Weblogs that lack substance.
Okay, so I have been a little bored today. I am still in the midst of a long dry spell of a slow period for me. I have had some real work this week, but it has been limited.
I figured since I wont be able to add a post over the weekend (no internet access) I would write another quick entry here before I leave work.
The fact that I have been a little bored, and that I am obsessed with this whole weblog thing during this phase of my life, led me to hit the next blog button at the top of this page...what I found was very irritating.
First, I admit that some of my writing is fluff. I dont claim to be a professional writer by any means...and I put pictures of Jen...and pictures of me with my friends...I have words of the day...I share stories about my life. But most of what I write has at least some kind of point, and it can be somewhat controversial at times and spark comments. Most of the time when I write something, I feel like I need to get to a point of why I am sharing that with "the world"...the moral of the story if you will. Whether the point is to share some emotion that I am dealing with, or vent, or simply entertain.
There are a great number of exceptions to this rule, but for the most part, what I found while scrolling through does not amount to much. The problem with most of these is that there is no substance...nothing worth taking my time to read. Again, I know that there are exceptions out there...I even found some of them while scrolling...but you have to sift through so many bad ones to get to a good one.
I want to encourage everyone to take a stand with me people...help promote writing with substance.
Have a great weekend everyone.
posted by Kevin Yates @ 2:53 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Big Props to my K Dog on that post! Many times I scroll through to find something...anything...to spark my creative gene to write on a topic that will pop in my head while reading another blog, but unfortunately it rarely happens. And, aside from no substance, I've found vulgar, profane sites and wonder....that's all these poor people have time to do? I'll wave your flag high!
Second this post. Like I said, it took me a good 30-50 blogs before finding yours.
"Very well written. I myself would be in the camp that the "Intelligent Design" theory should at least be offered as a viable option in the public school classroom...I appreciate that you do not bash those of us that hold to that belief."
Thanks. Do you mean that you think ID should be taught in *science* classes, or that it should be taught in *some* class? And by "option", do you mean that students should have the option to learn it or not, or that it should be presented in any class discussing evolution as a different "option"?
"I would like to turn that comment around on those who are anti Intelligent Design and say, just because a person doesnt understand the minute details to God creating the universe, that does not mean that the truth of that should be dismissed either."
Well, as I wrote in my post, the fact that ID isn't "science" doesn't mean that it's false -- it just means that it shouldn't be taught in science classes. There are lots of true things that aren't "science" -- history, math, etc.
"btw...i dont hold to a young earth either. I dont know if I agree with the estimate you referenced, but I think it is much older than 6,000 years."
So how old do you think it is?
Rose,
Thanks...I appreciate the props. Last Friday, I was so irritated while I was sifting through...thus my entry :).
I did come across a ton of vulgarity...i am not anti-foul language in blogs, but if i am going to take my time to read through the foul language, there needs to at least be some substance there worth reading.
Josh,
Very good questions...I will try to answer them here briefly, but I havent had a great deal of time to ponder them extensively, and it is possible that I havent thought some of the answers through to their end...there are slippery slopes that should be avoided, and it is possible that my initial suggestive answers would walk to the brink of one of those slopes...I may change my thoughts after further analysis. furthermore, I am at work (lol).
I would say, even though it is unlikely this will ever happen, there should be a much stronger emphasis in the science classroom that Darwin's theory is indeed a theory and not necissarily a fact.
I would say 90%-95% of the time, the science teacher teaches Darwin's theory as the only truth of the matter (i am licensed to teach 1-8 grades...i saw that very thing in action in the public school system when getting my undergrad...it played a very small part of one of the reasons i am not a teacher actually)
Therefore, when I say option, I mean that the students need to understand that evolution is not the only possible solution to the creation/humanity question. ID, at least on an introductory level, should be therefore covered in the science classroom...even if its mention is merely in passing. I believe that ID does fall under the scope of science (as opposed to strictly religion), even though you seem to disagree with that thought.
children of all ages, even through high school years are impressionable, and very seldom question what teachers teach...they dont have the motivation to research it, and possibly find that a teacher or teaching is wrong (dont get me wrong, I think a lot of people in the churches suffer from the same problem...that is why there are so many out there that follow false doctrines like lemmings (sp?))
As far as the age of the earth is concerned...i myself have not had the "motivation to research it" (haha) yet during my seminary career...I have spent most of my study devoted to the new testament. i took five semesters of greek, and most of my other classes have centered around there as well...i have not had much time for my own independant study time, and I have only been a christian for 8 years.
that said, i base my rejection of the young earth pretty much solely on the fact that if the earth is "bring(ing) forth living creatures after their kind: cattle creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind" (gen.1.24)...and as it continues on into the sixth day, after the creation of man, it appears that man is harvisting what God has provided...all of these cycles take more than a literal day.
I would also say that fossilization (sp?) probably has a bit of an impact on my view as well.
i hodl that Moses, when writing Genesis, is using hyberbolic language to represent those periods of time. hyberbolic language is pretty common place throughout the entirety of the Bible. without further research, I dont feel as though I have enough of a knowledge base to make even an educated guess as to how old I feel that the earth is.
I am not taking classes this summer, I will start doing some research and get back to you on which theory I feel like is defended the best.
sorry this response is so long...there was a lot of stuff to cover though.
Hey Kevin, Sorry I didn't get back to you yet...I will later tonight or tomorrow morning though. I'm just at work now. And don't worry too much about 'anonymous' in my blog comments.
not a problem, i have actually already posted again on your site...i do all of my "blogging" at work. i have really had a lot of time lately due to a very slow period, but it is about to get busy for me. i wont be able to respond any evenings or on the weekend, but i am all for keeping up the communication between us...not so much with "anonymous" though.
Post a Comment
<< Home