Posts from — February 2005

I just left a phone message for the weather channel guy, and it gave the option of letting me hear my message before sending it, so I did… and I was surprised that in the short message I said “um” twice. I didn’t even realize it when I was talking.

I got an email from the The Weather Channel guy yesterday. He sent me an address to return the laptop to, and gave me the phone number and email address of the Sony representative that is going to be placing the order for me replacement lappy. I am able to talk to the rep about the configuration, etc. and then he will talk to the Weather Channel guy to finalize the order. So that’s pretty cool.

The only trouble is that I didn’t get the RMA number to put on this package so they know who it’s from and where it’s going and what the whole deal is. So now I just have to wait for that stupid number to send it back.

And I have to pay to send it back. Isn’t that lame? I think it’s lame… but small price to pay for a new lappy.

I stumbled upon this article about the strange creature above. The author writes,

As some readers of the Times may notice, this mole article appears in the science section a day after an op-ed column appeared in the editorial section promoting Intelligent Design. Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biologist, claims that evolutionary biologists have not offered hypotheses for how complex things evolve in nature. Given this supposed lack of explanations, and given the supposedly obvious signs of design in biology, Behe concludes that life must be the product of an Intelligent Designer.

Behe is incorrect. In fact, evolutionary biologists have put together hypotheses for many complex systems, which they have published in leading peer-reviewed biology journals.

And what is the explanation for the above mole’s complex and bizarre nose?

“The star, Catania argues, evolved on a coast-mole-like ancestor. The swellings became larger, the nerves became denser, and the brain dedicated more space to processing the star’s signals.”

Don’t you see? That is a hypothesis for complex systems!! They “became larger” and “became denser”.

This is how complex organs and systems in nature evolved: “Just So“.

These commercials are awesome. The one with the two ladies in the supermarket is especially funny.

The laptop guy did not get in touch with me yesterday afternoon.

UPDATE: 11:12am The guy called me, and said that he spoke with Sony, and things are in the process of being taken care of. He said he will contact me again when he gets more info, like where to ship the laptop I have now, etc.

Also, he said that I would be involved in the configuration of the new system when they get around to ordering that. I asked if it had to be from Sony, and, unfortunately, it does. Just for kicks, the other day I configured a Dell for $1500 and it was so much more computer. But… beggars can’t be choosers.

The other evening, Ashley was taking her sweet little time eating her dinner. So, the rest of us cleaned up and left her there. She was happy with this solution, since it delayed the inevitable, and she didn’t really approve of the inevitable.

So we were in another room, and A. was still at the table. And what do we hear floating to our ears? A little, raspy voice singing..

“How low? How Low!? Big Brown Bass!!”

Laptop Saga

So, today I spoke with the gentleman who I was told is going to be in charge of getting me my lappy. He said that what was supposed to be a very simple boom-boom, has become very complicated, and they have a whole project set up to fix it.

Hehe… pretty funny, methinks.

Anyhow… He said he’d get in touch with me this afternoon.

Lost last night was kind of like Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. when Barty Crouch, Jr. get’s ‘the kiss’.

Deuteronomy 7:1-4

“When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.”

‘For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you‘.

In the past, I’ve had some good discussions with people about parental responsibility in raising their children up to be faithful Christians. A large part of those discussions centers around the parents’, and particularly the father’s, responsibility for particular sins committed by their children (and the same principle, I believe, holds for husband’s responsibility for their wife).

It is argued that a person is guilty of their own sins only, and no one else’s in any way. I argue that, first, a father is responsible to instruct and train his children faithfully, and when they fail to live faithfully, he failed in some respect to train them. Take, as a simple example, a child that screams his head off in the grocery store. It is his sin of anger, bitterness, and lack of self-control. But shouldn’t that child be trained to not be angry or bitter, and to control himself even if he is? The answer is yes. And the parent’s are responsible to teach him that. And, they clearly have not done a good job.

The question then becomes, are the parents guilty for just their own sin of neglect, or are they also partly responsible for the sin of the child? I would say the latter. They share in the guilt, for the child’s sin is partly due to their own sin. I am not trying to suggest that the child is any less guilty for his sin. He is not let off the hook because of his parents’ failure. I just don’t believe we should think about these issues as individualistically as is our first impulse.

Also, even if we consider the impossible hypothetical situation where a man is perfect in how he teaches his child, I still believe he bears responsibility for the sin of his child. He is the covenant head of his household, and as such is responsible for all that takes place in his household. Like Job, he should deal with the sins of his household before the Lord, even when he is not guilty of those sins. The father is united to his household by covenant, and when a child (or his wife) sins, he is responsible for her sin. Why? Because it isn’t just her sin… it is also the household sin. And he is the household, covenantally. He is the representative, before God and before man.

So, back to the text above… The pagan people are the ones that lead the sons away from following God, but God’s anger is against the fathers that married the sons off. God surely is angry with the pagans that draw away His people, but here we are specifically told that it is the fathers, that didn’t lead the sons away (directly), that He is angry with. Why? I believe for both the reasons I gave above… because they are responsible for the spiritual purity of their children, and also because they are covenantally united and responsible for what their children do.

Rat Birthday Cake

via pduggie

Megan and I watched Hero the other night.

Brian Godawa must have been on crack when he saw it. We both enjoyed the movie. Even without the story, it was just beautiful to watch. The colors (which play a big part, even if I haven’t entirely figured out what that part is…), the scenery, the cinematography… it was all very beautiful.

It was also worth watching for the story. I don’t know why Godawa said there was no story… maybe because he didn’t stick around long enough for it to come together. I don’t know. But there is definitely a story, and one with redemptive themes weaved throughout.

There were two major problems with the movie, in our estimation. The first is a sex scene. Or, as the note on the DVD case put it, sensuality. We saw what was coming, and skipped to the next chapter, so I can’t say what exactly the scene involved. As far as I know it is relatively tame for a ‘sensuality’ scene.

The other problem was near the end of the movie with Snow. I won’t go into it because I don’t want to spoil it.

Remy Wilkins also made an observation that I found to be fascinating and very insightful. So check that out, too.