This website does not track you.
It contains no private information. It does not drop persistent cookies, does not collect data other than incoming ip addresses and page views (the internet is a public place), and certainly does not collect and sell your information to others.
Some sites that I link to may try to track you, but that's between you and them, not you and me.
I do collect statistics, but I use a simple stand-alone Wordpress plugin, not third-party services such as Google Analitics over which I have no control.
Finally, this is website is a hobby. It's a hobby in which I am deeply invested, about which I care deeply, and which has enabled me to learn a lot about computers and computing, but it is still ultimately an avocation, not a vocation; it is certainly not a money-making enterprise (unless you click the "Donate" button--go ahead, you can be the first!).
I appreciate your visiting this site, and I desire not to violate your trust.
January 1, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Ok, at least you remembered to tag this for what it is.
January 2, 2007 at 10:03 am
Nah. God took a leak, which carved out the Grand Canyon and, coincidentally, caused the great flood that Noah had to deal with but furthermore, this whole global warming thing? This is so easy to explain…
…God has a fever.
Duh! So easy, even a caveman riding a dinosaur (which they did, of course) could figure it out!
January 2, 2007 at 6:22 pm
If anyone wants to know what the age of the Grand Canyon really is, it’s only logical to depend on the same community that can’t cure the common cold or calculate the trajectory of a hurricane.
January 3, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Ah, yes. The same community that has virtually eradicated polio, can detect oil beneath the ocean depths, and can cool the summer air so that places such as Phoenix become something other than leftover wastelands from Clint Eastwood movies.
All sparring aside, predicting or controlling nature is not the same thing as explaining it.
Two comments:
1. The God I believe in would not have planted the fossil record as some kind of cruel joke.
2. Those who would count up the begats in the Old Testament to fix the birthday of the earth to 23 October 4004 B. C. ignore the other portions of the Old Testament at their peril.
I cannot take them seriously until they wait for the proofs of virginity at weddings, sacrifice a lamb or two turtle doves at the births of their children, and stone adulterers (hetero- or homosexual) to death.
If someone chooses to be a literalist, he forfeits the right to pick and choose what portions of the Scriptures he or she will be a literalist about.
It’s an all or nothing proposition. The moment the literalist starts to pick and choose, “Literal about this verse, but released from that verse,” he or she is no longer a literalist and, but, rather, a hypocrite.
January 4, 2007 at 2:07 am
That’s not correct. Some parts of the Bible are poetry, others historical narrative. They were written by many different people for many different reasons over a long period of time. It makes so sense to say that if any part of it is literal is must all be literal.
Scientists are wrong all the time, and wrong about a lot of things. Any scientist will tell you that being wrong is in fact important because in science you learn a lot from error and from failed hypothesis. I don’t condemn any scientist for assessing the evidence available to him and arriving at conclusions not in agreement with my religion or any other. But I don’t run my religious beliefs past science to see if they pass muster with the scientific community either. They’ve not yet established enough credibility for that role, and I’m not sure they ever could. What they do is too limited.