Extras:
View My Guestbook
Christian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
Internet accounts, and missing links [Thursday, May. 26, 2005, 2:09 pm]
One downside of being an "internet addict" is that sometimes I get confused with all the sites I'm a member of. I have so many accounts and usernames at different places, plus I use about 4 or 5 different passwords, so sometimes I just get a little mixed up when I have to sign in somewhere. Plus I get mail from places I've never heard of, and then I realize it was something I signed up for a gazillion months ago. Speaking of e-mail: why do companies seem to think that I'll think I know them if they use my name? Take a subject like this: "You have been invited to play LAURA" Or "LAURA - claim your $1,000" Do people actually look at subjects like that and think, "OH MY GOSH, I must have won money! It MUST be legit if they actually know what my first name is!" I mean, I guess some dunces must still be falling for it or the companies would make no money. Just like telemarketers wouldn't be around if they didn't sell an occasional product. It just seems like a lame marketing technique, but if people are new to the internet they may be more likely to get sucked into scams like that. I suppose not everyone can be as experienced as I. *cough* Speaking of getting sucked into scams, *ahem* Today's chapter in psychology covered the evolutionary perspective. Of course, they didn't present it as a "perspective," they presented it as fact. Okay, now in some aspects I actually believe in evolution. For example, I do believe that microevolution (changes within a species) can take place (and has), because that's one thing that can be observed and measured. But there's no way I could believe macroevolution, which is the changing from one species to another. For one thing, there's no proof. In the past, scientists have used monkey bones found miles apart, incomplete skeltons with parts "filled in," and my personal favorite: a single tooth that was later found to have come from a pig, in order to try to produce the "missing link" of our historic ancestors. But see, that's the part I don't understand. First of all, if evolution is a fact, why are these people so desperate to produce an "ape-man," even if it means deceiving the public? If evolution is true, there would be millions of "missing links," wouldn't there? For example, evolution teaches that during the process of macroevolution, cows at some point evolved into whales (udderly ridiculous, if you ask me). If that really happened, shouldn't we be finding just as many (if not more) "in between" fossils as we find of just cows and whales? I mean, if it took millions of years of death and destruction to reach the point we're at, the "missing links" should be everywhere. Also, since macroevolution supposedly took place over millions of years, there's no way it could be replicated today, and so many people seem to think that the magic ingredient is simply "time." As in, if you add enough time to your theory, anything could happen to it. But it seems to me that more time simply wears things down rather than making them better.
Miss anything?
Vitality - Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2009 |