text:
In the July 2002 issue of Scientific American, editor John Rennie penned a caustic diatribe titled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense." His belligerent attitude of scientific elitism was evident in an editor's letter at the beginning of the issue.
Readers of Scientific American are well placed to expose ignorance and combat antiscientific thought. We hope that this article, and a new resource center for defending evolution at www.sciam. com, will assist them in doing so (2002, 287[1]:10).
Rennie previously had observed that he works primarily as a journalist, not a scientist (see "Scientific American: The Legacy Continues for 150 Years")—and it does not take long to realize that this self-professed "journalist" is long on verbiage, but short on facts!
While Rennie's article has been refuted and discredited by several creationists (see Hoesch, 2002; Sarfati, 2002; Oktar, 2002), we felt that R&R subscribers deserved to see our in-depth response to his attack. We want our readers to be exposed to the truth about this matter. Furthermore, we want evolutionists to know that we can (and will!) answer their arguments—point by point. The time has come for their "nonsense" to be exposed. [NOTE: Due to space limitations, we cannot present and refute each of Mr. Rennie's fifteen points in the four pages of this special edition of R&R Resources. We therefore have chosen two that we felt were representative of the tenor of his article. Furthermore, many of the issues raised in Scientific American also were raised in the cover-story article of the July 29, 2002 issue of U.S. News & World Report, a refutation of which appears as the feature article in this month's Reason & Revelation. We will not duplicate that material here. If you would like to read the complete review and refutation of both articles, please click here for the Scientific American rebuttal, or click here for the U.S. News & World Report response.]
Below (in bold type) is a sampling of some of the "nonsensical" arguments Mr. Rennie believes creationists make. Our response follows. [Numbers match those in the original Scientific American article.]
7. [Creationists suggest that] evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on the earth.
Rennie tried to quietly dispense with this as an insignificant, arbitrary matter. He did admit that "the origin of life remains very much a mystery" (talk about understatement!), yet in the same breath suggested:
...[B]iochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young (2002, 287[1]:81).
What should be our response to all this? Evolution postulates that life arose from nonliving matter as a result of a purely naturalistic, completely mechanistic, and equally mysterious process on a prebiotic Earth. This process—which parades under such monikers as abiogenesis, chemical evolution, biopoiesis, or spontaneous generation—is one of the foundational concepts of organic evolution. When British evolutionist G.A. Kerkut published his classic book, The Implications of Evolution, he listed the seven nonprovable assumptions upon which evolution is based. At the top of that list was: "The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred" (1960, p. 6).
A naturalistic origin of life is absolutely essential to the beginning, and thus the continuation, of evolution. If something cannot live, it obviously cannot evolve! What were the naturalistic origins of life on Earth? How did something nonliving give rise to something living? It is, says Rennie, "very much a mystery."
He stated, however, that "astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds [necessary for spontaneous generation—BT/BH] might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets." This is becoming an all-too-familiar argument in the evolutionary camp these days. Evolutionists recognize the immense difficulty of getting life started on Earth via naturalistic processes. [For more information on this particular weakness of evolutionary theory, see also pages 65-66 of this month's feature article.] Therefore, many of those same evolutionists have turned to outer space for the ultimate salvation of their troubled theory.
Thus, not only is the inability of how to get life started a serious stumbling block for evolutionists, but now the where of this supposed happening has been called into question as well. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe have argued that life fell to Earth from space after having evolved from the warm, wet nucleus of a comet (see Gribbin, 1981; Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981). Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, has suggested that life was sent here from other planets (1981). Meanwhile, back on Earth, Sidney Fox and his colleagues have proposed that life began on the side of a primitive volcano on our primeval planet when a number of dry amino acids "somehow" formed there at exactly the right temperature, for exactly the right length of time, to form exactly the right molecules necessary for living systems (1977). Evolutionists are fond of saying that there is no controversy whatsoever about the fact of evolution; it is only the how about which they sometimes disagree. Not true! They cannot even agree on the where.
In an article with the intriguing title, "Cosmic Chemistry Gets Creative," in the May 19, 2001 issue of Science News, Jessica Gorman noted that some scientists "...speculate that precursors to life might have arrived on an asteroid, meteorite, comet, or even interplanetary dust" (159:317). Yet such a scenario is not without its own set of built-in problems, as Gorman went on to note:
The next question is: Could those chemicals have traveled from their out-of-this-world venues to Earth's surface? No one knows if the delicate chemicals could have survived the intense heat and pressure of an arrival via comet or meteorite. Nor does anyone know how an asteroid, meteorite, or comet impact might have altered Earth's atmosphere locally, perhaps making it more friendly to life... (159:317).
Additional facets of such a scenario have to do with the extreme cold, the great distances involved in outer space travel, and the heat and shock of entering the Earth's atmosphere. The temperature during such hypothetical trips would be near absolute zero, and constant bombardment by cosmic rays would worsen the situation. Thus, when everything is said and done, the evolutionist is right back where he started. The naturalistic beginnings of life on Earth are impossible, and the naturalistic beginnings of life in outer space are impossible. What is left?
Perhaps this would be a good time to remind Mr. Rennie of the fundamental law of biology—the law of biogenesis. This law was set forth many years ago to dictate what both theory and experimental evidence showed to be true among living organisms—that life comes only from preceding life, and perpetuates itself by reproducing only its own kind or type. Through the centuries, thousands of scientists in various disciplines have established the law of biogenesis as just that—a scientific law stating that life comes only from preexisting life of its kind. Interestingly, the law of biogenesis was firmly established in science long before the contrivance of modern evolutionary theories.
George G. Simpson and W.S. Beck, in their biology textbook, Life: An Introduction to Biology, stated that "...there is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell" (1965, p. 144, emp. added). Martin A. Moe, writing in Science Digest, put it like this: "A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life" (1981, 89[11]:36, emp. added). As David Kirk correctly remarked:
By the end of the nineteenth century there was general agreement that life cannot arise from the nonliving under conditions that now exist upon our planet. The dictum "All life from preexisting life" became the dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent (1975, p. 7).
J.W.N. Sullivan, brilliant scientist of a generation ago, penned these words, which are as applicable today as the day he wrote them.
The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of "spontaneous generation." ...But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine that life never arises except from life. So far as the actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance (1933, p. 94, emp. added).
Nobel laureate Sir Francis Crick wrote:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going (1981, p. 88, emp. added).
We wonder, Mr. Rennie—are you unwilling to accept the fact that "life never arises except from life" because it "leads back to some supernatural creative act" that appears "to be almost a miracle,"and because the implication is that behind such a "creative act" there must by definition be a...Creator?
8. [Creationists suggest that] mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Why is it that Mr. Rennie concentrates solely on creationists in his accusations, when his own evolutionary colleagues are the ones who have been saying the same thing?
Over the years, investigators have elucidated quite successfully what are known as the "laws of probability." Building upon the work of such men as Blaise Pascal, the famous French mathematician and scientist, others forged the principles that are employed today on a daily basis in almost every scientific discipline. George Gamow was one such individual (1961). Emile Borel was another. Dr. Borel, one of the world's foremost experts on mathematical probability, formulated what scientists and mathematicians alike refer to as the basic "law of probability," which we would like to discuss here.
Borel's law of probability states that the occurrence of any event, where the chances are beyond one in one followed by 50 zeroes, is an event that we can state with certainty will never happen, regardless of how much time is allotted and regardless of how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place (Borel, 1962, chapters 1 and 3; see also Borel, 1965, p. 62).
With this in mind, it is interesting to examine from the scientific literature some of the probability estimates regarding the formation of life by purely mechanistic processes. For example, evolutionist Harold Morowitz estimated that the probability for the chance formation of the simplest form of living organisms would be approximately one chance in 1x10340,000,000 [or one chance out of 1 followed by 340 million zeroes!] (1968, p. 99). The magnitude of this figure is truly staggering, since there are supposed to be only around 1080 elementary particles (electrons and protons) in the whole Universe (Sagan, 1997, 22:967).
The late Carl Sagan further estimated that the chance of life evolving on any given single planet, like the Earth, is one chance in 1x102,000,000,000 [that is one chance out of 1 followed by 2 billion zeroes!] (1973, p. 46). This figure is so large that it would require 6,000 volumes of 300 pages each just to write the number! A number this large is so infinitely beyond one followed by 50 zeroes (Borel's upper limit for such an event to occur) that it is simply mind-boggling. There is, then according to Borel's law of probability, absolutely no chance that life "spontaneously evolved" on the Earth.
But it is not just the extreme improbability that causes us to doubt the chemical-evolution scenario; the ordered complexity of life causes us to doubt it even more. As the evolutionists themselves have admitted, there is no known mechanism that can account for items like the genetic code, ribosomes, etc. That being true, it is nothing short of astonishing to read Carl Sagan's section on "the origin of life" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. In discussing the bacterium Escherichia coli, Dr. Sagan noted that this one "simple" organism contains 1 x 1012 (a trillion) bits of data stored within its genes and chromosomes. He then observed that if we were to count every letter on every line on every page of every book in the world's largest library (10 million volumes), we would have approximately a trillion letters. In other words, the amount of data (information) contained in approximately 10 million volumes is packed into the genetic code of the "simple" E. coli bacterium! Yet we are asked to believe that this marvelously complex, extremely information-rich organism came about through purely chance processes. R.W. Kaplan, who spent years researching the possibility of the evolutionary origin of life, suggested that the probability of the simplest living organism being formed by chance processes was one chance in 10130. He then stated: "One could conclude from this result that life could not have originated without a donor of information" (1971, p. 319, emp. added).
Creationists suggest that "donor" was the Creator, and that the evolution model cannot circumvent basic laws of probability. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins once said:
The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer (1982, p. 130, emp. added).
It is not "superficial," however, to teach (as creationists do) that design implies a Designer. Nor is it superficial to advocate that our beautifully ordered world hardly can be the result of "blind chance." Even evolutionists like Dawkins admit (although they do not like having to do so) that the "obvious alternative" to chance is an intelligent Designer—which is the very point creationists have been making for years.
In his Scientific American article, Rennie stated:
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.
As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2,613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days (2002, 287[1]:81-82, emp. and parenthetical items in orig.).
Mr. Rennie was willing to confess that "chance plays a part in evolution." But he then went on to suggest that "evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities" because "natural selection...harnesses nonrandom change." Whoa! Even his evolutionist colleagues do not agree with him on this important point. Henry Gee (chief science writer at Nature) wrote: "[W]e also have good reason to suspect that to use natural selection to explain long-term trends in the fossil record may not be a valid exercise, because natural selection is a random, undirected process, unlikely to work in the same direction for long" (1999, p. 127, emp. added). Creationist Bill Hoesch stated regarding Rennie's claim:
To claim that natural selection is governed by something other than chance is to suggest it is somehow a directed process. What shadowy entity would he propose? "Selective forces" are ultimately subject to either chance or intelligence. Rennie can't have it both ways (2002, emp. in orig.).
No, he cannot. The raw material on which evolution allegedly works just happens to be random genetic errors (i.e., mutations). As Sarfati noted: "If evolution from goo to you were true, we should expect to find countless information-adding mutations. But we have not even found one" (2002, emp. in orig.). Natural selection is not some kind of "conscious" mechanism that "knows" what it is doing.
Furthermore, let's examine Rennie's idea whereby a computer is instructed to randomly select letters, and then eventually sequences the phrase: "Tobeornottobe." By Mr. Rennie's own admission, this computer simulation required an intelligent programmer (Richard Hardison) who first told the computer how to recognize "correctly placed" letters. In other words, the program placed letters into thirteen blank spaces at random. That sounds fair enough. But the computer was pre-programmed to select a letter when it moved into the "correct" (read that as pre-programmed) position. In other words, it "knew" that the first letter was "T," long before "Tobeornottobe" ever occurred. But wait! Evolution does not have the benefit of such intelligent programming—unless Mr. Rennie is ready to accept the fact that an intelligent Designer played a significant role in creation. And, other factors play a part in the "success" of these computer programs. In addressing this matter, Sarfati wrote:
These computer programs have been widely popularized by the atheist Richard Dawkins, but are a lot of bluff. Such simulations as Dawkins, and now Rennie, propose as "simulations" of evolution work towards a known goal, so are far from a parallel to real evolution, which has no foresight, hence a "Blind Watchmaker." The simulations also use "organisms" with high reproductive rates (producing many offspring), high mutation rates, a large probability of a beneficial mutation, and a selection coefficient of 1 (perfect selection) instead of 0.01 (or less) which parallels real life more accurately. The "organisms" have tiny "genomes" with minute information content, so are less prone to error catastrophe, and they are not affected by the chemical and thermodynamic constraints of a real organism.
Also, when it comes to the origin of first life, natural selection cannot be invoked, because this requires a self-reproducing entity. Therefore chance alone must produce the precise sequences needed, so these simulations do not apply. And a further problem with the alleged chemical soup is reversibility, intensifying the difficulty of obtaining the right sequence by chance (2002, emp. in orig.).
In discussing the same type of "monkey analogy" that Mr. Rennie employed, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe commented:
No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly not the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material (1981, p. 148).
Creationist Duane Gish posed the following question along the same lines: "What would be the probability of one unique sequence of 100 amino acids, composed of 20 different amino acids, arising by chance in five billion years?" He, too, then employed a "monkey analogy" (the same type of analogy to which Mr. Rennie referred).
A monkey typing 100 letters every second for five billion years would not have the remotest chance of typing a particular sentence of 100 letters even once without spelling errors. In fact, if one billion (109) planets the size of the earth were covered eyeball-to-eyeball and elbow-to-elbow with monkeys, and each monkey was seated at a typewriter (requiring about 10 square feet for each monkey, of the approximately 1016 square feet available on each of the 109 planets), and each monkey typed a string of 100 letters every second for five billion years (about 1017 seconds), the chances are overwhelming that not one of these monkeys would have typed the sentence correctly! Only 1041 tries could be made by all these monkeys in that five billion years. There would not be the slightest chance that a single one of the 1024 monkeys (a trillion trillion monkeys) would have typed a preselected sentence of 100 letters (such as "The subject of this Impact article is the naturalistic origin of life on the earth under assumed primordial conditions") without a spelling error, even once.
Considering an enzyme, then, of 100 amino acids, there would be no possibility whatever that a single molecule could ever have arisen by pure chance on the earth in five billion years (1976, 37:3, parenthetical items in orig.).
And that is exactly our point.
Evolutionist Donald Goldsmith once offered the following comments on science:
People who simply demand results may not consider the important distinction between scientists' perceptions and pseudoscientists' procedures, but scientists do.... Individuals make the theories; the social structure of science does the testing. If you don't accept this principle, you don't belong to the scientific community. This does not mean that your ideas must be wrong, only that you (and they) won't be taken seriously. No one guarantees that your ideas will always receive serious consideration in any case, but there is no hope if you don't "think like a scientist"—accept the proposition that your ideas may or may not be right, and look for ways to prove the former and reject the latter (1985, p. 157, parenthetical item in orig.).
Notice the phrases that "the social structure of science does the testing" and that "no one guarantees that your ideas will always receive serious consideration" if you don't "think like a scientist." In today's climate, the "social structure of science" is based in its entirety on the concept of evolution. Read that last phrase, therefore, as—"if you don't think like an evolutionist!" Doubt that?
In the "letter from the editors" in the July 2002 issue of Scientific American (under the heading of "SA Perspectives"), the following statements can be found:
Ideas deserve a fair hearing, but fairness shouldn't be an excuse for letting rejected, inadequate ideas persist. Intelligent design and other variants of creationism lack credible support and don't mesh with the naturalistic fabric of all other science. They don't deserve to be taught as legitimate scientific alternatives to evolution any more than flat-earth cosmology does (287[1]:10).
The editor in chief, John Rennie, then concluded his article by stating that "creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort" (p. 85).
Apparently it is acceptable for evolutionists to spout "rejected, inadequate ideas"—like Archaeopteryx still being considered as a "missing link" between reptiles and birds, or the "fact" that genetic mutations allegedly possess the power to pass on new information that can cause evolution at the level of the genus, family, class, order, phylum, etc. But it is not acceptable for creationists to point out that exactly the opposite is true scientifically. Nor, apparently, is it acceptable for creationists to employ what the "man on the street" recognizes as common sense—that from the microcosm to the macrocosm, the world around us is filled with evidence of design, which can only mean that there must have been a Designer.
Mr. Rennie and his colleagues would do well to investigate more closely the rejected inadequacies of evolutionary theory before spouting their venom against those of us who already have carried out such an investigation. They can attempt to belittle creationism by tying it with "flat-earth" cosmology, and they can claim with all their professional might that creationism holds "nothing of intellectual value," but that will not change the evidence—and it will not make us go away.
Make no mistake about it. We will continue to stand in defense of that evidence! In fact, seeing the paltriness of the alleged evidence for evolution only causes us to be more determined to facilitate the ultimate collapse of evolutionary theory. And, if we may kindly say so, if the type of arguments that Mr. Rennie employed in his Scientific American "exposé" are the best the evolutionary community can offer, that collapse surely cannot be too far in the distant future. Evolutionists need to know: we will not go quietly into the night. And when the dust settles, it will not be evolution that is triumphant, but truth—the truth of creationism.
Borel, Emile (1962), Probabilities and Life (New York: Dover).
Borel, Emile (1965), Elements of the Theory of Probability (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Crick, Francis (1981), Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Dawkins, Richard (1982), "The Necessity of Darwinism," New Scientist, 94:130-132, April 15.
Fox, Sidney and Klaus Dose (1977), Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life (New York: Marcel Dekker).
Gamow, George (1961), One, Two, Three—Infinity (New York: Viking).
Gee, Henry (1999), In Search of Deep Time (New York: Free Press).
Gish, Duane T. (1976), "The Origin of Life: Theories on the Origin of Biological Order," Impact #37 (El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research), July.
Goldsmith, Donald (1985), Nemesis: The Death-Star and Other Theories of Mass Extinction (New York: Berkley Books).
Gorman, Jessica (2001), "Cosmic Chemistry Gets Creative," Science News, 159:317-319, May 19.
Gribbin, John (1981), "Of a Comet Born," Science Digest, 89[3]:14, April.
Hoesch, Bill (2002), A Reply to Rennie, Institute for Creation Research, [On-line], URL: http://www.icr.org/headlines/rennie.html.
Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe (1981), Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons).
Kaplan, R.W. (1971), "The Problem of Chance Information of Protobionts by Random Aggregation of Macromolecules," Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life, ed. R. Buver and C. Ponnamperuma (New York: American Elsevier).
Kerkut, G.A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).
Kirk, David (1975), Biology Today (New York: Random House).
Moe, Martin A. (1981), "Genes on Ice," Science Digest, 89[11]:36,95, December.
Morowitz, Harold J. (1968), Energy Flow in Biology (New York: Academic Press).
Oktar, Adnan (2002), Scientific American's 15 Errors, [On-line], URL: http://www.harunyahya.com/70Sciam15Errors_sci31.php.
Rennie, John (2002), "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense," Scientific American, 287[1]:78-85, July.
Sagan, Carl, ed. (1973), Communications with Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (Boston, MA: MIT).
Sagan, Carl (1974), "Life on Earth," Encyclopaedia Britannica (New York: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.), 10:894ff.
Sagan, Carl (1997), "Life," Encyclopaedia Britannica (New York: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.), 22:964-981.
Sarfati, Jonathan (2002), "15 Ways to Refute Materialistic Bigotry," [On-line], URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp.
"Scientific American: The Legacy Continues for 150 Years," (no date), [On-line], URL: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/moment/120695/sciam-qa.html.
Simpson, George Gaylord and W.S. Beck (1965), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt-Brace).
Sullivan, J.W.N. (1933), The Limitations of Science (New York: Viking).


text:
First, I will introduce myself, since most of you don't know me. My name is Stephanie and I live with my boyfriend Mark and our two dogs and two cats in Sacramento, CA. The city of Sacramento is divided up into different areas or neighborhoods. My neighborhood can either be considered East Sacramento or Midtown. Here's our house.
This neighborhood is great! All of the houses are from the 20's and probably even older than that. My house was built in 1922 and I guess they call these highwater bungalows. Here is the view from my porch, which was one of the teaser photos:
To keep this food related, the water tower there is called the Alhambra Reservoir and it apparently holds 3 million gallons of water that supplies the neighborhood with drinking water. There are several of these in the greater Sacramento area. Here's a sort of recent article about the Reservoir, since you can see from this picture the edge of the "artwork" that was applied to the front of it, that is viewable from the freeway, not too far away. The article has a fuzzy picture of the art, so I will see if I can get a better one for you before the end of the week. I am also going to try to get a picture of the camouflage the article mentions, since it is sort of historical.
Also in this picture, to the left behind the trees, you'll see a brick building. When I bought this house a little over 3 years ago, that building was in the process of construction. Housed in it is an imaging/xray center. Come to find out from the previous owner of this house, that was slated to be a Trader Joes, and he was head of the neighborhood committee to fight against it, then he moves. I guess he was concerned about traffic, which is still a problem regardless. The best thing about this neighborhood though is that we are in walking distance to a Safeway, which is right behind that imaging center, several restaurants and several bars, which will be visited during this blog.
How I got into cooking? Well, I have been cooking for as long as I can remember. When I was 10, my mom came down with ALS..to make a long story short, as it progressed, she was unable to cook for my younger brother and myself. My dad had to travel alot for business, and so it was up to me to learn how to cook to feed the family. I also learned at a younger age than most people, to grocery shop, which next to going to Williams Sonoma or Target is my favorite type of shopping. So mom taught me several easy type of recipes; tacos, spaghetti, chicken and mushrooms, basic stuff. In college, I tried to enhance my skills, on a college budget and then things just grew from there.
Over the years, I have gone to different cooking classes or demonstrations, watched many hours of Food Network and just experimented on my own. Almost four years ago, I met Mark who loves to cook as well as being a hopeful chef one day. So we started cooking together a lot. Which leads us to why we are doing Atkins, which Insomniac, I think, guessed from the teaser photo:
We generally cook more at home than go out to eat. Well, the pounds starting packing on and his sister suggested we try Atkins. I know in my life, I have tried every crazy diet, except Atkins, in fact, a few years ago, I thought Atkins sounded crazy. We even tried the cabbage soup diet last year to no avail. So we said, what the hell, lets give it a try.
We started Atkins on July 2 of this year. To date, he has lost 40 pounds (damn men!) I have lost about 25. I will disclose this up front, we by no means are Atkins fanatics, because there are a lot of them out there. We also fudge a little here and there. I suppose if we followed the program to a T, I'd have lost more by this point. But overall, I am happy with the diet, I don't go hungry, I am seeing progress which is the most important part and I get to eat steak whenever I want!
So what's in store for this week? Well luckily, I am only working today and tomorrow. I am in pharmaceutical sales, so my day consists of traveling around and discussing drugs with doctors. So basically my blogging for the next two days will be in the mornings and evenings. Since we are trying to be really good on this diet and with Thanksgiving on the horizon, we'll be eating strict today, tomorrow and Wednesday. We do plan on some "cheats" although Mark calls them "treats" on Thursday, since it is Thanksgiving. Friday, we are going to go out with some foodie friends to a lunch at a new upscale restaurant and we'll also be going to visit some local wineries in the foothills. We'll have lots of cooking in all of this, lots of pet pictures and of course, after the fridge is cleaned up a little, the mandatory fridge shots.
I hope that you'll enjoy my blog, feel free to ask any questions about Low Carb food, food in general or anything else on your mind.
Edited by lucylou95816, 19 November 2007 - 08:51 AM.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Sign Up For Updates
From The Aging Committee:
Find Ruben Diaz Online
Featured Video
Committee members
Sen. Sue Serino
R-District 41 | Contact
R-District 41 | Contact
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license are available at http://www.nysenate.gov/copyright-policy. NYSenate.gov is powered by Drupal.


text:
Is there zero interest?
I need some final work to be done, but thats where you guys (and gals) can aid me.
You can either:
1) Message/Post/email me the name of a few packages that arent in the standard FC6 repos or in livna (since most use that, but if the package is there thats fine, I use vms for builds and testing).
2) Test it yourself. Build a vm in xen, parallels, or vmware. Back it up. Rename it master. After building a package this is used to restore a test environment. Clone it or copy it to a work area (twice at first since you are also going to need a build area). Make the rpm and srpm here. Copy those files from the build area to the test are and test them out. Once assured as decent rpms, let me know.
Once I get 20-25 packages tested, or submitted (those submitters will get early access to the repo), the repo's name and setup info will be posted. Right now, all I can do is FC6, and soon I will spearhead CentOS as well. Once a process is definined, I hope to see a Ubuntu one, a Arch one, and soforth. Again, once the process is defined. I prefer to keep the community in charge to a degree, but if this is to hold OpenFree's name on it, I think Peter should be our benelovent dictator, right?
Is there zero interest?
I think you should wait until the merger issue settle ...
Me, I don't run Fedora so I can't really help you there.
LinuxVillage - The truely community run Linux/Floss forum !
No IT BS !!
New to linux or I would help out as well. I have enough machines laying around doing nothing.
"Nobody knows what I do until I stop doing it."
Florida Web Design | Online Geek Hangout | Office Pranks and Humor
Now a repo is short for software repository. Linux instead of the usual .MSI or .EXE installers Windows uses, has a rather painless method called packages. Red Hat created RPM and Debian the DEB. Using repos, a large amount of software can be installed (or uninstalled too) or updated in one fell swoop.
As far as the goal here, it is to create a simple repo that any users here can request a package of and get it made available for any of the supported linux distros. What are supported? Well whatever the forum's community chooses to do the work on. As noted I got the Red Hat ones. Anyone who steps forward can have any other one, or help out with an existing one. Their will be at least one leader that will decide what packages are properly built and release them to the public, and a few package builders and testers. I found the safest method to be the aforementioned VMWare/Parallels one, although with careful chrooting one can do it (a bit more tricky I think).
If things go sour here, Ill go more public to something like a schottypackages repo rather than an openfree, but I prefer to NOT do that.
Well, let me get back from vacation and start really playing around with linux and see what I can learn and see if I would be able to help in some way. I downloaded Ubuntu server and have it installed and plan on the desktop version as well so I can play in both worlds.
"Nobody knows what I do until I stop doing it."
Florida Web Design | Online Geek Hangout | Office Pranks and Humor
Cool, give it a whirl, but definitely go for a Desktop one rather than server.
Glad to see another soul freed!
Sorry man. I've been quite busy lately, but have been waiting for this for awhile. On the run now, but I'll log back in later and read everything you posted.
EDIT: I'll get a few PPC ported packages ready this weekend, or first few days of next year. I have quite a few that I've been meaning to build anyways.
Last edited by Kernel_Killer; 12-30-2006 at 03:34 AM.
arrogance breeds ignorance
Screaming Electron, Full of BSD Goodness


text:
At a Glance
|Hawke's Bay Airport
State Highway 2 at Westshore, Napier
|Departure Information
For Domestic departures, check in no later than 30 minutes prior to your scheduled departure time. If you have a connecting International flight, please check in no later than 60 minutes prior to the departure of your Domestic flight.
|Arrival Information
Baggage carousels are located in the Arrivals Hall.
Baggage Services is located in the Arrivals Hall.
|The Virgin Australia lounge
|Lounge facilities are not available at this airport.
Transport Information
|Parling is available at Hawke's Bay Airport. View current carpark rates.
|Taxi's are located directly outside the Domestic Terminal
|Car Rentals
|Car hire desks located inside the terminal. Pre-book your rental and save.
Airport Facilities
|Toilet facilities, including disabled toilets are located inside the airport terminal.
|Baby Change Rooms
|Change rooms are located inside the airport terminal, near the toilet facilities.
|WiFi available in the terminal building.
|There is an ATM located at the airport near the cafe.
|Duty Free
Duty Free shopping is not available at this airport.
|Currency Exchange
|There are no currency exchange facilities at this airport, you can pre-order your currency before you depart.
Guests requiring assistance can be escorted to and from departure/arrival gates. Ask a team member for assistance.


text:
Union Aerotex Textile Ink is a water-based ink that, when mixed with the included catalyst, cures at room temperature to obtain optimum wash resistance just 24 hours after printing!
Aerotex inks are great for use on T-shirts and other fashion garments.They are formulated for printing on cotton, cotton/synthetic blends, and many synthetic fabrics. Aerotex Inks are not recommended for nylon or fabrics which are treated with water-repellent coatings.
Aerotex inks have good opacity and may be printed on medium-colored grounds. White may be printed as a separate color or may be added to Aerotex colors for increased opacity and overlays.
Aerotex inks are supplied ready-for-use. They can be thinned using Union Reducer/Retarder, or extended using the Union Extender Base. Monofilament polyester meshes ranging from 84T-110T are recommended.
Shimmer Colors — Combining the sparkling brilliance of plastisol and the soft hand of waterbased inks, Aerotex Shimmer Colors are a natural for white and
™ Union is a trademark.


text:
Pregnancy is definitely a time when women are allowed to embrace their curves and feel great about their bodies. However, pregnancy can also have its more uncomfortable (and un-sexy) moments. Whichever situation you may be facing, remember that what you are wearing can most definitely make a difference. It is important to surround yourself with comfortable clothing that has a great fit and feel. Just take the items found at Bella Materna for example, they are designed to enhance your growing figure, have an impeccable fit and transition with you from pregnancy and beyond.
In 2000, Bella Materna launched their exclusive line of maternity panties that fit just under the belly. Today, Bella Materna has extended their collection to include nursing bras, camisoles, sleepwear, transition, workout and loungewear products. Each item from Bella Materna is designed to enhance, not hide, the loveliness that is pregnancy and nursing.
Recently, Bella Materna sent me two super luxurious products to review, the Anytime Camisole in Cocoa and the Lounge Pant in black. When these items arrived, I was instantly drawn to them because of their ultra soft feel and flattering style. Bella Materna definitely takes maternity and nursing wear to the next level!
The Anytime Camisole from Bella Materna is a product that can take you from pregnancy to nursing thanks to its unique design. Made from Italian imported Nylon/Lycra, the Anytime Camisole can stretch to fit over your growing belly while still supporting like a bra. This comfortable Cami also provides nursing access by simply sliding the cup over! (The Anytime Camisole features the Bella Materna Strap Keep which supports the breast while nursing.)
As soon as I tried on the Anytime Camisole from Bella Materna, it was instant comfort! The fabric feels silky and smooth against your skin and the top really and truly provides a lot of support (more than I have had provided by a camisole before). I love how the bottom part of the cami stretches to accommodate growing bellies and then returns back to normal for wear after pregnancy. In all honesty, the Bella Materna Anytime Camisole is so comfortable and flattering, I am wearing it all the time – and I'm not expecting (yet)!
The Lounge Pant from Bella Materna is as equally stylish and comfortable as the Anytime Camisole. Also made from imported Italian fabric, the Lounge Pants fit from pregnancy and beyond. In fact, they would probably be a terrific option while in the hospital after delivery. Their loose fit and contoured waistband accommodates growing bellies while still being casual enough to wear out and about.
Buy It: The Anytime Camisole ($76 (However, some select colors are currently 50% off!)) and Lounge Pant ($78) are available for purchase at bellamaterna.com
To Enter: Visit Bella Materna and leave a comment stating another product you would like to have. Please leave your email address in the comment or make sure it is visible in your profile.
Extra Entries:
1. Grab my button. Leave an address where it can be found.
2. Subscribe to my feed. Must be verified to count.
3. Follow me on Google Friend Connect.
4. Enter any of my other current giveaways. Leave a separate comment on which one(s).
5. Follow me on Twitter and Tweet about this giveaway using the text below. You can tweet once daily for an extra entry each day.
Win a @Bella_Materna Anytime Camisole and Lounge Pant ($154 value) during the #ohbabyevent @PieceOfMeBlog http://bit.ly/kFjb4D
6. Follow Bella Materna on Twitter
7. Add the "Oh, Baby!" button to your sidebar. Leave an address where it can be found.
8. 1 Extra Entry if you placed the "Oh, Baby!" button on your sidebar before the start of the event and left a comment on the event announcement post.
9. 2 Extra Entries if you like Bella Materna on Facebook
10. 5 Extra Entries if you blog about this giveaway. Please leave an address where it can be found.
Giveaway will end on June 1st at 11:59pm ET. The winner will be chosen by random.org and announced here as well as emailed. The winner will have 48 hours to contact me or a new winner will be chosen. Giveaway open to US and Canada!
A big thank you to Bella Materna for this review and giveaway opportunity!
This review is based strictly my opinion. Others may have a different opinion or experience with the product listed above. I was provided the camisole and pant free of charge and I provided my honest opinion. No other type compensation was received for this review.


text:
jwmann2 wrote:Trading Adam Jones. He's a spark plug in the outfield. The front office has made it clear that they won't be doing that but can you trust them? Never.
I can understand your desire to keep the best team possible on the field right now but why keep Jones for two years when we won't be a playoff team when you can trade him for two or three players that might be part of a playoff team?


text:
Sweet Protection
- 0 Items
- 0 Items
Stronger, lighter, better. The Sweet mantra can be traced back to a school paper from 1988, made by one of the founders and design manager, Ståle Møller. With a group of friends, Ståle had already spent two years on making the best skateboards in his hometown of Trysil. Skateboarding was prohibited in Norway until 1989 – the only country in the world where the government judged it too dangerous.
In 1997, freestyle kayaking was taking off. As the local river was closer than the dream of pacific surf, freestyle kayaking became rapidly popular in Trysil. All of a sudden you could make surf moves in the local river! The existing kayaks were crap, and Ståle made a kayak revolution when developing a Kevlar wonder for his friend and top kayaker, Erik Martinsen. The plan was to start a kayak company, SNM (Ståle Norman Møller) Playboats, but it kind of vanished in the haze. Instead the first spark to the Sweet brand was emerging. Still in design school, Ståle made a carbon fiber helmet Erik could use in the freestyle kayak world championships. The kayak equipment in those days was kind of 'soviet agricultural chic', and Ståle's fresh design was breathtaking. Everybody wanted it, and soon the garage production from the early Bushmade days was keeping family and neighbours awake at night again. The years passed by, but the dream is coming true for the friends from Trysil . The inspiration from the California skateboard and surfing culture is still there, but now it is a way of life too. Cultivating childhood activities as you grow older is a privilege that the Sweet founders enjoy. Spending time on the mountains and in the waves makes both life and products better.


text:
- Northern New York Newspapers
- Watertown
- Ogdensburg
- Massena-Potsdam
- Lowville
- Carthage
- Malone
- NNY Business
- NNY Living
- NNY Ads
Loud pop, rock and hip-hop music could be heard Saturday from outside Case Middle School, as hundreds of teenagers in the gymnasium danced the day away to raise money for the north countrys sick and injured children.
Organized by the 2013 New Visions class, the 12-hour Dancing for Kids Sake dance marathon, held from noon to midnight, benefited the Childrens Miracle Network of Northern New York at Samaritan Medical Center. The goal was to raise $10,000.
Im surprised every year the amount of kids that participate and their passion, said Jocelyn D. Mejias, CMN director.
About 100 people preregistered for the event, but as many as 200 people ages 13 to 19 were expected to attend. Each participant was asked to raise a minimum $30, but most dancers raised more money. Mrs. Mejias said she heard one student raised $500 alone.
The event was to be open to the public from 10 p.m. to midnight for a $15 entrance fee. During that time, a yellow and red glow party was to be held to cap off the night celebrating CMN and its logo colors.
Teenagers from throughout Jefferson, Lewis and St. Lawrence counties attended the event, including Italia M. Rios and Courtney E. Evans-Eppolito, both 13 and seventh-graders at Thousand Islands Middle School, Clayton.
Weve just danced, Courtney said, as the girls took a break by 1 p.m. One of my neighbors is a part of New Visions and told us about this.
Italia said she was most excited about the glow party, and pop music that blared through speakers. Both girls said they werent interested in trying on Sumo suits and wrestling each other. Mrs. Mejias said a variety of games and activities was offered to give students a rest from just dancing.
Participants also were given six 10-minute break tickets where they could get a drink or a snack, or sit down for a few minutes. Mrs. Mejias said all food was donated by local businesses.
Prizes will be awarded to youths who raise the most money. The first-place winner will receive a Xbox 360 4GB donated by Infinite Lives, State Street, while the second- and third-place winners will receive a six-month membership and personal training at Jiu Jitsu Nation, Arsenal Street, and a $50 gift certificate to Infinite Lives, respectively. Other prizes were awarded throughout the day.
These kids dont do it for the prizes, Mrs. Mejias said. They just really want to help out. Every hour on the hour we play a miracle story to remind them of why theyre here. Were standing up and dancing for those who cant.
Thousands of readers like you have made Northern New York Newspapers the number one ranked website* for local news and sports coverage in the north country.
You can continue on to this article in a few seconds, or you can visit one of our websites:


text:
Long Sleeve Freerange Shirt (Women's) (out-of-stock)
Out of Stock Product Number: 31587
The women's Nau Long Sleeve Freerange Shirt is a nod to modern Western-wear. This flattering shirt says just enough to get the message across while maintaining an element of curiosity. Crafted from 100% organic cotton, this quintessential button-up is tailored for just the right fit.
- Self fabric collar stand
- 7 Button front
- 2 chest pockets w/button flaps
- Button sleeve plackets and cuffs
- Fabric is gathered at back yoke
Gender: Women's
Weight: 6.7 oz.
Material: 100% organic cotton twill
Fit: Regular
Season: F12
Vendor ProductId: 420W02
Review ProductId: 31587


text:
Create crisp fold lines for your creative projects with the Cricut® Scoring Tip with Housing! The specially designed scoring tip helps you get clean, crisp folds on your cards, tags, boxes, and bags. Just swap the normal cutting blade assembly for the scoring tip and housing you'll be ready to go.
Works with all paper cutting Cricu.....
Click here to read product details
I am super unhappy with this scoring blade. I got tags bags boxes and more 2 weeks ago not knowing it had to have this scoring blade so I have been dying to get it so I could start using this cartridge. Well it came today with No instructions at all the back says go to www.cricut.com/score for instrutions no that takes you to purchase one. I've tried cutting out the same box four times wasting paper because no matter what the score lines don't match up to the cut box. I'm super frustrated no use instrucions came with the cartridge or this blade.
Blade came without instructions. I am trying to figure out what depth and pressure to use. I've wasted paper trying to figure it out. The blade skipped and tore the cardstock. Instructions would have been nice.
instructions would be nice. web sites on card are no good. which side of the blade do you use? trial and error don't work in this case.
I can't figure out how to use this item,
I purchased tags bags boxes and more 2, to use with it and there are no directions anywhere. Very disappointed with this purchase.
I was disappointed at the lack of directions with this item, but after reading some tips online, I have managed to get it to work well. It is a great idea. I have used it on a number of boxes, and they have turned out great. Please start putting directions with it.
Love this new scoring tip. It's so essential if you are going to use Tags, Bags, Boxes &More 2 and it's so easy. I am a fan!
I imagine this product would be good if it only came with a modicum of instructions which it doesn't. Do you score instead of cutting. How do I get the Cricut to score instead of making the score cuts that it usually makes? I have no idea how to use this thing. I really think Provo Craft needs to send instructions with this tool and also put in depth instructions on their website or stop selling this thing.
If I could give this no stars, I would. I bought TBBM2, then thought the scoring blade would be good to have. Bought it. Provo Craft should not be selling this unless and until it is ready to provide detailed instructions on how to use it for each supported machine or design tool (CCR, particularly). I get completely inacurate cuts when I try to use the meager instructions I've been able to find. Anyone who is crafty enough to use a Cricut is probably talented enought to score by hand. It's actually faster, based on what little I know right now. I am hoping someone will unlock the mysery soon. And SHAME ON YOU Prove Craft--when visiting the site that YOUR support team sent me to to get help, www.cricut.com/score it links to an option to PURCHASE the product. At least put up "coming soon" or "page not found" and don't turn your product management inadequacies into a merchandising opportunity. Don't buy this blade yet....it's a waste of your time and your money. If/when PC gets some detailed instructions out, I promise I will come back and update my review.
Scoring tip came in handy with the Tags, Bags, Boxes & More 2 cartridge.
Tip for smaller Cricut machines: make sure the image will fit on the machine. Load the score tip and select original image. If the size is correct and it begins to cut, stop and reload paper.
2. Select scoring the image and execute
3. Insert pen and select phrase to write and execute
4. Insert blade and select original image and execute.
I have five different Cricut machines and well over 200 cartridges and the Gypsy, and have been very happy with all the products, EXCEPT Provo Craft is TERRIBLE about giving good directions/insturctions on their equipment. I have had to go on to You Tube for any help I have received.....which INCLUDES this scoring tip. Maybe a little more time spent with making customers happy and informed and a little less time on making new products with no instructions or directions??!!
I will have to agree with everyone else. This thing needs instructions and ProvoCraft needs to address this inadequacy or stop selling the product. I have searched everywhere were for directions and have not found any help at all. Shame on you ProvoCraft. SHAME, SHAME, SHAME
I'll agree with the lack of instructions, but after watching a youtube video on the subject, it was a breeze to use and a must have with Tags, Bags, Boxes & More 2. The boxes almost fold themselves after using the scoring tool...my five year old daughter even folded her own dog house. I suggest using multi-cut when scoring heavy cardstock.
I have to agree with everyone else... you really need to provide us with some instructions. It's ridiculous to try to figure this stuff out on your own if you don't use your cricut very often. You have no clue. I've looked everywhere online also, no luck yet. I found this comment area when I typed in the web address given for instructions. So... where are the instructions??? From the little I have used my cricut, I am very happy with it once I figure out how to do what I want to do, which has taken me literally HOURS. Give instructions with your products... it will help to make your customers happy and I would think you would sell more. Where's the logic?
I've obviously come late to the comments (after the instructions have been added). I received my cartridge last weekend, and my scoring tip yesterday. I watched the video, then had a go and it was amazing. I have a perfect box and no hassle and no trouble folding - just amazing! When are you releasing more cartridges?
I rushed out to buy the sxoring tip because I was excited to help my daughter-in-law with a shower for a friend. I was very disappointed. This item shows the score lines, but I need to use a scorepad to actually get the scoring done - twice the work!
This tip does not make the correct score lines for folding when using the boxes 2 cartridge. Waste of money
This does not work for the newer models. Explore, One, and Air.
Use of this website constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
© 2012 Provo Craft & Novelty, Inc. All rights reserved. CRICUT ® is a registered trademark of Provo Craft & Novelty, Inc.


text:
San Antonio Spurs v Boston Celtics
Tim Duncan of the San Antonio Spurs and Kevin Garnett of the Boston... Fotografia de notíciasBasquetebol,Basquetebol - NBA Pro,Boston - Massachusetts,Boston Celtics,Desporto,EUA,Kevin Garnett,Massachusetts,Partida - Desporto,San Antonio Spurs,TD Garden,Tim Duncan,VerticalPhotographer Brian BabineauCollection: National Basketball Association 2012 NBAEBOSTON - NOVEMBER 21: Tim Duncan #21 of the San Antonio Spurs and Kevin Garnett #5 of the Boston Celtics look on during the game on November 21, 2012 at the TD Garden in Boston, Massachusetts. NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that, by downloading and or using this photograph, User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement. Mandatory Copyright Notice: Copyright 2012 NBAE (Photo by Brian Babineau/NBAE via Getty Images)


text:
July 7 - Security Patches
Wednesday, July 07, 2010By Richard L. DeVries
The following security patches and updates will be released by CIT on Wednesday, July 7.
Target Audiences
Faculty and staff workstations
Smart Classrooms
Windows Systems
Windows updates will be installed silently and automatically. If a reboot is required after installation you will receive a message in a pop-up window. You will be allowed to postpone the reboot for up to 24 hours after the updates are installed. If the machine is not rebooted within the 24 hours the system will reboot automatically. If you want to verify if these updates were installed you can go to your Add/Remove Programs control panel and check for the patches listed below.
Windows updates to be included:
ZCM 10.3 agent update
Macintosh Systems
Users on Macintosh systems will be prompted to install patches. You will have 14 days to begin installation. If a reboot is required you will have 5 minutes after installation completes to reboot your system or it will reboot automatically. Patches listed with a triangle next to them indicate that a system reboot is required.
Macintosh patches to be included:
Office 2004 for Mac 11.5.9 update
Office 2008 for Mac 12.2.5 update


text:
Video: Controversy Surrounding Driver's License Contract
ALBANY, N.Y. - New York state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli has approved the Cuomo administration's contract for new driver's licenses that will have black-and-white photos produced by the highest bidder.
DiNapoli's approval paves the way for CBN Secure Technologies of Danville, Va., owned by Ottawa-based Canadian Bank Note, to produce the licenses. Its bid was $38 million over the current contractor, De La Rue, a British company with employees in the U.S.
De La Rue says Thursday it will resume a lawsuit that first challenged the bid as unfair.