Wednesday, February 19, 2025

Speculation

 We've had two significant air crashes in 2025, which seems like a lot.  It could be that flying is not a zero risk endeavour and the the odds finally caught up (1:11,000,000) and we had a couple close together.  

What is interesting about both of these crashes is the lack of information about the flight crews being released.  This lack of transparency about the flight crews has certainly led to lots of speculation about the makeup and competency of the pilots.   Obviously the speculation could have been minimized by releasing the information, but it wasn't.   So when people look at the social media presence of Endeavor Air (the operators of the Delta regional flight) it seems reasonable to question the make up of the flight crew and whether or not the pilots might have been promoted due to factors other than strictly competence.   That the cause of the crash seems to be pilot error leading to a landing so hard as to destroy one side of the landing gear, it seems like the pilots qualifications might be important.   It is possible that this was a maintenance issue and the the landing gear just collapsed due to negligence or some other reason.  If this is the case, then likewise it would be valuable to have information about those who did the maintenance.  

Given the fact that this most recent crash was in Canada, it's possible that the Canadian version of the FAA/NTSB might do things differently and more slowly.   Unfortunately, the longer they wait, the more speculation there will be.  

A Little History

 Dan regularly complains that I won't spoon feed (my term) him resources for things.   Well back on October 16th of 2017 (https://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2017/10/origins.html)  I posted the following.  It's a list of resources to support the arguments regarding the origin of everything.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Dan has read, studied, or critiqued precisely zero of these resources.  FYI the comments are full of additional resources.   Strangely enough, Dan stayed silent.  

 

 

"A while back Dan made the claim that "God created us in God's image.".   I was a little surprised to hear him so emphatically declare that God had created us.  So, I asked for clarification.  After some initial misunderstanding and confusion on his part, he finally responded with a statement of sorts about what he meant by using the word "create".   As part of the digression, there was a request that I "point" him in the direction of some resources on creation that might be more recent than his extensive reading from 2-3 decades ago.

I "pointed" him to a couple of options, which he responded to with a degree of derision.  Instead of continue down that road, I've decided to post a brief bibliography with some different views from a Christian perspective on the origins of life.



William Dembski- Mere Creation, The Design Inference, No Free Lunch, Signs of Intelligence, Uncommon Dissent,
Jonathan Wells- Icons of Evolution
Jaques Barzun- Darwin, Marx, Wagner: Critique if a Heritage
Phillip E. Johnson- Reason in the Balance
Michael Behe- Darwin’s Black Box
John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer- Darwinism, Design, and Public Education
Francis Beckwith- Law, Darwinism, and Public Education
Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen- The Mystery of Life’s Origin
Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards- The Privileged Planet
Rose and Rose- Alas Poor Darwin
Stephen C. Meyer- Darwin’s Doubt, Signature in the Cell
Guillermo Gonzalez- Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
Alister McGrath-The Dawkins Delusion, Dawkins God
Charles Colson- How Now Shall We Live, Burden of Truth
Denyse O’Leary-By Design or By Chance
Lewis and Barnes- A Fortunate Universe
http://www.discovery.org/a/200


If Dan would like to avail himself of any of these resources, they are here for him.  What will not be allowed is any of the ad hom/broad brush/snobbish attacks on entire groups of people he's chosen at his blog.  Anything of that nature will quickly disappear and never be seen again.   Any, actual engagement with anything specifically mentioned in any of these resources, or any actual refutation will be welcomed.


Monday, October 16, 2017"

Monday, February 17, 2025

Hypothetically

 Hypothetical.

If the child of a former president was getting annual funding for USAID since the Obama administration for providing one meal per day to children in Africa, India, and Bangladesh, at a cost of $1,410 per meal, should that hypothetical funding be reallocated to another person/organization that could feed the same number of children for say $10/meal?   Should the federal government audit this person/charity, or simply pull funding?

Would it make any difference if the person in question had a hypothetical net worth (with spouse) of almost $200,000,000?  

Personally, if someone with a net worth of almost $200,000,000 was receiving millions yearly to do so little "charity", I'd cut the cord immediately.   There's no way private donors would support something this inefficient, but the feds just keep handing out cash. 

TSOTM

 The Sermon on the Mount is one of the scriptural passages that progressive christians love to cherry pick and use to support their social agenda.  Often choosing to ignore the non temporal aspects of this sermon, in favor of proof texting their commitment to secular social justice.  

  But, as with many of Jesus' teachings there are parts that get ignored. 

"Towards the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives warning after warning. The final one is sharp. Not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter the kingdom. Some will stand before Him, listing their works—preaching, casting out demons, performing miracles. But Jesus will say, “I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” It is a gut punch. A moment of reckoning. Jesus has been clear. The easy road leads to destruction. The hard road leads to life. Few find it. Wolves come dressed as sheep. They sound right. They look right. They deceive others. But the greatest danger is not false teachers. It is self-deception. False teachers lie to you. False believers lie to themselves. There are liars in the pulpit and liars in the pews. Jesus contrasts two types of people: those who say and those who do. Not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will enter, but the one who does the will of the Father. Their profession is orthodox in words, but false in life. They call Him Lord, and He is. Their theology is correct, but their hearts are far from Him. They are passionate, saying “Lord, Lord.” They emphasize it, repeat it, speak with fervor. Passion is good, but passion is not proof. They point to their public works—prophesying, casting out demons, miracles. They were known. Respected. Successful. But their success was no sign of salvation. Apparent spiritual activity does not equal spiritual reality. God is so good that He sometimes works through the hands of evil men. Judas preached. Judas performed signs. Judas cast out demons. The disciples returned amazed—“Even the demons are subject to us in your name!” Jesus replied, “Do not rejoice that the spirits obey you. Rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” That’s the key. Not the works. Not the words. The name written in heaven. Jesus ends with His own public declaration: “I never knew you.” Imagine hearing those words. Not “You lost your way.” Not “I used to know you.” But “I never knew you.” They were never His. They were in the house of God but not in the family of God. Their faith was a performance, a self-deception, a lie. Goats look like sheep. But goats do not follow the Shepherd. They follow their hunger, their will. They are stubborn, self-willed, independent. They think they are His. They are not. This is a warning against trusting in outward things—in right words, right affiliations, right actions—while your heart remains unchanged. The danger is real. A man can be a preacher, a miracle worker, a missionary, and still be unknown by Christ. A church can be full of passionate people, reciting creeds, singing psalms, preaching truth—and still be a wreck. Because saying isn’t doing. Passion isn’t proof. Success isn’t salvation. In the end, there will be two kinds of people—those who do the will of the Father, and those who only say they do. The question is not merely, Do you call Him Lord?" The question is, "Does He know you?"m Lord?" The question is, "Does He know you?""

 

Reverend Michael Foster 

 

 Personally, I question whether anyone who anchors their theology/worldview in their won personal experience and feelings would probably get a no on that last question.

 

 

Maybe Things Are Not What They Seem

 Dan made much ado about Trump being overturned by a couple of lower court judges and demanded that everyone make definitive claims about how they would respond of SCOTUS finds against Trump.   Well, let's see if his reverence for the judiciary is still what it was, and let's see his support for the more recent rulings on Trump's actions.  



https://www.beaufortcountynow.com/post/86714/massive-conflict-of-interest-found-on-anti-trump-federal-judge.html

https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/judge-mcconnells-daughter-catherine-works-in-education-department-elon-musk-sparks-row-article-118156678

https://instituteforlegalreform.com/press-release/mcconnell-is-unqualified-to-sit-on-the-federal-bench-in-rhode-island/

 https://x.com/america1stlegal/status/1891226933481877590?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw


So the states that sued Trump decided to venue shop to find a friendly judge, well known as a highly partisan democrat, who would find in their favor on their initial motion.   That doesn't really sound like the way that an impartial judicial system should be engaged in cases of this import.  


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-declines-block-musks-doge-from-accessing-data-firing-employees

I'm sure that Dan will be applauding this judicial decision because of his reverence for the judicial system. 

Again, WTH?????

 https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/17/call-your-senators-and-ask-them-to-vote-against-lori-chavez-deremer/

 

I'm not going to waste time reiterating WK's points about this Trump's cabinet picks.  I am going to note that it's these sorts of actions that convince me that every president needs to be  be judged on individual actions, choices, and words when they don't align with the principles espoused during the campaign or with the majority of his supporters.  One only hopes that the GOP and conservatives can force Trump to make a better choice. 

Friday, February 14, 2025

Users

 Dan posted about not being used by users, which seems reasonable.    However, when it comes to politicians, I'd argue that any politician who amasses vast personal wealth while allegedly engaged in public service is the very worst kind of user.   We see plenty of examples of members of congress using their insider knowledge to make millions in the stock market.   We see people regularly manage to amass tens of millions of dollars wile earning less than $200,000 a year.  I'm suggesting that those who pardon family members who've engaged in influence peddling, or who've engaged in spreading lies about political opponents, are also users. 

I'm not advocating for users, I am suggesting that to focus on one or two users (especially one whose net worth dropped while in office), while remaining silent on a multitude of others is probably driven by partisan hatred than by principle.