tHe cOnStRucT

aznic3 @ 2006-05-26T03:39:00

2006-05-26T10:40:37Z

eyyo guys listen to this great pun i just thought up:

suX3.

aznic3 @ 2006-03-30T19:41:00

2006-03-31T03:45:26Z

yeaaaaaaaa i didnt get into yale.

waitlisted at columbia.

on a happier note, hakuna matata.

aznic3 @ 2006-02-28T00:13:00

2006-02-28T08:15:45Z

dude i just ate some haw flakes that i found in my desk drawer.

ahhhhhhh the memories

if you dont know what haw flakes are go bang your head against the wall for your ignorance!

aznic3 @ 2006-02-14T22:59:00

2006-02-15T07:01:48Z

somewhere back there i left my worries all behind
my problems fell out of the back of my mind
were going and im never knowin
never knowin where were goin
to go back to where i was would just be wrong

im pressing on pressing on
all my distress is going going gone
pressing on pressing on
i cant sit back and take this anymore
im done with that ive got one foot out the door
to go back to where i was would just be wrong
im pressing on.

aznic3 @ 2006-02-09T00:09:00

2006-02-09T08:11:39Z

"Islamic" extremists are totally screwing over the world. I mean if you want intolerance, stubbornness, and irrationality, forget Christian fundamentalists and go for the real deals.

while on one hand i understand islamic outrage with what has been going on, their response just demonstrates what is wrong with extremism in the middle east. if they dont like something, the response is violence and death. that having been said the newspapers that continue to publish images despite public outrage are plain messed up in the head.

---------------------------------------------------

nice nights and sad songs make one feel pretty damn lonely

oldschool.

2006-02-07T08:32:00Z

desperate for changing
starving for truth
closer to where i started
chasing after you

im falling even more in love with you
letting go of all ive held on to
im standing here until you make me move
im hanging by a moment here with you

aznic3 @ 2006-01-30T23:14:00

2006-01-31T07:18:03Z

READING POSTS FROM THE PAST 24 HOURS MAKES ME VERY SAD.

you guys are sooooo depressing :(

cheer up guys! no regrets! look to the future!

aznic3 @ 2006-01-21T00:44:00

2006-01-21T08:47:40Z

i love how parents can totally disregard everything youve done in your entire life and try to use one insignificant mistake to paint you as an inconsiderate, irresponsible, disrespectful failure. they think everything ive ever done right is because of them and every mistake is like deliberate on my part or something. mind-boggling really.

whoopee.

aznic3 @ 2006-01-19T23:41:00

2006-01-20T07:46:27Z

whether or not its my own personal arrogance or whatever, it really bugs me when people brag about their achievements or try to show off.

do i do that? :/

i wish i had a better voice

aznic3 @ 2006-01-13T00:52:00

2006-01-13T09:00:12Z

i guess i should update this.

hmm what to talk about. i think im quitting giraffe the place really annoys me. hopefully wont be unemployed for long. anybody know places that need employees? im thinking tapioca express or some grocery store or something.

but ah yes school has become a joke. im taking a photography class and its so much fun using a manual film camera as opposed to the automatics i have used all my life. were shooting black and white right now and if any of my prints turn out the way i want, i'll probably post them on here :D that having been said i barely pulled off my As for first semester (multivariable got me like a 90.2 or something).

sigh can't wait to get letters (hopefully acceptance)

aznic3 @ 2005-12-23T00:33:00

2005-12-23T08:35:01Z

the lion the witch and the wardrobe almost made me cry :(

sighh.

although it had some lame parts it was a pretty cool movie. DAMN YOU PG-ness. I need to make an R rated version someday.

aznic3 @ 2005-12-19T17:03:00

2005-12-20T01:05:42Z

sigh i got deferred. surprised?..maybe. should i be?..guess not.

aznic3 @ 2005-12-13T02:08:00

2005-12-13T10:14:59Z

noone dserves to be killed.

pride and prejudice = cute and cuteness (IM NOT GAY)

2005-11-28T06:40:10Z

zOMG.

i watched pride and prejudice yesterday and i am totally in love with this chick flick now. duuuuuude i was like.. MESMERIZED. jane and elizabeth were the penULTIMATE of cuteness and the relationship between elizabeth and mr darcy was just like.. omg tear my heart out and cut it into pieces. now i have to go read the book or else im going to die. but if you havent seen it, skip harry potter (which was LAME) and go watch this movie. i totally smell oscar, kiera knightley was sooooo great, and the guys were really funny and cute too (refer to subject). sigh. back to reality.

btw i love british accents

harry potter blew

2005-11-20T19:32:08Z

wow i scroll down my friends page and i see "I LOVE HARRY POTTER THE MOVIE WAS AWESOME" so i was excited to go watch it and then like what do i see, i see the quidditch world cup cut out, i see a half nanosecond reference to Neville's parents being tortured into insanity, i don't see any kind of explanation of what barty crouch did. i think the people who make the movie should actually read the book before they make the movie instead oof just reading the sparknotes or something.

they cut out all the awesome parts i was hoping to see and instead i see scenes that they apparently made up to make the movie seem cooler, like harry flying around the whole school for like 20 minutes dodging the dragon when in fact he was the fastest out of the 4 to get his egg. instead i see scenes like the one where myrtle comes and basically tries to molest harry potter for 10 minutes, i mmean i guess it would be kind of funny for like 3rd graders who are like "shes trying to see his wee wee" but personally i found it really stupid and actually pretty damn gross because myrtle looks like an old lady trapped in a little girls body. i love how they are all just chilling in the woods when harry finds crouch's body and then it cuts away and never explains what the hell happened.

thoroughly disappointed. the only saving point was hermione and NOT.cho.chang.

aznic3 @ 2005-11-02T22:53:00

2005-11-03T06:59:57Z

i wish i was in Paris right now.

i'm in a rioting kind of mood

aznic3 @ 2005-10-20T19:05:00

2005-10-21T02:12:00Z

the "awww that's so adorable" moment of my day when i was grading a little 1st grade girl's homework and she wrote for a sentence that uses "are":

"We are in tha palk."

AHAHAhaa

i started working at giraffe

2005-10-19T06:33:36Z

i think that "Giraffe" should be renamed "Scary Chinese Hovel for Verbal Abuse and Child-Hating/Discipline"

aznic3 @ 2005-10-08T00:17:00

2005-10-08T07:23:42Z

Good luck to SATers!

good hunting

Creative/Intelligent Design "creatively designed" : Hi matt young:D

2005-10-07T08:23:14Z

http://www.livejournal.com/users/hobobob/156576.html

1. not everyone knows about this, but there was this guy named Miller who supposedly simulated an early-earth environemnt and created life (albeit sludgy red amino acids). this supposedly meant that God was out of a job. however, he was freaking wrong. Millers' atmosphere was made out of hydrogen-rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and wator vapor, which nowadays can be proven was wrong. There is no evidence that there was methane-ammonia in the atmosphere back then,and not even a lot of hydrogen, but a ton of evidence agaisnt it. im not gonna stay on this tpoic too long, its nothing we learned in school.

why can it be proved wrong? I think you're doing what i see throughout this dissertation which is to take a singlar experiment and pointing to its failures as a justification to why ideas are wrong. well it comes down to this. noone cares about whether or not his gases were exactly the same as those found in earth's atmosphere. the point is that he created organic compounds through abiotic means. he showed that it was possible. nowadays scientists know more than they did in the 50s, they now know that its likely life was created from simpler compounds, from chemicals found in deep-sea vents or submerged volcanoes.

2.Darwins tree of life: ok this is darwins sketch of his evolutionary tree in which there was a common ancestor(s) that we all developed from, and gave rise to a ton of species over a long period of time. sound familiar? it should. We have over 100 years of fossil evidence since Darwin drew his picture, and yet none of them support his evolutionary tree theory.

Actually, almost all fossil evidence thus far discovered supports his theory. I mean what exactly do you mean that none supports his theory? Species have died and appeared throughout freaking millenia and youre saying evolution is impossible because of this? Im pretty sure humans didnt exist 63 million years ago, so i guess we appeared out of nowhere? I suppose dinosaurs dying out giving rise to mammals (a type of animal superior to dinosaurs in metabolic function, basic efficiency, complexity, and intelligence) is meaningless despite all fossil records supporting this theory?

In fact, darwin even knew fossil records failed to suppport his tree. he acknowledges that major groups of animals (now called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record. WHICH IS NOT WHAT HIS THEORY PREDICTS. his theory predicts gradual change. fossil evidence today proves the EXACT OPPOSITE: the rapid appearance of phylum leveled differences in whats called the "Cambrian Explosion." go check up on it, its real.

Also once again setting up evolution for failure by saying Darwin made a mistake. Regardless of what Darwin personally believed about evolution, we now know that Darwin wasn't absolutely right (he lived in 1850s for crying out loud). Evolution was not neatly wrapped up back then, which is why evolution is such a tipping point of debate even today. some support the theory of gradualism, although the fossil record seems to lend itself to the theory of punctuated equilibrium (periods of stasis punctuated by episodes of speciation). the fossil record indicates that most successful species last for a few million years on average, but if the changes lending itself to the species success were to occur in the first say 100,000 years of its existence (a pretty long time, think 100,000 or more generations) then it's speciation would be compressed into less than 10% of its existence, followed by periods of stasis (equilibrium). or perhaps the gaps in the fossil record are caused by gradual diversification, followed by the successful population growth allowing them to appear in the fossil record. sorry but proving that Darwin was slightly off in his theory hypothesized over a century ago does not throw his entire thought process into irrelevancy.

The Cambrian Explosion isn't the scientific "secret" hidden from the scientific community because it refutes evolution or something as your author would have you believe. There are many hypothesized causes for the explosion of diversity, including the emergence of predator-prey relationships (causing greater natural selection and the greater importance of certain genetic traits), the oxygen concentration reaching a level great enough to support more active metabolism, and the possible development of Hox regulatory genes in this time period, which is a topic too in depth to talk about in this paragraph blurb. In any case, far from being overlooked, the Cambrian Explosion is one of the most scrutinized phenomenon in the study of evolution because animal phyla can be traced back to the diversification occuring during this period.

Some atheist scientists tried to prove there were living things before the Cambrian era through molecular evidence. your supposed to find similarities in a basic life molecule such as RNA,between different animals. if you keep going on to other animals and comparing RNA to RNA, you will find similarities and be able to contruct your own evolutionary tree. however, that didnt work very well, because if you compared a molecular tree to an anatomical tree, you would get a different tree. if you gave the molecule you researched to two different labs, they would have different results. it is not consistent.

The difference between the traditional tree built on body grades and the difference between the newer, modern view based on molecular differences is also one that has been addressed by scientists. First of all, scientists acknowledge that they hypothesize; the traditional view is useful and practical for the purpose that it is established, well known, and effective, but new evidence is constantly being discovered that challenges a lot of the shaky parts of the traditional body-grade tree. The reason why the new system based on molecular differences is not universally used is because its based so far on very few genes, and scientists are awaiting further research.

descent from a common ancestor is a reasonably true inference. dont get me wrong. HOWEVER, its only true at some levels. its possible that all cats,(lions, tigers, not bears), evolved from a common ancestor, its true at the species level, but is it true at the phyla level? the order level? its a very rocky assumption at higher levels. point in case: animals do not share a common ancestor.

We are made up of the same stuff. We function in the same ways. We grow in the same ways, develop in the same ways. It seems like a pretty rocky assumption to say that we each appeared separately.

3. Haekels embryos: we've all seen this picture. its the picture of the 4 embryos of different organisms next to each other, so u can see the resemblances. (its on pg 283 in the elephant book)(rather, there is an actualy picture of his work right here: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/images/Haeckel's%20Embryos.ipg.jpg )

that picture is strong evidence for darwinism right? wrong. the pictures arent even accurate. compare them to actual embryo photos, and they dont even look like the same thing. THe pictures of the early stages are faked. Haekel had used the same woodcut to print embryos from different classes. he thought his theory was so correct he didnt even think he had to draw them seperately. in short, he made the drawings to look more similiar than they are. his drawings MISREPRESENT THE EMBRYOS.

this was discovered in the late 1860s, where he was declared fraud. hwoever, they still use the picture today. why?

a. (im going by haekels picture, not the sci book picture) haekel picked his own organisms to represent. he picked representatives that fit his idea:ex he used a salamander instead of a frog in his picture to represent amphibians.

b. the picture haekel claims as early stage of development is actually the midpoint of development. if you go back earlier to earlier embryo stages, theyre really different. during an embryotic stage, the embryos go through what is called a "developmental hourglass" in which they start out very different (top of the hourglass) and then develop similarilily (middle of the hourglass) and the develop back out differently into different organisms. (bottom of hourglass) Haekel got the embryos while they were "in the middle of the hourglass" and claimed they were in early stage of development. BS.

Protosomes (mollusks, annelids, arthropods, ie worms and bugs and crap) develop differently from deuterostomes (echinoderms and chordates). The pictures that you see don't compare the embryos of protostomes and deuterostomes. They are demonstrating the homology of deuterostomes, which in fact do develop the same way throughout (you wouldn't compare protostomes with deuterostomes because they are hypothesized to have diverged so early on that their embryos develop in a different way). Once again, to deny the existence of a connection because one scientist was off in his interpretation is hardly reasonable. We don't value the pioneers because of their accuracy, but because of their ideas. think of it this way, he had a novel idea, but in order to make it known he had to b.s. his data. mendel did that, do you believe in genetics? sometimes to get it out in the open you need to sell it. his diagrams may be off the mark, but his idea isnt.

c. in the early stage of development in an embryo, it appears that humans have gills, and that we lost them as we developed. we dont. EXPIREMENT THING: bow your head like your looking at your tits. then feel your neck. you'll feel ridges. a human embryo would have been doubled over like you were, and its skin would have been ridged like that. theyre not merely skin folds, but theyre not gills. its an anatomical feature that grows out of the fact that this is how vertebrates develop. the resemblance is illusory.

This is just plain false. No educated scientists believes that humans have gills at an embryonic stage. The fact is, all vertebrate embryos have structures called pharyngeal pouches located in the throat area at some point in their embryonic development. These homologies develop into homologous structures with very different functions, for example gills in fish but Eustachian tubes in humans.

Theres another picture on the sci book pg 284 that shows homologous structures. this is more "proof" that we shared a common ancestor right? no. Richard Owen, a famous anatomist before darwins time, said they pointed toward a common design rather than descent with modification.

what's wrong with descent with modification? explains it pretty perfectly to me...

the point is, merely having a succession of similar forms is not enough. a mechanism is needed. a design is needed. a more common explanation is that there are homologies from similar genes.

this doesnt work well either (my hands are starting to hurt now).the only reason that is that they are programmed by similar genes in the embryo. theres a ton of evidence for that, but theres a ton of a ton of a ton of evidence though that similar genes give different features.

example: eyes. the gene that makes eyes is very very simliar in mice, and octupi, and fruit flies. if you look at their eyes though, their very diffrent. a mouse's is black and round, an octupuses' is a squiggly line thing, and a flies' is a compound thing. totally different, and yet all three depend on the same gene. the gene is so similar you can put a mouse gene into a fly and then the fly would develop a normal eye.

If your author gave you this argument, shame on him. While the same genes are located in many animals, they are activated and regulated by many what are called homeobox, or Hox genes, regulating the way such genes are expressed. You can swap these around and make a fly grow eyes or legs where its antennas are, etc.

well how about apes? humans and apes share 98% of our genes are similar ( i bet most of you were waiting for this argument) does that mean we share a comon ancestor? no we dont. if saying that 98% of our genes are simliar, that means that 2% are different.thats wrong though too. the 98% that are the same are the building genes, that build our body. the 2% are trivial things that don't have anything to do with anatomy.

let me compare it to something: two guys are building a bridge. they have the same basic equipment: steel beams, rivets, giant steel cords, girders. etc. and they build different bridges that are simliar, yet different. one turns out to be the "dumbarton bridge", the other turns out to be the "bay bridge". similar, yet different.

however this doesnt mean that there was a common ancestor. this means that there was a common DESIGNER and you all know the designer im referring to.

This argument doesn't make sense. Why did the builders make the bridges so similar? especially when one is supposed to be worth a billion times more? And why does God build us out of the same stuff anyway? If i was God creating bridges, i would make the one representing human beings out of diamonds and i would make the one representing monkeys out of manure and feces. if you're trying to discredit evolution with this point, you aren't doing a very good job.

4. the missing link between bird and reptiles: archepotyrx (sp w/e): this is a weak thing. they say its a link, but its not. its like saying the duck-billed platypus is transitional between birds and beavers. besides, all fossil evidence points out that reptils with bird-like-bones were found millions of years AFTER archeoptrx was found. which means, according to "evolution" that reptiles evolved into birds which evolved into reptiles. wtf?

This point demonstrates a lack of understanding of evolution. Nobody says that anything evolved through archaeopteryx, for all we know it just plain died out and its entire evolutionary line went extinct. what is important is that a dinosaur evolved with feathers, light bones, and limited capability of flight. obviously there were benefits to having these traits, and the fact that other fossils were found lending to this trend shows this. you are saying this:

    
    Dinosaurs----Archaeopteryx-----dinosaurs      and you're like "wtf"

real evolution  is like this
    
    Dinosaurs-------Archaeopteryx----?
              \ \ \-Dinosaurs--------?
               \ \--Dinosaurs--------?
                \---Dinosaurs--------Dinosaurs with bird-like bones

Do you see the problem with your argument?

moral of the story: dont start an argument unless you know facts. hardcore FACTS. not some other crap.
That's a good moral. You know what? Before i read these things i was thinking "hey, why not teach intelligent design, i dont see the problem" but now i seriously do. In fact i see a problem with letting believers in creative design teach biology and evolution. The fact is that they bend their facts, they have a thing to prove. Science is disinterested, it has no need to disprove God, but neither does it feel the need to prove God exists like people who flaunt the idea of creative design. i believe in God, i believe that he made me who i am. i believe that God isn't limited to magic hocus pocus to create the world, i believe that God works in mysterious ways and that one of those ways is evolution. after all, isn't that the most "creative" way of all to design?

WHAT'S MY MAIN PROBLEM?
Education. Evolution has never challenged my belief in God. But belief in intelligent design is in my eyes a danger to the basic knowledge of the workings of the world. To blindly deny knowledge for faith is in my eyes a wrong, and to deny others that knowledge for the sake of swaying them over is even greater one.

I leave you all with a quote by someone to who me is one of my greatest heros.
"Faith without knowledge is blind. Knowledge without faith is in vain."
-Albert Einstein

To Matt, i will say this: your faith is strong. but you need to seriously consider what kind of knowledge you're basing yourself on. for me, a one sided point of view of a creationist is not fact, nor is it reliable. all of that ive said in this entire thing is what i know from my biology class. to only know one side and to accept it as fact is folly.

'nuff said.

aznic3 @ 2005-09-28T22:08:00

2005-09-29T05:14:46Z

boomer is really fracking annoying. i suppose shes such a bad actress because she's really a cylon robot.

and i love how nobody will understand this post except for my cousin.

aznic3 @ 2005-09-26T22:33:00

2005-09-27T05:39:32Z

wow battlestar galactica is such a hot show

who knew theyd be so horny in the future and ive only watched 25 minutes of the pilot

aznic3 @ 2005-09-26T00:14:00

2005-09-26T07:20:32Z

You are a
Social Moderate
(56% permissive)

and an...
Economic Liberal
(13% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Socialist

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

wow who knew

aznic3 @ 2005-09-20T20:41:00

2005-09-21T03:47:24Z

i could use some serious money. does anyone know about any job opportunities?

aznic3 @ 2005-09-14T22:18:00

2005-09-15T05:24:09Z

i need some serious love.