo-ers" than to tell them that they are following the literal dictates of the instruction book left by the Creator of the Universe.