Creation vs. Evolution

A few weeks ago in my language arts class we were talking about different creation stories, including the Genesis and the Epic of Gilgamesh. About two weeks ago in my science seminar class we talked about evolution. It got me thinking about how the world actually started and the fact that science and religion can never really agree with each other. Science is all about hard facts whereas religions are more about beliefs. The only similarities that those two have is that both are trying to give a reason for the origins of everything. In science the world began with the Big Bang and soon things settled and animals evolved to survive; in religion it says that god created the world in six days.

Personally I am not a very religious person so I don't even believe in god(at least I don't think I do). The question that I have is that if god did created the world in six days then who created god? Or that if it was one divine god that create the world then why are there so many different religions that believe in so many different gods? There is no proof that god made things appear, but at the same time there is also no proof on something that god made happen out of thing air.

I think the idea of the Big Bang and evolution seems more likely then god because for me, I like to hear the evidence before actually believing in what someone told me. Evolution makes sense to me because it states that we humans and many other living organisms evolve because we need to survive and those that don't are doomed. We have to evolve because the things around us are always changing and i believe it because it makes sense to me. But I am not judging anyone who believes in god, all i am saying is that evolution seems more logical then creation. Science might explain to us that how we come to be and science might be around us everyday but it doesn't give us hope. Religion is something people belive in so that people can feel comfort and it can get some people to become more ethical becuase they believe in a higher being that might punish them if not.

http://www.keacher.com/files/comics/evolution_large.png

Is Assisting Suicide Moral?

Dr. Jack Kevorkian is known as Doctor Death he "helps many people who are badly affected by their serious health conditions to hug death." He helps them commit suicide in a sort of way so they won't have to suffer anymore.
So the big question that everyone is debating about is whether or not this is moral. Is it okay to kill people just because they are suffering? It is after all considered murder.
I think it is okay that he is "killing" people to put them out of their misery. What is a life when you live it full of agony. For me I would rather die then live a life full of pain, but I probably wouldn't be able to do it once I am down to the decision. I think Dr, Jack Kevorkian is actually doing them a favor because probably many of them don't have the guts to kill themselves but they don't want to live either. If it wasn't for him these people that he helped killed would still be in a lot of pain. I think what he is doing is not considered murder because those people are the ones that wants to be killed so asks him to do it. It actually takes a lot of guts to do what he did because it takes a lot of guts to bring himself past the fact that the patients are dying in front of them. I actually support him just because he is putting the patients out of their misery but it won't be a excuse for some crazy psychopath to say that they killed the victims because they are in pain. He should be considered a hero, why should he not be happy to hook the patients up to the machines. The patients are literally better off dead.
On the other hand it brings out the question who gives him the right to kill these people? He is no god, he has no right to decided whether or not these people should live or not. What makes him different from another killers? He is still killing/ taking someone's family member or friend away.
Is it okay for him to be "killing" these people?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/opinion/05tue3.html?_r=1

Gay commits suicide

According to the Declaration of Independence that all men are equal, but is that really true? In the article “Internet blamed in Rutgers suicide” it states that a gay student Tyler Clementi, committed suicide because his roommate recorded a video of him having a sexual encounter with another man. This was not the first time that a gay person has committed suicide "Tyler is the fourth highly publicized gay teen to kill himself in four weeks.” So if all men are equal then why do the gay guys have to hide themselves? If the gay guys don’t hide themselves then they would be harassed. There are many times those men who prefer men are being teased at just because of their indifference. How can they be themselves knowing that people might look at them differently and treat them differently? Why should gay people be an exception to what is said on the Declaration of Independence?

Further more, the roommate and the accomplice were only charged with invasion of privacy. The roommate should be charged for association with death; it was because of them that an 18-year-old committed suicide. They shouldn’t be recording anything personal without the approval of the person being recorded. I find it kind of sad that the roommate would do such a thing and post it on the Internet. Apparently some people these days just don’t have the brains to think of the consequences.

Something I found interesting was the title of this article, the part that states, “Internet blamed.” When I saw this I thought why would the Internet be blamed it was the roommate that killed Tyler. After thinking it through and reading the quote on the article, which says, “Cyberspace has given every one of us an almost magical ability to invade other people's lives,” I find this to be quite true. People can post anything on the Internet without consent from someone else because the Internet allows them to do so. The Internet is full of possibilities including invading other people’s lives. Everything has a good and bad side, the Internet can teach us and help us find information but it can also mislead us by telling us false information posted up by someone else. It is like a stapler, one can use it to staple paper but when used in a wrong way one can staple someone and hurt him or her. If the Internet is capable of doing bad then why do we use it? We can’t always set rules to prevent people from doing things because those rules don’t even work. In fact there might be more problems because some people like to break rules. Perhaps we should just ban the use of internet but that would also lead to so many inconvenience? That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be change, one day I think we will finally all agree on how to make the internet safe.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/10/03/Internet-blamed-in-Rutgers-suicide/UPI-35021286124844/

Who is stealing Spongebob??

I was searching whether Spongebob will make a person stupid or not, then i came across a topic saying that spongebob is a gay cartoon. After I read the article i still didn't get why spongebob would make a person gay, so I clicked on a link from the news and saw this. It said that "Who’s stealing SpongeBob? Authorities are baffled" When I saw this i was actually kind of shocked. I thought to myself who would be so bored to steal something like this. Personally I watch Spongebob a lot because I think it is really funny. I continued to reading the article and it said that this Spongebob balloon costs $500 so I was thinking "OMG that is one expensive Spongebob, no wonder people are staling it. Maybe I should steal one too." If someone gave me this huge Spongebob balloon for my birthday I would be so happy. Who wouldn't want this, but I don't think I would really go as far as stealing this from Burger King. First of all it is against the law to steal and I probably won't find one in Taiwan.
If they are afraid that the huge Spongebob balloon would get stolen then just stop putting these expensive balloons out for everyone to steal. True, it is probably something to get the kids to buy their burgers; but in case they didn't notice yet, the amount of burgers that they sell to kids in one day is probably maybe $250, which is half of the price of the big balloon. I think it is not worth it to spend $500 to replace a big balloon. Perhaps Burger King should start selling these giant Spongebob balloon and see if there are people who are going to buy it instead of stealing it. I wonder if the people who stole it are adults or teenagers. If it was adults they probably stole it for the money or perhaps to make their kids happy, after all some parents will do just about anything to make their kids happy. If it was teenagers they probably just want to steal it to show it off to their friends and show them that they could steal something this big or that they have a huge Spongebob balloon.
I don't think anyone should steal, what if someone steals your stuff? Would you be happy? Before a person attempts something they should think about how it would make others feel.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6632661/ns/us_news-weird_news

Banned Books, Now Banned Authors

I have no idea why they are banning books in the first place. If a person feels like that a certain book is full of violence or inappropriate things then they could just stop reading it. Why would they want to ban it? Others might like the books, I don't think a group of people who feels like certain books are inappropriate should get to decide whether the book should stay on the shelf or not. They should leave it on the shelf so other readers gets the chance to decide for themselves. Some "inappropriate" books may contain a deep meaning to it, like Lord of the Flies. This book has been banned in some places but it teaches the readers that in our human nature we can do anything to survive, which includes killing each other.
I think banned books week should be kept because that is the week when people celebrate the freedom to read the books that they want. Although I don't read much but once I get started I can't stop. I don't like it when someone tells me to read this book or that book, or when they tell me "you can't read this book because it is not suitable." In my eyes I like it when I get to choose the book I want to read, I don't want someone to tell me what I can't read. Strangely enough the books that some people find too violent are the ones that I like the best. So I really do think that getting rid of this banned books week is not a good idea.
First they decide to ban books but now they are also banning authors. Maybe the author wrote one book that might be full of violence but that doesn't mean all the other books are full of violence. I think people overreact sometimes, they probably don't even know what they are doing.
We should appreciate the books we have now, who knows what book/author might be banned next. Perhaps the book that you like the most will be the next book that is banned.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100929/us_time/08599202235600