Batman: Not a Superhero

That's right, I said it, I don't think Batman is a superhero. Now, I know what you're thinking, "Eli, how could you say that? Batman does so many great things and helps so many people, plus, he could easily kick you're @$$!"

I agree. Although now-a-days I strictly read Marvel comics, the first comics I really read with zeal were Batman comics, so Batman holds a special place in my heart. However, I can not consider Batman a superhero, and here's why:

The dictionary on my Mac defines a superhero as "A benevolent fictional character with superhuman powers, such as Superman." I added the bold for emphasis on superhuman. To be a superhero you have to have abilities that are impossible for a human to obtain, i.e. flight, super strength (not strength you can get from working out all the time), super speed (not speed you can get from running everyday), heat vision, etc...

Now, pro-Batman-as-a-superhero people would say something like "Batman is super intelligent." Not true! Batman is intelligent, yes, but any person can be as intelligent as him if they study enough, Reid Richards (or Mr. Fantastic) can be considered super intelligent because he can literally stretch his mind to allow for more intelligence, more memory capacity, and more retained information than a normal human can. Tony Stark (Iron Man) can only barely be considered a superhero when he integrated his body with the Extremis program, allowing his mind to become literally a computer, so he made himself into a superhero. A man with a suit with fancy gadgets does not make him a super hero, it makes him a hero with super gadgets.

Other's will say "he's super cunning." Again, not true, any person with enough training can become super cunning, just look at snipers and special agents, although they are definitely heroes, they're not super heroes by definition.

Now, I am NOT saying that this makes Batman less of a hero. He saves lives and fights bad guys, he just doesn't have any superhuman abilities. Super abilities, sure, but not superhuman, so in conclusion: hero yes, superhero no.

Now, since I hold these standards to Batman, I have to admit, the new Captain America (Bucky Barnes) is not a super hero. He is solely a man with a robotic arm, but he is definitely a hero, personally one of my favorites, but again just a man.

HOWEVER! The original Captain America (Steve Rogers) is a superhero. He has the peak condition in every aspect of himself. Although, from my understanding, it is the optimum strength, speed, agility, and reflexes of man, he is still super. Why? Because of the combination. It's fact that the strongest man can't be the fastest man or have the best reflexes or be the most agile, our bodies don't allow that. The fact that Captain America is the strongest, fastest, agilest, and has the best reflexes of any man (not including specialized superheroes) makes him a super hero.

I would like to hear other's thoughts on this so please tell me what you think.

God and Science

"What a thrill it is, then, to discover that the scientist, too, can legitimately believe in the existence of the spirit."-Wilder Penfield

First off, I would like to apologize for not posting anything in a while, I've been pretty stressed with school stuff lately, but I hope that this is a post you will enjoy.

As you may know, I'm a college freshman majoring in Biology and minoring in Religious Sciences, crazy mix right? My first classes in biology seemed to try to do everything it can to tell me that creationism is wrong and that life appeared through random processes and that intelligent life was formed through random natural selection from single-celled organisms. An interesting thing to think about is that originally, science was seen as a way to understand God, a window to look in at His creation and understand how awesome He is. However, recently there have been huge debates between theologians and scientists. Scientists say that science disproves God, Lee Strobel did some research to see whether or not science actually does that.

The Case for a Creator is a very interesting book in which a former atheist interviews brilliant scientists to see if science actually disproves God. An interesting thing I noticed was that many of the scientists interviewed were atheists, but after long years of study they realized that there was just too much scientific evidence for creationism. In this post I'm going to go through some of my favorite points and add some thoughts of my own. If you find some problem with what I'm saying please let me know, I'd love to have a conversation about it.

WARNING: THIS MAY GET SCIENTIFIC

Biology

So, this book started with my subject of choice: biology. Many biology professors will tell you that evolution is a proven fact. That's not correct, it's just a theory, there's just as much evidence against evolution as there is for it. Now, while I agree that there is proof for natural selection and descent with modification inside a species, I find it very hard to believe that intelligent life came from a single celled organism that crawled out of some primordial ooze, but maybe that's just me.

In Principles of Biology II, we learned about a period of time called the Cambrian Explosion. During this time, millions of different species of organisms suddenly appeared. My professor told us that this is due to increased oxygen in the atmosphere or allopatric speciation (which means different environments formed because of Pangea splitting up and different organisms evolved from the adaptation to different niches). He did not tell us, however, how sudden it was. "Okay, imagine yourself on one goal line of a football field. That line represents the first fossil, a microscopic, single-celled organism. Now, start marching down the field. You pass the twenty-yard line, the forty-yard line, you pass midfield, and and you're approaching the other goal line. All you've seen this entire time are these microscopic, single-celled organisms. You come to the sixteen-yard line...[t]hen-boom!-...all these other forms of animals appear." This quote, from Dr. Jonathan Wells, PHD, PHD describes how sudden the Cambrian Explosion occurred. This completely contradicts Darwin's slow process of evolution. In fact, there is a lack of any intermediate fossils between the Cambrian fossils and the single-celled fossils. So that's one thing.

Another point: in the book it states that we have 98% of the same genes as monkeys. That shows evolution right? Actually, that would mean that this difference between us and monkeys is in 2% of our genes, however, the 2% of our genes that are different don't have anything to do with anatomy, so why aren't we covered in fur?

Another point that I really like: the similarities between wings, flippers, legs, and hands. Looking at the bones of these limbs, there is a definite similarity. Undeniably, we have the same bone structure in our hands as dolphins in their fins and bats in their wings. However, the similarities can be explained through Darwinism and Creationism. Darwinists say that it shows how although outside there are differences, the insides just show a common ancestor. Creationists state that the similarities are just like the way an architect uses the same design for different buildings. In fact, the original person to discover this said that it was a testament to God's creativity, interesting right?

There was a lot more in biology but I want to move on, if you want to learn more ask me or go find the book.

Cosmology

So, apparently, scientists say that the "big bang theory" actually does point to Creationism because it implies a finite beginning to the universe. The reason a finite beginning implies a creator is proven in something called the kalam argument. The kalam argument has 3 points:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2. the universe began to exist

3. the universe has a cause.

I thought that was pretty interesting, and it makes a lot of since. The universe has to have a beginning because through some mathematical thing described in the book it's impossible to have an infinite amount of happenings, I didn't really understand that part because it was all math stuff. Then it's very difficult to find anything that's created without some cause, in fact it's impossible. Therefore, through the transitive property of mathematics, the universe has a cause.

Now there is a lot of evidence in other scientific disciplines, but I decided to go ahead and publish this post, so if you're really interested in more than let me know and I publish some more about it, and again, if there are any problems with anything I've said then please let me know!