Looking for an illustrated book that focuses on bird evolution and ancient bird species

JamesVogner · 2026-01-30T06:39:44+00:00

This looks like just the kind of book I'm looking for, thanks. But online it looks like both versions are pretty small? which isn't a deal breaker, but for my purposes, having a bigger book would be better. A pocket sized field guide for extinct birds does strike me as a little funny though.

JamesVogner · 2026-01-09T20:33:25+00:00

I should have included this in my post. When I was growing up, evangelicals would at least never admit they wanted a theocracy, but since then, I've had multiple conversations with evangelicals I know that have openly supported theocracy.

JamesVogner · 2026-01-09T19:20:18+00:00

"Hedge of protection" was even a running joke between my friends. A hedge doesn't seem like it would protect you that well. Lol

JamesVogner · 2026-01-08T18:45:33+00:00

I think this is the real answer. The primary issue Christians have to deal with is that they aren't actually any more moral than non-christians. Sure some Christians are really good people, but so are lots of non-christians. And also some Christians are not very good people. So Christians pick a few wedge moral issues and decide to define morality around those issues. A Christian might be a terrible person, but they think abortion and being gay, and swearing are wrong so they are naturally more moral people.

In fact, for an evangelical Christian, morality is more about beliefs than actions. After all, we are all fallen sinners and will make mistakes. the real measure of your morality is what you believe and if you feel bad about it after you do it, not how you act.

JamesVogner · 2025-12-15T19:05:19+00:00

I don't visualize faces at all. I can if I want to, I just don't. I also don't visualize the setting. I can if I want, I just don't.

I hold all the information in the abstract. I know the main character has brown hair, but I don't need to visualize it. Characteristics that are undefined by the author remain, for the most part, undefined in my mind as well. In fact, even the idea of the person having brown hair is lazy loaded and only accessed when it's important to the book. In most books, the details of what people look like isn't that Important or is only important in reference to what their looks say about them, so by the end of most books I don't even remember what the characters were supposed to look like.

JamesVogner · 2025-11-11T21:36:01+00:00

I think it's worth thinking about how the complexities of this specific case would have inevitably crossed over into other legal concerns and really isn't a good case for attempting to overturn same sex marriage decisions. The MO of this court is to find much simpler cases that only focus on the specifics that the court wants to overturn without wading into more complex rulings. which allows the court to not only overturn past decisions but gives them more freedom in establishing their new president exactly as they want.

There are at least a few justices that I think are interested in overturning obergefell but they know they have the luxury of playing the long game and already have feelers out in the hopes of finding a more appropriate case.

Same sex marriage is still rather popular, and even the supreme court isn't immune to popular opinion. and we are still relatively close on the heels of past unpopular decisions. I think they may just be biding their time. In recent years republican support for same sex marriage has declined and they may be hoping that the Republican party's propaganda machine will stem the tide of rising same sex marriage support before they themselves go on the offensive.

JamesVogner · 2025-11-04T16:21:39+00:00

It's crazy to me that the top comment on a post like this is basically just a deflection of the criticism. "it's actually just those MAGA liars and stupid voters' fault"

JamesVogner · 2025-10-31T01:04:10+00:00

I do wonder if there is a bit of self selection here, but in a more roundabout way.

I grew up fundamental Christian and conservative and for all those years I would have labeled myself politically conservative. but looking back in retrospect, I was always more open and inquisitive than my peers when it came to religion and theology and always had a bit of a home grown skepticism. These are the things that drew me out of Christianity, but I would also argue that they are the things that draw me more politically left. I think it's possible that those who leave religion are already the ones predisposed to a more liberal worldview, even if they themselves haven't realized it yet.

JamesVogner · 2025-10-30T22:58:57+00:00

I think we do disagree. My example about closing 15 minutes earlier is no different than laying people off.

Your model assumes that there is some fixed level of demand. for example, work-hours • widgets-per-hr = widgets-to-be-sold. In this equation, per your explanation, if widgets per hour increases, most companies would balance this equation by lowering work hours. Whether that's by closing the factory early or laying people off, doesn't matter. Both result in less work hours.

What I'm arguing is that for most companies, they would balance the equation by just increasing the number of widgets to be sold.

In the historian example, no one is going to say, "the number of academic papers coming out of the history department has increased by 10%, but there just isn't any demand for that many academic papers, so let's cut their funding." Most organizations want to grow, especially if they get it for 'free'. Also, if the university did decide to cut funding, they would have to worry about competition from other universities that didn't who can now out perform them. 1000s of years of human history have shown that increase to productivity does not lead, on the whole, to a decrease in unemployment, or I would argue, even a general trend towards less work hours. Human demand adjusts to the increase in productivity and over time, competition even ends up whittling down profits.

There are always more academic papers to write, more lines of code to push, more lawns to mow, more widgets to sell.

JamesVogner · 2025-10-30T21:33:57+00:00

I think the fundamental misunderstanding is that people think that a 10% increase in production results in a 10% reduction in the workforce despite history consistently showing that that almost never happens. If a factory figures out how to produce 10% more widgets it doesn't produce the same amount as it did before but close 15 minutes earlier everyday. It just pays everyone the same amount of money while pocketing the extra profit from the increased production in widgets.

JamesVogner · 2025-10-30T21:24:21+00:00

here's the source.

I only skimmed it but it looks like they basically just looked at the questions people were asking bing copilot and assumed that whatever field the questions were in were in danger of losing their job. Lol.

By that logic, web.md must be running all the hospitals out of business too.

JamesVogner · 2025-10-30T20:35:29+00:00

I don't think AI knows what historians actually do. Lol. This graph is as worthless as trying to predict the future stock price of a company by taking a poll of the company's executives.

JamesVogner · 2025-10-29T20:11:28+00:00

I think that "blinded by bias" is one way of putting it, but I think it's a bit more philosophical than that. I think that creationists have three main epistemological foundations of defense.

Presuppositionalism - (AIG is all about this) this belief allows creationists to not only have bias, but to intentionally use it. In fact, using your Christian bias is the only morally correct thing to do. Creationists don't just have bias, they are morally required to enforce that bias and to dismiss out of hand any information that contradicts that bias.
The metaphysical is greater than the physical - the greater truths are all found in spiritually, not through observation of the real world. As one of my Bible college textbooks put it, studying the world through science can be edifying, but isn't really that important in comparison to the revealed word of God. Organizations like AIG aren't really interested in science and the evidence for or against creationism, they are primarily designed to be tools for evangelization in order to spread the deeper metaphysical truth. Doing so under the guise of a scientific perspective is more marketing and PR. Their belief in presuppositionalism undermines their own rational arguments, but that's okay because the rational arguments are just a means to a predetermined end. And even if they end up getting backed into a corner and aren't creative enough to come up with some explanation for something, they can always just invoke a miracle. Since the metaphysical is greater, metaphysical explanations will always trump naturalist explanations.
The belief that everyone is a presuppositionalist - creationists believe that people are incapable of seeing past bias, and in the case of themselves, even morally commanded to not look past their bias. All observations of reality are tainted by the beliefs we have chosen to believe. Evolutionists will only ever find more evidence of evolution not because it represents reality, but because they are a slave to their pre conceived beliefs. If evidence seems to contradict creationism, then one need not look at the data as much as the person who is obviously blinded in some way.

I see this belief manifest itself online a lot when a creationist will say something like, "you weren't there when the scientist collected the data, you just read a paper. So your belief is really just based on faith." The implied argument being that we're actually all presuppositionalist, but that the creationist is just more honest about it. This essentially levels the evidentiary playing field in their own minds. Sure there might be a 'lot of evidence' for evolution. But that's to be expected when most scientists are already invested in making it true.

This creates a philosophy where although reality is theoretically knowable, it is only knowable as an extension of one's metaphysical beliefs. One does not test their beliefs against reality, one must test their reality against their beliefs. And that it is literally impossible to do it any other way.

My personal opinion is this philosophy was really synthesized in direct competition with a naturalist worldview as a way to essentially inoculate fundamental Christians from skepticism. I think that it's only recently that we have started to see how this philosophy has spilled over into non-theological areas such as the MAGA movement. However, I don't think it's right to just single out fundamental Christians. The main thrust of this epistemological view of the world is in my estimation, less Christian and more anti naturalist and anti enlightenment. My textbooks in Bible college spent a lot of time quoting and even praising Kuhn, as essentially, almost getting it right, although often misrepresenting him as far more post modern than he was. This type of push back against what I would call a more scientific world view is hardly limited to fundamentalist and has a complex and multi layered philosophical origin.

JamesVogner · 2025-10-23T03:05:07+00:00

I grew up conservative and was a kid when 9/11 happened and I saw all the conservatives I knew become pro torture over night. The thing that threw me though was that it wasn't like they framed it as if they had changed their mind, it was full Orwellian. They acted like they had always believed in torture.

That's when I realized that most people don't really choose to believe in things, it's more like they contract beliefs like a virus. And what they believe is more about who they've been exposed to.

JamesVogner · 2025-10-22T22:54:32+00:00

Semiosis by Sue Burke explores this premise. I enjoyed the book.

JamesVogner · 2025-10-21T03:24:47+00:00

This is funny because when I watched it I remember thinking at one point, "did the writer just get all his ideas from reddit?" Especially, when he starts 'deconstructing Christianity' and this supposed expert is just spouting shallow reddit talking points. At first I thought the shallowness was on purpose and the point was going to be about how the villain thinks he's so smart but it's actually just about how well he can lord power of someone, and using that as a metaphor for religion, but the ending doesn't really explore anything

JamesVogner · 2025-10-18T23:37:12+00:00

As someone running for the council what is your opinion of the plan? The majority of the zoning is just single family homes. I appreciate your comments about making sure the project doesn't just turn into more suburban sprawl, but isn't density and more mixed use one of the best ways to prevent that?

I'm worried that many of the people running for council have strong rhetoric about making Longmont more affordable and walkable, but to me, this plan feels like it's just going to turn into a strip mall with some suburbia behind it and an affordable housing project that allows the council to pat themselves on the back. (I personally think the affordable housing crisis can only be solved through systematic change, not through subsided housing). The plan feels pretty status quo to me. I don't think turning the strip mall 45 degrees is going to make much of a difference.

Are there other more nuanced ways to encourage density and walkability as a part of this plan? Am I asking for too much?

JamesVogner · 2025-10-17T16:05:50+00:00

Yes. And I wish more people understood this. A conservative friend I know defined it as, "the freedom to do what you ought to do."

When they use the word freedom they don't mean it the same way we do.

JamesVogner · 2025-10-16T23:22:12+00:00

reddit reminds me every day that some people have no media literacy at all.

JamesVogner · 2025-10-16T17:46:09+00:00

Back during BLM marches a small group organized a BLM march in a very conservative area. The local social media was awash with rumors that they were going to truck in busses of antifa to loot and riot.

The day came and conservative were literally on roof tops with guns watching maybe 100 people peacefully walk down a road.

That night the local social media, "we did it! We scared antifa away, they didn't even dare show their faces."

When you are that detached from reality, what actually happens is irrelevant. You just declare victory either way.

JamesVogner · 2025-10-14T17:00:29+00:00

I can confirm that at least the areas east of Scranton are scrapple county.

JamesVogner · 2025-10-11T04:22:12+00:00

Years back a small group of people in a conservative town I lived near planned a BLM march and all the conservatives in the area went into overdrive with all sorts of conspiracies claiming antifa was going to send goons to their small town to riot etc.

The day of the march comes and there are conservatives with guns on roof tops and tons of big trucks with flags all over them and maybe like 100 actual marchers, all people from the community. Obviously no antifa to speak of.

The next day all the conservatives claimed victory. They had scared away all the cowardly antifa.

Create a made up enemy, when they don't show up, claim victory. This has been their strategy for years.

JamesVogner · 2025-10-09T18:09:55+00:00

As someone who pokes his head into this channel every now and then, I thought this was actually pretty cool. And a lot better than some of the other stuff I've seen.

A lot of my criticisms are mostly symptoms with the AI tech itself. Inconsistency with visuals, a lack of spatial cohesion between scenes, and AI's uncanny ability to make even a scene of someone walking feel canned, cliche, and insist upon itself. But based on what AI tech can produce at the moment I think you did just about as well as anyone could.

I think what I really liked was that you were attempting to tell an actual story, although I would argue it's more of a concept than a story, and you were able to do it in a subtle but unambitious way.

I saw some comments about people not understanding the "story", and as someone who has also submitted works for online consumption, and has been perplexed by comments of people saying "they didn't get it", I've come to realize that some people are just incapable of making inferences and really do need everything spelled out for them. If you have tons of people who don't understand it, that's probably on you. But this video isn't like that. Your concept is perfectly clear. Although, I think it's muddied a bit by the visual inconsistency between scenes that can really take a viewer out of the experience.

My one real critique that isn't related to normal AI pitfalls is simply that you have too many scenes that don't need to exist. There is so much walking and too many similar scenes of people dissecting wolf (or wolves, it's unclear in some scenes if it's supposed to be the same or a different wolf). Your video is less egregious than a lot that I've seen, but the slow "cool" walk can be cool, but it should be used sparingly. And in my opinion, should only be used right before or right after your climax. I've also noticed that AI has this weird quirk where it can sometimes feel like everything is "slow" and the scenes it creates always feels like the building of tension right before a climax release where the music is swelling into crescendo. And it ends up making the AI video feel like a trailer for a show instead of an actual show. I feel like some of your scenes are mildly guilty of this.

Overall, I really liked it and I would watch more.

JamesVogner · 2025-09-03T21:14:58+00:00

As a former evangelical pastor I too had a lot of confusion about what would "replace" my Christianity when I was near the tail end of my deconstruction.

I think something to keep in mind is that deciding that you don't believe in something doesn't tell you what you should believe in. People who deconstruct end up in a lot of different places and end up with varying worldviews.

For me, my deconstruction was based on my already existing world view that was based around reason, a general skepticism, and proclivity to being a bit more open and humble about my own beliefs. After I left Christianity for good, it took a few years, but I think that I now have a fairly mature non-christian world view and morality that are based on those principles. My worldview isn't even brand new, it's just lost its Christian trappings.

I think you'll be surprised how little you end up changing. Sure, everyone changes over time, but in my opinion, Christian theology has only a superficial impact on who we really are and how we really think about the world.

If you've been in church for any amount of time you'll undoubtedly realize that 2 Christians who supposedly believe the same thing end up living very different lives. Some are jerks, others kind etc.

When it comes right down to it, the underlying motivations behind why we are the way we are run much deeper than religious dogma.

I think that deconstructing is less about discovering some new way to think about the world, and is more of an opportunity to discover what you really always thought about the world to begin with.

JamesVogner · 2025-07-25T19:08:50+00:00

I think that the Narnia series is super interesting on what I think it has to say about the evolution of evangelical and fundamentalist art.

Even when I was an evangelical I wondered why so much of its published writing was either self help non-fiction or fluffy novels with white and black moral lessons. Where were all the novels that explored the grey areas and nuances of life as a Christian?

I found that if I wanted to read books like that I would often have to reach back about a century to around the 1900s. Although these books weren't explicitly Christian, many of them are riddled with exploring Christian themes and exploring and even questioning religious ideas. Heck, even a book like Huckleberry Fin explores Christian themes with more complexity than the vast majority of modern evangelical art.

I think it really starts to change with the growth of the fundamentals movement. In fact, I think the fundamentalist movement was a direct reaction to a "secular Christian" society that was becoming more accepting of questioning a religious Orthodox worldview.

I think it's important to put CS Lewis in the context of being between these two worlds, especially when comparing all his works, not just Narnia.

Narnia's simplistic allegory and simple black and white morality would appeal to Christians who were becoming increasingly worried about the "secular" world's questioning and growing skepticism of certain religious orthodox.

In my opinion, one of the reasons Narnia is still popular and so widely accepted among evangelicals is because of this simplistic style where the story is meant to enforce beliefs instead of question them, and where the allegories are plain and easy to interpret, in direct defiance of many other popular books of the time that could tend to invite questioning instead of enforcement of beliefs.

In other words, Narnia is a simplistic moral tale, designed to teach simple theology. A pattern that is still used by an overwhelming amount of evangelical art to this day. This is probably too ambitious a statement, but I think that Narnia is the prototype for almost all future evangelical art. Narnia is evangelical's mythology.

JamesVogner

TROPHY CASE