Friday, December 28, 2007

More on the Hydroplate Theory

I missed this November article in regard to Brown’s Hydroplate theory that was posted at the Christian Broadcasting Network website. They did a great job of condensing his theory for a short article.

The Foundation for Creation Doctrine has also posted an article referencing Brown’s work and his take on what some creationists describe as the Catastrophic Plate Tectonic Theory.

It’s interesting to me that there are several mainstream theories that are being questioned lately, yet the latest findings don’t seem to pose a problem for Dr. Brown’s Hydroplate theory. If you are familiar with Brown’s work, consider it with regard to new concerns posed in regard to the supposedly well established ancient super continent Pangea.

Or, consider that some scientists are now questioning the extent to which meteorites or asteroids could have caused mass extinctions.

From Carl Zimmer‘s article in Wired Magazine:
At the same time, scientists have also been putting together a chronology of fossils from the same time, known as the Ordovician Period. They're recording when species first emerged in the fossil record, and when they disappeared as they became extinct. And this week in the journal Nature Geoscience, the scientists report that the impacts coincided with a drastic change in the world's biodiversity.

You might expect mass extinctions. The most famous of all impacts, a ten-mile-wide asteroid that hit the Earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period 65 million years ago, has been linked to mass extinctions that wiped out Tyrannosaurus rex, the other dinosaurs without wings, and about half of all other species on Earth.

But 470 million years ago, that's not what happened. Instead, the diversity of life took a sharp climb right after the meteorites started falling.

Scientists say the discovery is quite unusual. Nature Geoscience's press release declares, "These results are surprising as meteorite impacts are often more commonly associated with mass extinctions."


From the Nature abstract referenced in Zimmer’s article:
The rise and diversification of shelled invertebrate life in the early Phanerozoic eon occurred in two major stages. During the first stage (termed as the Cambrian explosion), a large number of new phyla appeared over a short time interval 540 Myr ago. Biodiversity at the family, genus and species level, however, remained low until the second stage marked by the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event in the Middle Ordovician period1, 2, 3. Although this event represents the most intense phase of species radiation during the Palaeozoic era and led to irreversible changes in the biological make-up of Earth's seafloors, the causes of this event remain elusive. Here, we show that the onset of the major phase of biodiversification 470 Myr ago coincides with the disruption in the asteroid belt of the L-chondrite parent body—the largest documented asteroid breakup event during the past few billion years4, 5. The precise coincidence between these two events is established by bed-by-bed records of extraterrestrial chromite, osmium isotopes and invertebrate fossils in Middle Ordovician strata in Baltoscandia and China. We argue that frequent impacts on Earth of kilometre-sized asteroids—supported by abundant Middle Ordovician fossil meteorites and impact craters6—accelerated the biodiversification process.

If one is familiar with Brown’s theory, it seems to me that it fits these finding more accurately if one can actually step away from the Darwin/old earth mindset for a bit. Brown’s theory would support the notion that “diversity of life took a sharp climb right after the meteorites started falling“. His theory suggests that comets, asteroids, and meteorites formed when jetting water and rock debris were forcefully launched from the subterranean chamber, escaped the earth’s gravitational pull and blasted into space to become part of our solar system.

For a time after this catastrophe occurred, it would seem to make sense that meteorites and asteroids may have more frequently collided with the earth if they were not launched far enough to escape the earth's gravitational pull. Shortly after the flood waters started to subside and earth became more stable, there would have been a sharp increase in the diversity of life as the population started to grow again.

I also recently read this article in regard to comets. Again, scientists still question where they came from, and are starting to question many previously held beliefs such as the notion that comments helped deliver water to planet earth. What if this hypothetical Oort cloud (which has never been observed) does not exist...where then do comets come from?

I’d also like to know why there are comets left after 4.5 billion years. Where is the evidence for this comet reservoir? Comets have a short life span, so when, where and how did they evolve?

When reading Brown’s hydroplate theory and considering the many issues that it addresses, it’s make so much more sense and solves so many mysteries that mainstream scientists keep going back to the drawing board to try to explain.

Brown’s theory explains...
... using well-understood phenomena, how this cataclysmic event rapidly formed so many features. These and other mysteries, listed below, are best explained by an earthshaking event, far more catastrophic than almost anyone has imagined.

The Grand Canyon (pages 175–204)
Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Continental Shelves and Slopes
Ocean Trenches (pages 138–159)
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil
Methane Hydrates
Ice Age
Frozen Mammoths (pages 220–251)
Major Mountain Ranges
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Strata and Layered Fossils (pages 162–173)
Limestone (pages 212–217)
Metamorphic Rock
Salt Domes
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Changing Axis Tilt
Comets (pages 254–284)
Asteroids and Meteoroids (pages 286–303)

When reading this material, it fits together so coherently.

Yes, yes, I know....I’m no scientist, so I’m only considering what I read and ponder the issues which seem to be a conundrum for the current scientific consensus, but which seem (to me) to lend some support to Brown’s work.

I won’t be discussing this post here or in other forums or blogs as I’ve grown quite weary of debating with Darwinists who have no intention of actually peering outside of the box.

But, if there is anyone truly interested in meaningful dialogue with regard to Brown’s hydroplate theory, I’d rather you debate the man yourself and allow me to listen as I do not have the background that he does in regard to these issues. A phone debate offer can be found here.

To the dismay of many evolutionists, I find Brown’s work fascinating and probably always will. Although his theory falls in line with the Genesis flood, he has provided scientific evidence for his claims based on empirical evidence or inference to support his theories rather than miracles or supernatural events.

Consider theses final thoughts found in an excerpt from Brown’s Book, In the Beginning:

Thomas Crowder Chamberlin1, former president of the University of Wisconsin and the first head of the Geology Department at the University of Chicago, published a famous paper in which he warned researchers not to let one hypothesis dominate their thinking. Instead, they should always have or seek multiple working hypotheses, especially in fields, such as geology, where much remains to be learned. Chamberlin stated that testing competing hypotheses or theories sharpens one’s analytical skills, develops thoroughness, reduces biases, and helps students and teachers learn to think independently and discriminate rather than simply memorize and conform. Chamberlin said the dangers of teaching only one explanation are especially great in the earth sciences. The explanation for oceanic trenches is an example. The plate tectonic theory dominates the earth sciences. A recent survey of scientists selected it as the most significant theory of the 20th century. Undoubtedly, Darwin’s theory of organic evolution would be voted as the most significant theory of the 19th century. Both dominate, despite their growing scientific problems, because schools and the media ignore competing explanations. Chamberlin warned about the comfort of conformity.

Stepping in the middle...which is probably a mistake

Go to my post at Young Cosmos for further clarification on the title of this post.

Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Merry Christmas!

May you all experience God's love and grace this Christmas and always!

Monday, December 17, 2007

More Christmas Music

This kid can seriously play the guitar...

The Laughing Wii Baby

I think everyone has seen this clip by now, but it still cracks me up...

Jars of Clay jam to the Little Drummer Boy

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Kansas Attorney General Resigns

An extramarital affair drops another political figure.

But, this *two-year* fling accumulated a lot of baggage...

This week, his reputation was devastated by revelations of a two-year affair with Linda Carter, a former employee in the Johnson County district attorney’s office, and allegations that he harassed Carter and tried to use her to meddle with the DA’s office, now run by Kline. Throughout the week, Morrison seemed resolute, acknowledging the affair but steadfastly denying the other allegations.


The statement included allegations of sexual harassment, including claims that Morrison harassed Carter by phone and made repeated threats to interfere with her attempts to find a new job if she disclosed the affair to Kline. Four of the calls were overheard by two employees of the district attorney’s office, according to the Harris News report.

I didn't vote for the guy...women's intuition that he was a schmuck. Besides that, I wanted to see Kline put an end to Tiller's illegal late term abortions.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Letter from Jesus about 'Christmas'

My Mom sent me this circulating email...

Dear Children,

It has come to my attention that many of you are upset that folks are taking My name out of the season. Maybe you've forgotten that I wasn't actually born during this time of the year and that it was some of your predecessors who decided to celebrate My birthday on what was actually a time of pagan festival, although I do appreciate being remembered anytime.

How I personally feel about this celebration can probably be most easily understood by those of you who have been blessed with children of your own. I don't care what you call the day. If you want to celebrate My birth, just GET ALONG AND LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

Now, having said that let Me go on. If it bothers you that the town in which you live doesn't allow a scene depicting My birth, then just get rid of a couple of Santas and snowmen and put in a small Nativity scene on your own front lawn. If all My followers did that there wouldn't be any need for such a scene on the town square because there would be many of them all around town.

Stop worrying about the fact that people are calling the tree a holiday tree, instead of a Christmas tree. It was I who made all trees. You can remember Me anytime you see any tree. Decorate a grape vine if you wish: I actually spoke of that one in a teaching, explaining who I am in relation to you and what each of our tasks were. If you have forgotten that one, look up John 15: 1 - 8.

If you want to give Me a present in remembrance of My birth here is my wish list. Choose something from it:

1. Instead of writing protest letters objecting to the way My birthday is being celebrated, write letters of love and hope to soldiers away from home. They are terribly afraid and lonely this time of year. I know, they tell Me all the time.

2. Visit someone in a nursing home. Not just during Christmas time, but all through the year. You don't have to know them personally. They just need to know that someone cares about them.

3. Instead of writing George complaining about the wording on the cards his staff sent out this year, why don't you write and tell him that you'll be praying for him and his family this year. Then follow up. It will be nice hearing from you again.

4. Instead of giving your children a lot of gifts you can't afford and they don't need, spend time with them. Tell them the story of My birth, and why I came to live with you down here. Hold them in your arms and remind that I love them.

5. Pick someone that has hurt you in the past and forgive him or her.

6. Did you know that someone in your town will attempt to take their own life this season because they feel so alone and hopeless? Since you don't know who that person is, try giving everyone you meet a warm smile; it could make the difference.

7. Instead of nit picking about what the retailer in your town calls the holiday, be patient with the people who work there. Give them a warm smile and a kind word. Even if they aren't allowed to wish you a 'Merry Christmas' that doesn't keep you from wishing them one.

8. If you really want to make a difference, support a missionary- especially one who takes My love and Good News to those who have never heard My name.

9. Here's a good one. There are individuals and whole families in your town who not only will have no 'Christmas' tree, but neither will they have any presents to give or receive. If you don't know them, buy some food and a few gifts and give them to the Salvation Army or some other charity which believes in Me and they will make the delivery for you.

10. Finally, if you want to make a statement about your belief in and loyalty to Me, then behave like a Christian. Don't do things in secret that you wouldn't do in My presence. Let people know by your actions and words that you are one of mine.

Don't forget; I am God and can take care of Myself. Just love Me and do what I have told you to do. I'll take care of all the rest. Check out the list above and get to work; time is short. I'll help you, but the ball is now in your court. And do have a most blessed Christmas with all those whom you love and remember:


I think Mom's trying to tell me something, and I think she's right.

Funniest First Date Ever!

Circulating email....

If you didn't see this on the Tonight show, I hope you're sitting down when you read it. This is probably the funniest date story ever, first date or not! We have all had bad dates but this takes the cake.

Jay Leno went into the audience to find the most embarrassing first date that a woman ever had. The winner described her worst first date experience. There was absolutely no question as to why her tale took the prize!

She said it was midwinter... Snowing and quite cold...and the guy had taken her skiing in the mountains outside Salt Lake City, Utah. It was a day trip (no overnight). They were strangers, after all, and truly had never met before. The outing was fun but relatively uneventful until they were headed home late that afternoon.

They were driving back down the mountain, when she gradually began to realize that she should not have had that extra latte. They were about an hour away from anywhere with a rest room and in the middle of nowhere!

Her companion suggested she try to hold it, which she did for a while. Unfortunately, because of the heavy snow and slow going, there came a point where she told him that he had better stop and let her go beside the road, or it would be the front seat of his car. They stopped and she quickly crawled out beside the car, yanked her pants down and started.

In the deep snow she didn't have good footing, so she let her butt rest against the rear fender to steady herself. Her companion stood on the side of the car watching for traffic and indeed was a real gentleman and refrained from peeking. All she could think about was the relief she felt despite the rather embarrassing nature of the situation. Upon finishing however, she soon became aware of another sensation.

As she bent to pull up her pants, the young lady discovered her buttocks were firmly glued against the car's fender. Thoughts of tongues frozen to poles immediately came to mind as she attempted to disengage her flesh from the icy metal. It was quickly apparent that she had a brand new problem due to the extreme cold.

Horrified by her plight and yet aware of the humor of the moment, she answered her date's concerns about 'what is taking so long' with a reply that indeed, she was 'freezing her butt off' and in need of some assistance!

He came around the car as she tried to cover herself with her sweater and then, as she looked imploringly into his eyes, he burst out laughing. She too, got the giggles and when they finally managed to compose themselves, they assessed her dilemma.

Obviously, as hysterical as the situation was, they also were faced with a real problem. Both agreed it would take something hot to free her chilly cheeks from the grip of the icy metal! Thinking about what had gotten her into the predicament in the first place, both quickly realized that there was only one way to get her free.

So, as she looked the other way, her first-time date proceeded to unzip his pants and pee her butt off the fender. As the audience screamed in laughter, she took the Tonight Show prize hands down. Or, perhaps that should be 'pants down'. And you thought your first date was embarrassing.

Jay Leno's comment... 'This gives a whole new meaning to being pissed off'.

Oh, and how did the first date turn out? He became her husband and was sitting next to her on the Leno show.

We were without electricity for 2 days due to the recent ice storm, and I swear I thought at times my butt was going to freeze to the toilet seat it was sooooooo cold. Luckily, my guys are always prepared, and they hunted down the kerosene heaters and lamps and we were able to keep a couple rooms quite toasty.

You don't realize how spoiled you are with all the modern conveniences until you lose all electricity for a few days!

Monday, December 10, 2007

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Taking a little break

I've been deep in the trenches this week reading forums and blogs where discussion of these debate issues wage on relentlessly.

Honestly, it's starting to really get to me. The hatred and venom being shot back and forth is horrific, so I'm going to take a bit of time off and reflect upon my participation in this debate.

Have a great weekend, and enjoy the Christmas Season.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Blog Diets

I was watching the Early Show this morning, and they were talking about blog diets and how well they work. I know it was much easier for me to lose weight during the blog diet that took place here during the first 5 months of the year rather than just working at it on my own.

I'm hoping to start one up again Jan. 1. I know my sister is interested, and Kristine (Amused Muse) said she might join us.

Kristine, my sister and I are all in our early forties, so we are primarily interested in eating healthy rather than starving ourselves to get the weight off. A healthy lifestyle is much more important than looking good (or so they say).

Anywhoo...I'd love for people to join us. I know most of my readers are Darwinists, and the IDers who read my blog are probably worried about what the crazy soccer Mom gone activist is going to say next, so I'm not sure if I can get anyone to join us due to that fact. But, I thought it would be fun to invite anyone who is interested regardless of your thoughts about evolution, ID, religion, the culture war, etc., etc.

Bloggers are especially encouraged to join, because I think some of us spend far to much time sitting on our butts at our laptops when we should be out jogging!

Monday, December 03, 2007


It gets even uglier...

I simply cannot believe how intense this debate has become. I also don't understand how on earth some of these professors can consider ID as a "movement that is endangering science". That's insane.

**reaches for another klennex**

More on Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez's Tenure Case

The tenure case has become so sordid, I just can't bring myself to comment about it...

Ugh, and Ugh.


Saturday, December 01, 2007

John West in MN

Bruce Chapman gives us more information about West's lecture at the University of MN. Seems West was kind enough to introduce PZ and his groupies. He even gave PZ the high atheist honor of being compared to Richard Dawkins. Gosh, PZ must be gushing with pride!

Just as expected

Per my previous post, PZ/Laden et. al. cry victory. D'oh, isn't that what they always claim regardless of what actually transpires.

Laden claims the hound knocked West cold, and the handful of other Darwinists danced around his "unconscious, livid body".

Apparently, he took a picture to prove the beating...

Tsk, Tsk, such violent behavior.

Don't worry though, it sounds as if the crowd was not entirely made up of PZ's atheist followers. You can read Greg's account for yourself...but, don't believe a word of it. No doubt West did a superb job at explaining the facts to the audience.

The Hound of Hell... hot on the heels of John West tonight. West is speaking at the University of MN, and it looks like PZ and the militia are ready to strike! Free beer and pre-seminar preparation will ensue before they take aim at their target.

I'm sure West is just shaking in his I can't imagine reasonable folks being impressed with the likes of PZ and his atheist fundamentalism. Poor thing hasn't figured out yet that he's the mirror image of all that he abhors about religious intolerance.

One has to wonder if some day he'll wake up, smack himself on the forehead and say to himself, "dang, I'm a religious extremist! What in the world have I been thinking?"

Nah, he just doesn't get it...

Friday, November 30, 2007

Physical Laws Revisited

The other day, I was wondering about physical laws and where they originated from.

This afternoon, I ran across an article by Paul Davies that was being discussed at Telic Thoughts. The article is very interesting and pretty much sum up the belief that I've always had that there are many areas of science which are based upon faith. It's a shame that, in some instances, this scientific faith is considered irrefutible "fact" (as is the case with Darwinian evolution).

In regard to physical laws, Davies writes:
You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified.


Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality.


The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.


[U]ntil science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

Chemically Run Meat Puppets

This quote from Denyse O'Leary had me rolling...

"Wait till you see what your materialist masters think about you, meat puppet. Bunch of chemicals running around in a bag."

She reminds readers that the little phrase that the dogmatic evolutionists (Genie Scott comes to mind) love to pass on to their religious friends - "there is no conflict between your religion and current materialists evolution theory" - is bunk.

Truthfully, they're full of it when they make comments like this. Surf the forums for a while...the materialists base their faith on the supposed "fact" that science trumps religion and evolution negates a designer. Hence, God is dead.

That doesn't seem to bother Theistic Evolutionists though. Their faith in a designer who, they seem to agree, has left absolutely no evidence of his hand in the process is mind boggling.

Miller Plays with his Mouse Trap

Behe's reply:

"The problem... is that it's not an argument against anything I've ever said. In my book, I explicitly point out that some of the components of biochemical machines can have other functions. But the issue remains - can you use numerous, slight, successive modifications to get from those other functions to where we are?

"Some of this objection seems a bit silly. Could a component of a mousetrap function as a paperweight? Well, what do you need to be a paperweight? You need mass. You need to exist. An elephant, or my computer, or a stick can be a paperweight. But suppose you go buy a paperweight. What would it look like? Most of them are nondescript, roundish things. None of them look anything like a precursor to a mousetrap. Besides, look at what he's doing: he's starting from the finished product - the mousetrap - and disassembling it and moving a few things around to use them for other puposes. Again, that's intelligent design!"

"The question for evolution is not whether you can take a mousetrap and use its parts for something else: it's whether you can start with something else and make it into a mousetrap. The problem for evolutionists is to start with a less complex system and build a more complex system. Even if every component could theoretically have a useful function prior to its assembly into the mousetrap, you'd still have the problem of how the mousetrap becomes assembled."


"When people put together a mousetrap, they have the disassembled components in different drawers or something, and they grab one from each drawer and put it together. But in the cell, there's nobody there to do that."

"In molecular machines, components have portions of their shape that are complementary to each other, so they connect with each other in the right way. A positive charge can attract a negative charge, and an oily region can attract another oily region. So if we use the mousetrap as an analogy, one end of the spring would have to have a certain shape or magnetism that just happened to attract and fit with another component of the trap. They'd all have to fit together that way until you had the whole trap assembled by itself.

"In other words, if you just had the components themselves without the ability to bring the pieces into position, you'd be far from having a functioning mousetrap. Nobody ever addresses this problem in the evolutionary literature. If you do any calculations about how likely this could occur by itself, you find it's very improbable. Even with the small machines, you wouldn't expect them to self-assemble during the entire life-time of the earth. That's a severe problem that evolutionists don't like to address."


HT: Frank

Thursday, November 29, 2007

New ID Briefing Packet

On my side bar you will find links to the new ID briefing packet that the Discovery Institute recently released in response to the PBS-NOVA documentary "Judgment Day".

Great resource for educators!

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

How did Physical Laws Evolve?

Just curious.

Human Chromosome #2

Ken Miller and Darwinists in general are very fond of using human chromosome #2 as a testament to their faith in common descent.

Evolutionists like to pose these points as their evidence:

All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.

Evidence for fusing of two ancestral chromosomes to create human chromosome 2 and where there has been no fusion in other Great Apes is:

1) The analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2. (1)

2) The remains of the sequence that the chromosome has on its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the ancestral chromosomes fused. (2)

3) the detail of this region (pre-telomeric sequence, telomeric sequence, reversed telomeric sequence, pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion. (3)

4) this telomeric region is exactly where one would expect to find it if a fusion had occurred in the middle of human chromosome 2.

5) the centromere of human chromosome 2 lines up with the chimp chromosome 2p chromosomal centromere.

6) At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere (4).

Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism.

Of course it's hard to explain in other terms if you've been slipped the Darwinian Blue Pill, but let's go ahead and consider the following...

The problem with the conclusion, and with much of the discussion, is that it mingles the evidence with the explanation--so the conclusion, as stated, assumes that there was a common ancestor between apes and humans, which makes it difficult to use it as evidence for a common ancestor. To untangle this, let's rewrite the conclusion so that it no longer makes this assumption:

The evidence that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two chromosomes is overwhelming. The two chromosomes it appears to derive from are directly analgous to chromosomes that are found in apes.

However, once you make this change, an explanation that agrees with creationist accounts of human ancestry just falls out. It would go something like this:

Humans were created in a separate creative event from the other primates, but with 24 chromosome pairs just like them. At some point early in human history, fusion of the chromosomes occurred to give us the 23 pairs we have now. All living humans are descended from those in which the fusion occurred.

The point is simply this: the evidence points to the fusion of human chromosomes, but gives no indication when this happened, except that it must have occurred to a creature that was the ancestor of all living humans. Since none of the apes share this fused chromosome, there is no reason at all to date this fusion any further back than warranted, so it becomes unnecessary to even posit the existence of a common ancestor between apes and humans based on this evidence alone.

What is interesting is this: at first glance, looking from an evolutionary perspective, this seems to have dealt a death blow to creationist accounts of human origins. (The main problem for the creationist is why God would have chosen to create humans with chromosomes that have useless bits in them i.e. the telomene sequences in the middle, and in a way that mimics fusion of 2 chromosomes).

But actually, the evolutionary interpretation has overstepped the mark -- it doesn't demonstrate common ancestry, it assumes it. All the way through it talks about the chromosomes of a common ancester etc. But by putting the evidence into the evolutionary framework ahead of time it has confused what the evidence actually points to. The evidence does indicate (assuming that the God-created-it-to-look-like-fusion explanation is invalid) that human chromosomes were once more similar to those of apes than they are currently, but that is all.

The article also states:

Not only is this strong evidence for a fusion event, but it is also strong evidence for common ancestry; in fact, it is hard to explain by any other mechanism.

The main basis for saying this appears to be the statement: "At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere". But of course, as the author explains later, we don't actually find the chimp 2q centromere -- there is no label on it saying "I'm a chimp 2q centromere". What we find is the remnants of centromere that is in the same place, relative to certain sequences, as the 2q centromere is in chimps. All this shows is that the ancestor chromosomes (i.e. before the fusion event) of current human chromosomes were closely analagous to chromosomes of apes, including chimps.

So the author claims we can rule out other accounts of human origins, but is unjustified in doing so. The reason for this logical mistake is that he/she has intertwined the evidence and the evolutionary explanation so tightly, and seen that they fit so well, that the author cannot imagine another explanation would fit. In reality, the evidence fits a creationist explanation equally well--there is nothing contrived or tricky about what I have presented, and if evolutionary theory did not exist, there is nothing in this evidence that would make creationists think of common descent. The idea that humans originally had a complete set of chromosomes that correspond to ape chromosomes, rather than only 23 out of 24, does not shake creationist ideas one little bit. We already knew there was a vast amount of similarity between humans and primates both in terms of physical characteristics and genetic material and structure. It is a mistake of the evolutionary mindset to assume that observing similarities necessarily brings you to the conclusion of common descent. Taxonomy based on physical characteristics was already a very well established science when the idea of common descent came on the scene, and people from both the intelligent design and the creationists camps have no problem in understanding physical and genetic similarities that are not rooted in common descent -- that is, it is easy to think of perfectly adequate reasons why a designer (either an unknown intelligence in the case of ID, or God in the case of creationism) might have reused designs.

A lesson for both sides to take away is the importance of detaching yourself from your current position in order to see where the evidence actually points. It is easy to imagine that because evidence fits with your position, and fits very well, it therefore not only confirms your position but disconfirms the rival theories.

Just something to think about...

EDIT: Here is another link on chromosome fusion.

When an educator brings up this particular chromosome fusion event, be sure to consider and share the following questions:

1) HOW did this fusion event happen?
2) At what stage in reproduction?
3) Do you have one fusion event in one person?
4) If so, HOW is that reproduced into the population?
5) Can this “human” with the fused chromosome reproduce with the primate with two separate chromosomes?
6) If not, then does this require two chromosome fusion events?

Pangea not matching up?

Hmmm,very interesting...

For a quarter-century or more, the prevailing view among geoscientists—supported by paleomagnetic records in rock—has been that the portion of the ancient supercontinent of Pangea that is now the Colorado Plateau in southern Utah shifted more than 1,300 miles north during a 100-million-year span that ended about 200 million years ago in the early Jurassic Period, when Pangea began to break up.

But new research by a team of geoscientists from the University of Michigan and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln challenges that theory, based on extensive climate modeling studies and sedimentary records found from Wyoming into Utah and Arizona.

In a paper published in the Nov. 23 issue of the journal Science, U-M geophysicist Rob Van der Voo and co-authors report findings that indicate the area must have remained at the equator during the time in question.

"It's a puzzle, a 'conundrum' is the word we like to use," said Robert Oglesby of UNL. "And in the Science paper, we're not solving the conundrum, we're raising the conundrum."

HT: Creation Evolution Headlines

Monday, November 26, 2007


Here is something that most of us will never see...a sunset at the North Pole with the moon at its closest point.

HT to those naughty boys at ATBC.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Twas the Night of Thanksgiving

'Twas the night of Thanksgiving, but I just couldn't sleep.
I tried counting backwards, I tried counting sheep.

The leftovers beckoned -- the dark meat and white, But
I fought the temptation with all of my might.

Tossing and turning with anticipation,
The thought of a snack became infatuation.

So, I raced to the kitchen, flung open the door And
gazed at the fridge, full of goodies galore.

I gobbled up turkey and buttered potatoes,
Pickles and carrots, beans and tomatoes.

I felt myself swelling so plump and so round,
'Til all of a sudden, I rose off the ground.

I crashed through the ceiling, floating into the sky
With a mouthful of pudding and a handful of pie.

But, I managed to yell as I soared past the trees
"Happy eating to all - Pass the cranberries, please!"

May your stuffing be tasty, may your turkey be plump;
May your potatoes 'n gravy have nary a lump;

May your yams be delicious, may your pies take the
prize; May your Thanksgiving dinner stay off of your


100th Birthday Celebration

Yesterday my Grandfather became a Centenarian. We're leaving tomorrow to have a big family reunion and celebrate his birthday this weekend. The man still runs a farm in Western Kansas, and just two years ago (at 98 yrs. old!) I watched him lasso and tackle a calf that needed to be moved to another pasture. Crazy...he's awesome. I hope I inherited the man's longevity genes! He's also a very fine Christian, and I feel blessed to be a part of his legacy.

Here are a few interesting facts from 1907, the year of his birth.

Bread: $0.05/loaf
Milk: $0.31/gal
Car: $500
House: $4,500
Stamp: $0.02/ea
Avg Income: $897/yr
DOW Avg: 59

-Theodore Roosevelt was President
-Oklahoma becomes 46th state
-First Daily newspaper comic strip—Mutt and Jeff
-US Population is 87,008,000
-Annual Teacher’s Salary Averaged $325.
-Average worker makes $12.98 per week for 59 hours
-Radiometric Dating finds Earth is 2.2 billion years old
-Albert Einstein postulates E=mc2. (I think the actual year was 1905)
-Joseph Rudyard Kipling receives the Nobel Prize in Literature for stories such as The Jungle Book (1894), The Second Jungle Book (1895), Just So Stories (1902).


Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Praying for Rain

From this article...

Last week, the Governor of Georgia in the US held a public prayer meeting for rain as a crippling drought threatens to dry up rivers and reservoirs. Divine intervention has been called on before in many other similar disasters. In April the Australian Prime Minister John Howard urged his whole country to pray for rain.

But there are potential pitfalls. In the mid1880s the State of New York suffered a prolonged drought, and a clergyman, the Rev Duncan McLeod, organised a prayer meeting for rain for his community. But one of the local farmers, Phineas Dodd, firmly believed that nature would take its own course without any prayers, and refused to attend.

Just hours after the prayers, severe thunderstorms broke out bringing torrents of rain. During the storm, lightning struck Dodd’s barn and burnt it to the ground. Outraged, Dodd took the minister to court and sued for damages, arguing that the thunderstorm was the direct result of the minister’s prayers.

Mr McLeod was caught in a dilemma because he could not deny that the prayers had brought the rain. Instead, his lawyer argued that the prayers were only for rain, not thunderstorms and lightning, so his client could not be held responsible. The case was dismissed.

Blondes make men act dumb

Science says so! *eyes rolling*

WHEN men meet fair-haired women they really do have a “blonde moment”. Scientists have found that their mental performance drops, apparently because they believe they are dealing with someone less intelligent.

Researchers discovered what might be called the “bimbo delusion” by studying men’s ability to complete general knowledge tests after exposure to different women. The academics found that men’s scores fell after they were shown pictures of blondes.

Of course, we need to consider the evolutionary angle here as well!
Others believe its origins go far deeper. According to researchers at St Andrews University, north European women evolved blonde hair and blue eyes at the end of the Ice Age to make them stand out from their rivals at a time of fierce competition for scarce males.

ROTFL...they cannot be serious.

Friday, November 16, 2007

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Get your Expelled Gear!

Okay, PBS/NCSE/"Judgement Day" had their little party yesterday, so we're up next. The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed will be at a theatre near you this February.

So, to help advertise the movie, get your Expelled gear here! As soon as you purchase the shirts or hat, you'll be a walking advertisement for the upcoming movie.

I like the hoodie, and it lists the Expelled website which is helpful. I thought I might stick a few business size cards in my purse and when someone asks what the heck is on my shirt, I'll slip them a card with the website listed on it.

The T-shirts would be great to wear to the gym as there are always people around to shoot the breeze with who might be curious as to what the movie is about.

"Judgement Day" corrections...


For several corrections to last night's PBS "Judgement Day" documentary, link HERE.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

The Christmas Rush is ON!

The insanity has begun. I attempted to do a bit of shopping this morning, and found myself wanting to scream. The Christmas shoppers are already out in full force, and every time you turn around, you run into someone's cart. People are swarming everywhere!

I'm a rare breed...a woman who doesn't like to shop. I'd rather do just about anything other than shop, but there comes a point where you have to break down and do it or you don't eat and you run out of toilet paper. Can't have that.

I'm also horrific at picking out Christmas gifts. I'm horribly indecisive which leads to last minute frantic shopping. Hate that.

I'd love to just order all my gifts on line, but I know it would be less expensive to shop the stores during the Christmas sales.

I have run across some lovely Christmas cards on line though.

First off, we have the lovely Christmas creation theme...

Matthew 2:9 is featured on the inside along with the words, "May the Maker of Heaven and Earth light your way this Christmas".

...and then, of course, we have the Darwin Winter Solice.

the evolution of tradition.
Celebrate Winter Solice

Such a tough choice, isn't it?

Hmmm...I think Dembski was right.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Foreward by William Harris

The website featuring the new ID book, The Design of Life, now has a 'Look Inside' feature. You can get a feel for what the book is going to cover by checking out the Table of Contents.

The exciting part is that William Harris writes the foreward for the book. He played a instrumental role here in Kansas during the 2005 Science Standards controversy. I had the opportunity of meeting him when I attended a series of lectures in Kansas City. I also made it to one day of the Kansas Science Standards Hearings where he was an expert witness.


God is both Truth and Love. You can only know the truth to the degree that you love.

Love the truth and you will understand the truth.

If you do not love, you do not know love.

Love with a humble heart and the Truth will love you. You will know what philosophers cannot know and even what philosophers do not want to know.


HT: Amanda Witt


Okay, this is exciting...

I kept getting hits on my sitemeter from the new website launched in response to the PBS documentary scheduled for this coming Tuesday, and I wondered what the heck was going on. So, I take a look at the site, and guess what I find? My blog is listed under the resources tab!!

I'm giddy...

I better start behaving myself!

Friday, November 09, 2007

The following link is another newly launched website in response to the PBS documentary: Intelligent Design on Trial...

Hopefully teachers will be interested enough in the subject to do a little googling after they view the documentary or read the subsequent "teaching guide". Perhaps they'll surf in the right direction! We can only hope...

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Vestigial structures

Reading the excerpts from the new book authored by Dembski and Wells that I highlighted in my last post, I found a paragraph I thought I'd share:

"Vestigial structures are entirely consistent with intelligent design, suggesting structures that were initially designed but then lost their function through accident or disuse. Nevertheless, vestigial structures also provide evidence for a limited form of evolution. From both a design-theoretic and an evolutionary perspective, a vestigial structure is one that started out functional but then lost its function. Yet, in the case of evolution, vestigiality explains only the loss of function and not its origination. Vestigiality at best documents a degenerative form of evolution in which preexisting functional structures change and lose their function."

Chapter 5, The Design of Life

So much for the mysterious vestigial structures...

The Design of Life

"When future intellectual historians list the books that toppled Darwin's theory, the Design of Life will be at the top."

Michael Behe
Author, Darwin's Black Box

More here.

Early Man - The Fossil Record

[Better view of the chart here.]

I count a total of approx. 1,140 individuals represented in the hominid fossil record. The chart provides the hypothesized lines of human evolution from 5 million years ago to the present. So over a period of 5 million years, we have 1,140 examples of early man. Stunning.

The site also provides this information:

Hominid fossil remains are precious. Complete skeletons are extraordinarily rare before recent times. Teeth and lower jaws, and the facial and upper cranial bones of the skull, are the most common fossils to survive from any period. Skulls are almost never found intact but must be reconstructed from fragments. Thigh bones are next most often retrieved, while remains of the feet, hands, pelvis or spine are extremely rare.

In other words, most of the "individuals" on the list are represented by skull fragments or a few bones, and in worse case scenarios a few teeth.

You can visit Talkorigins to take a gander at the list of the most "Prominent Hominid Fossils" that have been discovered. Read it carefully to get a feel for the type of bone fragments these discoveries are based upon.

Also consider the hoaxes or errors made when paleoanthropologists have become a bit eager to make a monumental find:

Piltdown Man
Nebraska Man
Homo Habilis
The Misconception about Homo rudolfensis
Homo erectus
Neanderthals: Their Anatomy and Culture
Leakey and his transitionals
Israeli researchers: 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans

Here's a picture of 'Lucy' and Donald Johanson:

Lucy is one of the most complete fossil finds we have that supposedly tells a story about our ancient ancestors. Unfortunately, from the article linked above, we are told that Lucy has lost her status as one of our direct ancestors.

Personally, it appears to me that there is next to no evidence that these bone fragments provide any proof whatsoever that that fossil record supports the assumption of ape to man transitionals.

Consider the range of human variability in the world today. We obviously have a variety of characteristics that make us simliar but different. But, does human variability support the notion of common descent? Do the skull fragments that have been pieced together portray a transition between ape and man, or do the fossil finds merely belong to either a particular species of ape or a human rather than a "missing link"? Below are examples of *real* people that portray vast differences in human characteristics.

Obviously, most of the information we gather in regard to early man is based on speculation and assumption as written history is virtually non-existent until approx. 7BC.

Although Talkorigins mentions that...
One sometimes reads that all hominid fossils could fit in a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard table. That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare. certainly seems to me that you could fit the 1,440 individuals represented by bone fragments in one coffin. I think someone should gather replicas of all of these early men and put my assumption to the test!

I'll end my post with this quote from Gereth Nelson (Wall Street Journal Dec. 9, 1986):

We've got to have some ancestors. We'll pick those. Why? Because we know they have to be there, and these are the best candidates. That's by and large the way it has worked. I am not exaggerating.

PBS Documentary: ID on Trial

For those of you who haven't caved to the Darwinian dogma propaganda machine and plan to watch the PBS Documentary on the Kitzmiller trial next week, please consider reading all the links at the following site:

The Truth About the Dover Intelligent Design Trial

Perhaps NOVA will highlight that link on their show! LOL...when pigs fly.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Thursday, November 01, 2007

The Golden Compass

[Disclaimer: This post is not suggesting censorship, nor do I promote a boycott of the following film. I merely want Christian parents to realize that this film is based off a series of books with an anti-religious theme.]

This movie is based on Philip Pullman's trilogy of books titled 'His Dark materials.' The author is a militant atheist whose professed purpose with these books is to turn kids away from Christianity. Pullman is a supporter of the British Humanist Association and an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society. New Yorker journalist Laura Miller has described Pullman as one of England's most outspoken atheists.

The movie has been cleaned up to avoid a lot of objections, but the movie is of course bait for the books which are anti-religious in theme. The books get progressively worse with the heroes (children) in the 3rd book actually killing God, who is depicted as a little shrunken man.

Snopes has more information on Pullman, the movie, and the triology.

Quotes from Pullman:

"I don't profess any religion; I don't think that its possible that there is a god; I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what is meant by the words 'spiritual' or 'spirituality'"

In a 2003 interview with The Sydney Morning Herald, Pullman left little doubt about his intentions when he stated that:

"My books are about killing God."

From reviews of the trilogy at, it appears that the first book is very tame, with the second two becoming increasingly anti-religious. Here are a couple reviews from the last book of the series:

And as religion seems to be brought up in many of the reviews, I would like to address it briefly too. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, of course. But Pullman spends so much of this book talking about how close-minded and judgmental organized religion is, he just comes across as close-minded himself. All his characters who believe in religion are evil, corrupt, ignorant, or stupid. It just seems very hypocritical to be so judgmental about religion when he is preaching open-mindedness. His belief in atheism is fine, of course, but he allows it to overtake his story, and the plot suffers as a result.

I bought the trilogy after seeing that the movie was slated for release this fall. I was blown away by the Golden Compass. Pullman is a superb storyteller and the high adventure and incredible imagination that went into the first book was mind blowing. I remember thinking that surely this was a story that would surpass "The Wizard of Oz" as a cultural cornerstone of fiction. Having read "Paradise Lost" also played to my aspirations of intellectualism while reading the books.

But when "The Subtle Knife" adds a new hero and makes an almost predictible jump to our world - present day, so begins a slide away from wonder. Still through incredible writing ability Pullman makes an enjoyable read of it, though nowhere near the story "The Golden Compass" is. The heavy themes certainly start leaving a childrens book mentality far behind. It becomes unclear if the writer hates (and hate is not to strong a word here) religion or just Christianity. Certianly Christianity has all his ire.

By the time we get to "The Amber Spyglass" the exciting beautiful story is a full blown anti-sermon on atheism with all the rhetoric of the most zealous puritanical ministers. "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster" Says Nietzsche, and that may be what transpires. There are confusing story segments aligned it seems with the sole purpose of pontification. Story arcs that border on boring,such as the spyglass itself, seem wholly irrelevant. Morally bizarre situations rule the day: Broaching sexuality for minors, excusing evil characters actions in Machina Ex Deus fashion, rebellion and out right lieing as a virtue. Some of this could have been interesting if it were a topsy turvey things are not what they seem story, But that ship sails early on. Instead there is no forgiving the lack of motivation for characters early actions. The climaxs are all underdeveloped as far as reasoning. The coming of age subplot has nothing to do with character. Petulance is only rewarded.

As you can guess by now I'm sorry I read anything past "The Golden Compass" and worse I paid for them. When I pickup a book I'd rather not be preached at religious or otherwise unless I am in the religion section. This is not escapist fiction, It's a personal diatribe. Insidiously wrapped in a childrens story.

What Has Atheism Done for Us?

A recent commentor offered the following:

Religion is going to get us all killed when a nuclear war starts in the middle east, and will be cursed by the remnants of humanity.

It is hoped that the New Atheism will wake people up and they will realize that a Constitutional Convention is over.

I will be blunt, religion must be liquidated, there is no time left to argue. there are dozens of new atheist books out and dozens more on the way. The times they are a changin.

Interesting....and my reply was that the problem with that statement is that the "New Atheism" movement is every bit as dangerous as the most fanatical fundamentalist cult.

They preach absolute hatred from their way or the highway....anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot..."religion must be liquidated".

In that light, Dinesh D’Souza, who just recently debated Christopher Hitchens, offers the following...

What Has Atheism Done for Us?
By Dinesh D'Souza
Wednesday, October 31, 2007

My new book What’s So Great About Christianity, just out, is already an bestseller, a Wall Street Journal bestseller and No. 16 on the New York Times bestseller list. On Saturday C-Span broadcast my debate with God Is Not Great author Christopher Hitchens. Many people have commented that this is the best debate on the topic of Christianity v. Atheism that has yet been held. If you haven’t seen it, you can find the debate on my website Following the debate, AOL posted the video on its main page, and asked people to make up their minds and vote on who won. Modesty prevents me from disclosing the answer.

Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, watched the debate and reported with some agitation that the audience seemed to be applauding more for me than for Hitchens. Dawkins commented on his website that the New York crowd must have been a "dopey" lot. But if you listen to the debate, you will see that both atheists and believers were well represented. The audience applause was initially stronger for Hitchens, and only as the debate went on did it trend markedly toward me. So is Dawkins suggesting that the audience was very intelligent to start with but became more "dopey" as the debate went on? More likely we are seeing evidence of the "Dawkins delusion," an unwillingness to use good sense and face facts when Dawkins' own belief system is called into question.

One of the most interesting questions in the debate was posed to Hitchens by a man from Tonga. Before the Christians came to Tonga, he said, the place was a mess. Even cannibalism was widespread. The Christians stopped this practice and brought to Tonga the notion that each person has a soul and God loves everyone equally. The man from Tonga asked Hitchens, "So what do you have to offer us?" Hitchens was taken aback, and responded with a learned disquisition on cannibalism in various cultures. But he clearly missed the intellectual and moral force of the man's question. The man was asking why the Tongans, who had gained so much from Christianity, should reject it in favor of atheism.

In my response, I noted that when the missionaries came to India, they sometimes converted people by force. Even so, many Indians rushed on their own to embrace the faith of the foreigners. And why? Because they were born into the low caste of the Hindus. As long as they remained Hindus, there was no escape; even their descendants were condemned to the lowest rungs of humanity. By fleeing into the arms of the missionaries, the low-caste Hindus found themselves welcomed as Christian brothers. They discovered the ideal of equal dignity in the eyes of God.

If we look at the history of Western civilization, we find that Christianity has illuminated the greatest achievements of the culture. Read the new atheist books and make a list of the institutions and values that Hitchens and Dawkins and the others cherish the most. They value the idea of the individual, and the right to dissent, and science as an autonomous enterprise, and representative democracy, and human rights, and equal rights for women and racial minorities, and the movement to end slavery, and compassion as a social virtue. But when you examine history you find that all of these values came into the world because of Christianity. If Christianity did not exist, these values would not exist in the form they do now. So there is indeed something great about Christianity, and the honest atheist should be willing to admit this.

By contrast, does it make any sense to say, as Hitchens does in his book's subtitle, that "religion poisons everything"? Religion didn't poison Dante or Milton or Donne or Michelangelo or Raphael or Titian or Bach! Religon didn’t poison those unnamed architectural geniuses who built the great Gothic cathedrals. Religion didn’t poison the American founders who were for the most part not Deist but Christian. Religion didn't poison the anti-slavery campaigns of William Lloyd Garrison or William Wilberforce, or the civil rights activism of the Reverend Martin Luther King. The real question to ask is, what does atheism offer humanity? In Tonga, as in America, the answer appears to be: Nothing.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Fighting in vain for our freedom

As I mentioned in an earlier article, our veterans fought hard for the freedom of all Americans...religious freedom included.

Yet, here is another example of our religious freedom being squelched due to the advancing secular regime. It seems to me that unless we keep our religious faith, symbols and activities ‘private’ or better yet in the 'basements of our churches', we’re going to hear about it.

I’m not sure where in the constitution it states that we can’t display a nativity scene in a city hall. The 1st Amendment explicitly states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

No one is “establishing a particular religion” by allowing a Nativity scene to be placed at the City Hall in question. It’s been done around the country for centuries. People of the Jewish faith display Hanukah symbols, Christians put up their nativity scenes....big deal. If the secular society is ticked off about it, why don’t they just set up an easel, stick their Scarlet Letter on it, and top it off with a Santa Hat? I mean, come on, why all the melodrama...

500 Million-Year-Old Jellyfish

The oldest known fossil of a 500 million-year-old jellyfish was found in Utah. Wow...looks just like the modern jellyfish on the right. It's interesting that jellyfish have pretty much always looked like jellyfish, birds have pretty much always looked like birds, etc., etc.. Yet, we're also supposed to *imagine* that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Crazy stuff.

From the article:
The rich detail of the fossils allowed the team to compare the cnidarian (the phylum to which jellyfish, coral and sea anemones belong) fossils to modern jellyfish. The comparison confirmed that the fossils were, in fact, jellyfish and pushed the earliest known occurrence of definitive jellyfish back from 300 million to 505 million years ago.

The fossils also offer insights into the rapid species diversification that occurred during the Cambrian radiation, which began around 540 million years ago and when most animal groups start to show up in the fossil record, Lieberman said.
The complexity of these early jellyfish seems to suggest that either the complexity of modern jellyfish developed rapidly about 500 million years ago, or that jellyfish are even older and developed long before that time.

Over at Young Cosmos you can find recently discovered fossilized imprints of 330-million-year-old salamander-like amphibians. Kinda cool...

How Did Chemical Constituents Essential To Life Arise On Primitive Earth?

Well, that's a hell of a good question.

And, scientists are working feverishly to figure it out...

Experiments show that simple molecules can combine chemically rather than biologically to form the building blocks of DNA, the key component of all life forms. These processes might have taken place on primitive earth, but how they occur is an unsolved puzzle.

Chemists at the University of Georgia have now proposed the first detailed, feasible mechanism to explain how adenine, one of the four building blocks of DNA, might be built up from the combination of five cyanide molecules. The investigation is based on extensive quantum chemical computations over several years.

"Just where these biomolecules originated isn't known," said Paul von Ragué Schleyer, Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry at the University of Georgia. "One can only speculate. They could have formed from smaller molecules present on primitive Earth, either very slowly over millions of years or rapidly before the Earth cooled down. Asteroids may have brought them from outer space, but how did biomolecules form there?"

They ought to sign up Dawkins to help them in their effort. He'll add a selfish gene here and a few memes there, and the next thing you know, the questions surrounding abiogensis will be a thing of the past!

I applaud their efforts in this area of research, and I look forward to the day when they finally realize that nature does indeed present more than the "illusion" of design.

Halloween goodies

Help! I'm surrounded by Halloween treats, and I can't resist them!!


It's time to start dieting again, and the Holidays are the perfect time to count calories or the gorging gets out of control.

Opiate for the Masses!

Sorry, but I can't resist passing this on.

From the article:
As Dinesh D’Souza said about the atheist’s faith in no faith in his new book What’s So Great About Christianity: “Atheism is not primarily an intellectual revolt, it’s a moral one.” God, that’s got to hurt you guys because you pride yourself on being so wise . . . so sophisticated . . . and here he/we are saying that your atheism rises out of hedonism instead of intellectualism. Ouch. Need a bandaid?

Look, I’m not buying that the atheists’ altruistic self-professed pursuit of reason is what undergirds their conclusion that God does not exist; I believe it’s because they want to believe that they’ll never be called into eternal accountability for their temporal actions by a holy God. Talk about an opiate for the masses!


• Biologist Stephen Jay Gould: “We may yearn for a higher answer—but none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling if not terrifying, is ultimately liberating and exhilarating.”

Biologist Julian Huxley, the grandson of Darwin’s buddy and ally Thomas Henry Huxley, put it this way: “The sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous.”

• Julian’s brother Aldous Huxley, not to be outdone by his bro, stated, “I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . . For myself as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation . . . liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

Bertrand Russell: “The worst feature of the Christian religion is its attitude toward sex.”

• Christopher Hitchens: “The divorce between the sexual life and fear . . . can now at last be attempted on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse.”

I've heard many atheists in on-line forums mention that they have no interest is following any guidelines set up by our if it would put a detrimental halt to their present lifestyle or something.

An atheist friend of my once wrote the following at a militant blogsite:

And even if God were shown to exist, so flipping what? Why would I be obligated to accept his "authority"? By whose authority is God God? Nobody ever answers those questions. Everything that we know about abusive and dysfunctional relationships goes right out the window when we're talking about God. I think it's pathetic for people to get so excited about a pretend "authority" rather than get excited about their own lives and what they can accomplish.

How does one politely say (as I've been tempted to, but never have yet), "But I simply don't want to be anything like you"?

Honestly, I think this is what it boils down to for many atheists. They kick logic out the window, and let themselves become so enchanted with the godless aspect of evolution that they truly believe it relieves them from God's authority.

The really unfortunate part is that His authority is easy to live under. I've found that God's "rules" were presented for a reason. When we live as the Creator intended for us to live, life is much more fulfilling.

But then what do I know...I'm just a "veritable abecedarian simpleton who believes in God and Christ simply because I'm straight goofy." ( the article)

HT: DaveScot

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Depression setting in...

I rarely watch TV, but I lounged around for a while today and decided to catch up on the news and see what was on PBS. After two hours, I felt completely drained...

1. Hilary Clinton sounds like a shoe in for the Presidency.
2. Iran in now in the Bush administration's sites...that's all we need - more fuel for the fire.
3. A documentary about scientists working with the religious community in order to help them understand global warming (evidently if you're religious, you need help understanding anything).
4. Colony Collapse Disorder among the bee population...which I find almost more threatening than global warming.


Friday, October 26, 2007

James Watson Retires

Well, it looks like the infamous James Watson has decided to call it quits.

From the article:

James Watson, famous for DNA research but widely condemned for recent comments about intelligence levels among blacks, retired Thursday from his post at a prestigious research institution.


Watson shared a Nobel Prize with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins in 1962 for co-discovering the structure of the DNA molecule. He is one of America's most prominent scientists.

He also seemed to consider science as a means to end religious thought...

“Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely. Only with the discovery of the double helix and the ensuing genetic revolution have we had grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours..."

To each his own...

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Teaching tips from Dr. Massimo Pigliucci

Pop over to Young Cosmos where I link to Pigliucci's latest teaching tips to eradicate "pseudoscience" from the classrooms. Gosh, I know a KSU professor who will just absolutely LOVE this article from Dr. P.

I swear, after reading his article, the first thing that comes to my mind is a quote from DaveScot (Uncommon Descent):

What’s out of line is that 60% of academic scientists self-identify as non-religious. They like to think they are irreligious because they’re smarter than everyone else. The truth is that they’re more dysfunctional than everyone else and have to live in a sheltered little world where they all think alike, act alike, and pat each other on the back constantly about how very smart they are.

Now, mind you, I certainly don’t believe that all scientists fit the description above, but I’ve been involved in endless discussions with pro-Darwin scientists on-line, and this description fits many of them to a tee.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

I like the "Darwin Rules" button....that cracks me up.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

ID on Testing, Predictions, and Falsifiability

When you enter an online science forum where the topics of ID and evolution are being discussed, what are usually the first claims that Darwinists make?

They assert that ID is not science because...

1. It's not testable
2. It offers no predictions
3. It's not falsifiable

Here's what you do when that occurs: First of all, tell them they're full of baloney...

...then, to save time (because believe me, you will have to address these issues over and over and over) link to the posts below and tell them to find a better way to spend their time than to try to convince you of something you know to be incorrect.

Intelligent Design is Empirically Testable and Makes Predictions

Is Intelligent Design Testable?

What is Falsifiability and can ID be Falsified?

Miller on Witness Stand: ID Isn't Falsifiable, So It Isn't Science; Plus, We've Already Falsified It

Intelligent Design is Falsifiable

See, here's the deal... Darwinists simply cannot absorb the fact that they're just blind to the facts about ID. I'm thinking that this phenomena is due to some evolutionary glitch in the Darwinist mentality that renders them incapable of accepting the facts in regard to these issues.

HT: Robert Crowther at ENV

"God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens

Obviously writen by an atheist, most of my readers are probably quite familiar with Christopher Hitchens latest book. I highly recommend reading books written by atheists, and then follow up by reading the Christian responses to those books. I've personally found that this type of exercise strengthens my faith considerably.

I haven't had time to read Hitchen's latest just yet, but I ran across this review by Mark D Roberts that you'll want to read in accordance with the book.

I've read Roberts' latest book titled Can We Trust the Gospels, which is an excellent Christian resource. I really appreciate his mannerism in that he doesn't portray arrogance in his approach of the issues, but rather humility. It's also very apparent that he shows no dislike or hatred toward those who disagree with his faith beliefs, which I always find refreshing. Life is too short to carry such furored hatred for those whose beliefs may differ from our own.

Swapping Awe

Interestingly, the biological community regularly sings the praises of natural selection and the wonders it has wrought while admitting that it has no comprehension of how those wonders were wrought. Natural selection, we are assured, is cleverer than we are or can ever hope to be. Darwinists have merely swapped one form of awe for another. They’ve not eliminated it. - William Dembski

I've thought about this fact innumerable times in the past. Listening to Dawkins talk of natural selection is almost a spiritual experience.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Origin of Vision Discovered!

You are reading these words right now because 600 million years ago, an aquatic animal called a Hydra developed light-receptive genes—the origin of animal vision.

Yup...for sure.

[my Hydra derived eyes are rolling...big time]

These findings, detailed in a recent issue of the online journal PLoS ONE, counter arguments by anti-evolutionists that evolution can only eliminate traits and cannot produce new features, the authors say.

“Our paper shows that such claims are simply wrong," said co-author Todd Oakley, also a UC Santa Barbara biologist. "We show very clearly that specific mutational changes in a particular duplicated gene (opsin) allowed the new genes to interact with different proteins in new ways. Today, these different interactions underlie the genetic machinery of vision, which is different in various animal groups.”

Something just really smells fishy about this claim...extrapolation of the facts seem a bit over the top, but what do I know...

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Brownback's Out

Looks like Brownback is withdrawing from the GOP race.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Ode to a Troll (and you know who you are)

The Law of Garbage Trucks

Many people are like garbage trucks. They run around full of garbage, full of frustration, full of anger, and full of disappointment. As their garbage piles up, they need a place to dump it. And if you let them, they'll dump it on you.

When someone wants to dump on you, don't take it personally...just smile, wave, wish them well, and move on. You'll be happy you did.

How often do we let "Garbage Trucks" run right over us? And how often do we take their garbage and spread it to other people: at work, at home, on the streets? I've decided it's my goal to never let that happen.

I going to start envisioning garbage trucks in a simliar way in which the little boy in "The Sixth Sense," said, "I see Dead People."

When "I see Garbage Trucks", I see the load they're carrying. I see them coming to drop it off. I don't make it a personal thing; I just smile, wave, wish them well, and I move on.

[revised from an unknown author]

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

What's all the Fuss about Methodological Naturalism?

A few weeks ago, I attended a lecture on methodological naturalism which was presented by Keith Miller, a geology professor at Kansas State University. I finally found the time to finish up a review of that lecture, and it can be found at Young Cosmos.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

More on the Koonin article

Yesterday, I reported on an article written by Eugene Koonin, titled "The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution."

Robert Crowther, at Evolution News and Views, has posted commentary in regard to Nick Matzke's reaction to the article. Matzke was, until recently, employeed by the militant Darwinist group, National Center for Science Education. It's interesting how, in the minds of guys like Matzke, Darwinism is unquestionable regardless of the glaring lack of evidence.

When I read Matzke's comments along with the article yesterday, I just shook my head in disbelief. It doesn't matter if the evidence isn't there, he'll just imagine the problems away with fabulous just-so stories.

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Will Darwinism end with a Big Bang?

Some evolutionists, is seems, are beginning to realize that Darwinism, as we know it, may be pointing to a dead end. It's interesting to see that some scientists are starting to contemplate other scenarios.

Friday, October 05, 2007

Please keep your faith beliefs confined to the basements of your churches

It seems every day we hear about another incident in which some group is trying to banish God from the public eye. It seems they just won't be happy unless they can be reassured they they will never run across a public display that may symbolize or attest to someone elses faith beliefs (Christianity in particular). I've been in many on-line forums or blogs where posters are even irate over teachers wearing cross necklaces in their child's classroom!

What ever happened to the adherence of 1st amendment rights.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It seems that many of these protesting groups only consider the first 10 words of the amendment.

Evidently a ruling has been passed that puts a ban against the word "God" being used as religious expressions on flag certificates. An Ohio lawmaker urged Pelosi to review and reverse the rule.

First amendment rights come into play here, and if this rule is not reversed we run into situations like the following:

Turner said the constituent, Paul Larochelle, and his son Andrew had requested a flag flown over the Capitol on Sept. 11 which Andrew, 17, was to give to his grandfather after being inducted into the Eagle Scouts.

They asked that the certificate of authenticity accompanying the flag read: "this flag was flown in honor of Marcel Larochelle, my grandfather, for his dedication and love of God, country and family." The Architect's office, citing its own rules, returned the certificate with the word "God" excised.

"The word 'God' is carved into the walls of both chambers of Congress," Turner said in a statement. "The Architect is the custodian of the Capitol and currently maintains several religious symbols in the building. If permitted, removing 'God' from the Capitol flag ceremonies will be the precedent for removing 'God' from the Capitol, and this cannot be permitted."