Science versus Religion

After reading the article i believe that it is actually possible to integrate science and religion. I am a person who has gone to church all of my life. Since I was born I have attended regularly, only missing for important reasons such as a family crisis or we were out of the country. With that being said, I also like the sciences at school. Especially the chemistry and the physics strands of the course. I believe that scientist like Leonardo Vetra was actually on to something. It is possible that science and religion can be combined. After we have read the book and watched different videos, we assume that there was a super-collision of a huge force in the universe. This would have caused the universe to expand, cool, and form as we know it today. We, as Christians, know that there has always been a force in the universe. We believe that to be God. Since the theory states that there was a rapid expansion and then it cooled down, this would explain the creation in 7 days. It would also lead us to say that at the beginning of time in the Garden of Eden, the universe was very small and has been expanding ever since. This would mean that both the evolution theory and the creation theory is correct. Really though, it doesn't matter what started at the beginning. The say "Don't worry about the past, look to the future" is a good quote here. The more we dwell on learning about the past the less time we have on advancing the future and making a better tomorrow. If we do end up finding out what did happen billions and billions of years ago, we find out. But that will be the end of it, after we figure that out there is no way to progress further. All in all, I think that it doesn't matter how the Earth began. If someone wants to believe in the creation theory or the evolution theory that is their choice. I believe that both could be right as well. It all depends on how much faith you have and how stubborn you are.

Earth Hour

Since it has already gone by I can say that i participated in Earth Hour. At my house was a interesting ordeal. We shut off all our electronics and lights and sat in the dark for the entire hour. It wasn't as bad as i expected seeing as it was an entire hour with my mom, sister, and her friend. When the time came to turn back on the lights we went right back to it and started watching a movie. I think that Earth Hour is a good idea but it lacks a lot of commitment and it doesn't really affect anything during that hour. So people shut off there for one hour... big deal they turn them back on and continue like normal. As for the commitment, it was very poorly done. Ontario had only a 6% power save with Toronto having a 16% power save. That is barely anything considering that we use so much energy everyday all the time. Why not make it Earth Day or Earth Week? Now that would be a challenge that I think most people couldn't do.

Pope in Africa on HIV

The first thing have to say is that the Pope, even though he is one of the most powerful men in the world, let alone in the religious world, needs to still explain himself. Yes I agree that the Pope was not wise in saying that condoms increase the problem of being infected with HIV. This I think is a common known fact that it does help prevent it. It reduces the transmission by over 60% which is a fairly good statistic but not a very good one. I think that if the Pope could have a "re-do" he would exclude that from his speech. The debating problem where I agree with the Pope is that condoms are not the answer. Even with thousands and thousands of condoms people will still get infected. Just look at Canada and the US. Even though there are so many condoms available to the public, HIV is still spread and is usually uncontrolled. This is because people do not want to talk the time to slip one on or are afraid that it will not be the same. Even though that it will protect them against deadly diseases they insist on being stupid and not taking precautions. The point I believe the Pope was trying to get across was that the only solution to the problem is abstinence. This would be the ideal situation if it were practical and wouldn't result in a mass genocide. Without the birth of children, the population of the African countries would die out eventually. Then some power-hungry country like the US would invade and take over all of this land. Even though abstinence would be a way to solve the problem, it is not a likely case. Really, there is probably going to be no way to stop people from transmitting HIV. People will be stupid and people will not care and they will pay the price. All it takes is for one to not care or go crazy to start the pandemic all over again. Just like all of the school shooting that have been happening recently, innocent people are affected and they have no control over it. I believe that there is no solution and that HIV will be an everlasting problem and battle in Africa. It saddens me to say it but it is mostly likely the truth and there is nothing we can do about it.

TED talks

So after watching the video, even though I'm taking physics this year, I am still partially confused about all of the Big Bang theory and the particle physics that surrounds it. The main thing that really interested me was the size of the accelerator and the fact that everything is made up of hydrogen. It is really mind boggling that everything we touch, eat, and use is all made up of the same thing just re-arranged, fused, or decomposed. It really shows just how everything was planned out and there had to be someone behind it. Whether you think it God or just a coincedence I'll leave that up to you.

A+ for everyone

I think that this idea has potential but was the wrong approach to the problem. The problem with the school system right now is that we are giving marks based on what you know. Marks should be given on how well you know HOW to use the information instead of just knowing how to plug in numbers and use formulas or things like that. The best example is art, English, drama, and music. All of these subject are very focused on being creative. This means that to be creative you have to do something that no one else has done or thought of. How are teachers suppose to mark something like that? The other important thing is that each teacher has a different opinion on what is right and what is creative enough in the real world. So marks do not always reflect how well you have learned. The main issue with this problem though is that school puts way to much pressure on students. If students knew that they would be successful in school, ya sure there will be some of them that slack off and don't deserve the marks they are getting. But won't there always be people like that even if true grades were given? Also, if every student is given the opportunity to go to a university or a college, yes they might not deserve the grade they get there but at least they will have heard it. This means that some of them might remember things from school without actually doing any of the work. Not necessarily the hard complicated stuff but just the basics. This in turn means that there will always be at least someone who has an idea of what they are doing. On the other side, there will be people who still do the work because they want to or are forced too or just realize that the outside world judges you on what you know. They may feel like they are being treated unfairly or they are carrying other people and that others don't deserve to be there. What the big point there is that eventually the people who actually did the work will benefit. Most likely it will come when they have applied for a job just like the person who didn't do the work. When it comes down to showing what you got, the person who has done the work will most likely be rewarded by showing that they know more and will most likely get the job. Really my opinion is simple. I believe that the school system should have only two different grades. There should be a passing grade and a failing grade. This would be until the last year of high school. When you are in your grade 12 year, there should be three different grades. These are for telling you where you should go from here. There will be a university bound grade, a college bound grade, and a failing grade. This way, all students will be treated as equally as possible without being judged by a certain individual. Then through university/college you would go back to the two grades, passing or failing. Only and i say only in the final year of your last year at school should you be truly "marked" on how much you have learned or have the potential to learn. The potential to learn is very important to have as well as the knowledge already. Potential will help you tackle new, unforseen problems with the previous knowledge that you have learned/know. This way, businesses and companies will not make a mistake in hiring the better candidate for the job. It is a really simple process and would not be hard to enforce. This would also raise the self-esteem of students who study all day and get average marks. They will be with the smart people and it will look the same. It also benefits the smart person because they know that eventually all of their hard work will pay out. I think that this would be the best way to mark students because it lets them do what they want which what i think for most will be work as hard as they can.

Our Choice Blog

I don't want to give anything away but this blog is about Angels and Demons. So far it is one of the best books I have read in a long, long time. I've agreed with most of the class so far. To me Dan Brown is not that good of an author when it comes to his description of people and places. But when has someone ever become famous for something they were actually good at? You see all the movie stars now a days lip singing or getting their voices alter so it actually sounds good. Either that or like Hannah Montana where all they have is just a rich dad or mom that is in show business. If Miley (Hannah), wasn't the daughter of Billy Ray Cyrus, she would have absolutely no singing career. The only reason she does is because of him and his good career and the labels thought we better at least give her a chance. But back to Angels and Demons, the book is not tremendously action filled at the beginning of the book. It starts off with this man Robert Langdon, a symbolist from Harvard. He gets a call in the middle of the night saying that he needs to come right away. When he says he'll come in the morning, a fax comes and there is a picture of a man with the words "Illuminati" ambigram into him. Robert reluctantly leaves ASAP for Switzerland to take a look at this man. His flight on the X-33 (a special "space" plane that travels mach 13), is told to be interesting and gets him from the US to Switzerland in about an hour. He then visits the deceased mans lab and the story starts to unfold. This man was a scientist and a priest. He was using a particle accelerator to try and create a re-enactment of the Big Bang Theory. They were successful and in the process produced anti-matter which, to give an idea, 1kg is equal to 47 megatons of TNT. After the plot develops, we realize that the "Illuminati" have broken into the lab and have stolen the antimatter, and placed it somewhere in the Vatican City. They (Robert Langdon and daughter of deceased and fellow scientist Vittoria) have to get to Vatican and find the bomb in 24 hours before it blows up the Vatican and destroys the entire place. To make matters worse, the pope had just died and there is suppose to be the election or Conclave in which all the bishops of the world gather. It is a race against time that is full of twist, turns, and so many surprises. Ban Brown may not be a good descriptive writer but he sure knows how to make an action-packed novel and keep you hanging on the edge of your seat until the end of the book!!

Oak Island

I believe that Oak Island is either a hoax or people who were here a long time ago. If it is a hoax, it has been very well thought out and done with so much precision that it would have taken years upon years to create. The other thing is that the technology wouldn't have been great along enough to build something of this caliber at the time it was supposedly build and let alone found. Not to mention all of the layers or barriers that were constructed to prevent it from collapsing due to pressure and the flood tunnels that make it preventable and virtually impossible to proceed any further into the pit unless in scuba equipment. It is also a mystery about how the piece of paper with letters or symbols got on it as well as the gold chain. This proves that it was man made or at least at one point there was a living thing that had been in the money pit. If it is in fact a hoax, someone must be laughing really hard at all the people who have tried to find the "treasure" that lies in the money pit. The other option that i think it could be is some native culture that wasn't ever discovered. Something along the lines of a native tribe such as the Hurons or the Iroquois that died out or assimilated into another tribe before anyone had come to the New World. This would mean though that there is an ancient dynasty that was far more advanced then anything we have ever seen or live in today. It means that instead of progressing we were already ahead and have fallen back. The other thing would be that there would have to be some record of the tribe or artifacts that they used to build the money pit or just to live. Either one of these would change the world complete and would turn heads no matter what whether it be for good or bad.

Ken Robinson and creativity

I believe that Ken Robinson does make some valid points when it comes to creativity in school. The school system today is very focused on cramming you with as much hard, and raw facts as they can in the years you are in school. They teach you all of the different formulas but not how to apply them to other situations or real life situations. This meaning that when we get out into the real world or even into just spost-secondary education, we find ourselves struggling to find answers to problems we haven't seen before. The school system should focus more on how to figure out what the question is asking, rather then just give the answer. There needs to a class that doesn't matter if you get the right answer or not. The point of the class should be to figure out how to answetr the problem but not needing to give a specific number answer or word answer. All in all, Ken Robinson is absolutely and completely right. School today will not ultimately prepare you for the problems of tomorrow and how to approach them. The school system is in need for a big change of the curriculum or there are going to be big problems.

Blogging experience

I have not really blogged before. I have used blogger to get information while on vacation from a teacher but not in depth.