Here -- Look at this stuff.

I have a camera on my phone. Here are some pictures it's taken recently.

We got some crayons out and Norah used them. So did I. So did Sarah. We kole-aborated on this piece of art. That's a pun. Laugh.

There's a bunch of sand on the sidewalk outside of our building for some reason. Norah thought it'd be fun to play with. She received a bath shortly after this picture was taken.

This is a pork steak that Darrell made for me while we were at Sarah's parent's place in Iowa. Yeah... It was huge. And yeah... I ate it all. So good.

That's all for tonight. Think about this:

"Ever since men were able to think, they have been wondering what this

universe really is and how it came to be there. And, very roughly, two views
have been held. First, there  is what is called the materialist view. People
who  take that  view  think that matter and space just happen  to exist, and
always  have  existed, nobody  knows why; and that the  matter,  behaving in
certain  fixed ways,  has just  happened,  by a  sort of fluke,  to  produce
creatures like ourselves who are able to think. By one chance in a  thousand
something  hit  our sun  and  made it  produce  the planets;  and by another
thousandth  chance   the  chemicals  necessary   for  life,  and  the  right
temperature, occurred on one of these planets, and so some of  the matter on
this earth  came  alive; and  then, by  a  very  long series of chances, the
living  creatures  developed into  things  like us.  The  other view  is the
religious view. According to it, what is  behind the  universe  is  more
like a mind than it is like anything else we know.

     That  is to say, it is  conscious, and has  purposes, and  prefers  one
thing to another. And on this view it made the universe, partly for purposes
we do not know, but partly, at any rate, in order to  produce creatures like
itself-I  mean,  like  itself  to  the extent of having minds. Please do not
think that  one of  these views was held a  long time ago and that the other
has gradually taken  its place. Wherever there have  been  thinking men both
views turn up. And note  this  too.  You  cannot find  out which view is the
right one by science in the ordinary sense. Science works by experiments. It
watches  how things behave.  Every  scientific  statement in  the  long run,
however complicated  it  looks, really means  something like, "I pointed the
telescope  to such and such a part of the  sky at 2:20  A.M. on January 15th
and saw so-and-so," or, "I put some of this stuff in  a pot and heated it to
such-and-such  a temperature and it did so-and-so." Do not think I am saying
anything  against science:  I am only saying what its  job is.  And the more
scientific a man is, the more (I believe) he would agree with  me that  this
is  the job of science- and  a very useful and necessary  job it is too. But
why anything comes to be there at  all, and whether there is anything behind
the things  science  observes-something of a  different  kind-this is not  a
scientific question. If there is  "Something  Behind," then  either it  will
have to remain altogether unknown to  men or else make itself  known in some
different way. The statement that there is any such thing, and the statement
that there is no such thing, are neither of them statements that science can
make. And  real  scientists do not usually  make them.  It  is  usually  the
journalists and popular novelists who have picked  up a few odds and ends of
half-baked science  from textbooks  who go in  for them.  After  all, it  is
really  a matter of common sense. Supposing science ever became  complete so
that it knew every single thing in  the whole universe. Is it not plain that
the questions, "Why is there  a  universe?" "Why  does it go on as it does?"
"Has it any meaning?" would remain just as they were?"

C.S. Makes my head hurt.

Stay Gold!

MMK