I’m halfway through a little book about the imprecatory Psalms of the Old Testament. The book is called, War Psalms of the Prince of Peace, by James E. Adams. In today’s reading I came across this:

“Where do we get the idea that it is wrong to ask God to bring judgment on the wicked? That mentality creeps up on us so subtly that it has become a very common idea in our day. You may have even heard a fellow Christian express such an intense love for friends or relatives that God’s judgment against their evil deeds is rejected. It is possible to perceive such deep feelings of love for another as very “Christian”while failing to realize that what is being expressed actually evidences a lack of love for God.”

I think I’ll make this my quote for the week.

Here’s a great video piece about Eagle TV’s Steppe-by-Steppe program.

You can contribute to our work in Mongolia by visiting www.thomasterry.com/gift.

One of the things I’ve wanted to do for a long time is create 3D photos using a little GIF animation trick. It’s old hat, not really new tech. The full resolution of the images aren’t retained, but it can be a cool effect if you have the right pictures.

This is my first attempt. I shot this at Tohono Chul Park this afternoon. I’ve uploaded other images from today’s shoot to my Flickr account. Or you can see them on my funk-weird photo presenter site. Sadly, GIF animations don’t show up properly on Flickr.

Want to see a full screen version of this image? Take a look at it here.

A big thank you to the staff at Eagle TV, and my wonderful bride, who all contributed to buy me a great birthday present this year. A fisheye lens for my Nikon. I could not be happier.

I have the best wife, and best staff. In. The. World.

Here’s one of the first images I shot with my new lens today. It’s posted on my Flickr page.

Nice to Meet you! Shake.

Tomorrow Diane and I are going to take a day and visit the Biosphere-2 and shoot some more pictures there.

An attorney and a fashion model found themselves seated together on a long flight across the country. Bored with the movie selection they began discussing their careers. The attorney complained that everyone regards his ilk as corrupt, always taking unfair advantage of people. The fashion model said she also thought that was true and didn’t trust attorneys. She then went on to complain about her own troubles – that everyone thinks fashion models are stupid. The attorney, still offended that the model thought he was dishonest, said he agreed that most fashion models weren’t that bright.

After several bouts of argument and silence the attorney proposed a duel of the minds. “Tell you what,” he said, “Let’s ask each other questions and for each question we get wrong, we have to pay the other five dollars.”

The fashion model looked skeptical. “See, I’m not that stupid. You are a college-educated lawyer. I wear dresses and bikinis for a living. Your challenge doesn’t seem that fair.”

The attorney changed the odds, “You pay five dollars, I’ll pay twenty dollars,” he said, but she refused. Finally the attorney said, “For every question I ask you, if you get the answer wrong I will pay you one hundred dollars. But if I can’t answer a question of yours, you only have to pay me five dollars.”

The fashion model looked at him skeptically then said, “Okay, go ahead and ask a question.”

The attorney rubbed his hands together excitingly and said, “What is a writ of habeas corpus?”

Without a word the model reached into her purse, pulled out a five-dollar bill and handed it to the lawyer. “My turn,” she said. The attorney folded the bill and stuffed it in his pocket, smiling. “Fire away,” he said.

“What goes up a hill with three legs but comes back down the hill with four legs?”

The attorney was stumped. Not wanting to be beaten in a game of wits by a dumb fashion model, he opened his laptop and searched his encyclopedia. When he couldn’t find the answer he asked around to other passengers seated nearby, but no one could give him the answer. Finally in frustration he gave up, pulled out his wallet and handed the model one hundred dollars.

As the model counted the cash the attorney said, “Okay, so what is the answer to your question?”

Without hesitation the model handed him another five dollars.

The nails in the coffin of macro-evolutionary theory just keep getting pounded. There may be more nails in the coffin than wood! The latest nail may be a new study of human genes revealing that human beings are far more genetically diverse from one another – and from animals, than previously thought. Here’s the latest tidbit from the U.K.’s, The Independent:

The findings mean that instead of humanity being 99.9 per cent identical, as previously believed, we are at least 10 times more different between one another than once thought – which could explain why some people are prone to serious diseases.The studies published today have found that instead of having just two copies of each gene – one from each parent – people can carry many copies, but just how many can vary between one person and the next.The studies suggest variations in the number of copies of genes is normal and healthy. But the scientists also believe many diseases may be triggered by an abnormal loss or gain in the copies of some key genes.

Another implication of the finding is that we are more different to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, than previously assumed from earlier studies. Instead of being 99 per cent similar, we are more likely to be about 96 per cent similar.

Keep in mind that the 96 percent figure is speculation; an actual comparison based upon the new research has not been done. Suffice it to say that if human beings are 10 times more genetically diverse than previously thought, why would we be any less diverse from Bonzo?

Yes, it’s early to make conclusions of the data based upon a short quip in a science article, but Holy Cow (there’s not such thing), the more we discover the more we learn about the impossibility of macro-evolution.

Maybe macro-evolution doesn’t need a coffin. We can’t really bury what never existed in the first place.