Scientists breed schizophrenic mice

From here.

SCIENTISTS have created the world’s first schizophrenic mice in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the illness.

...

The mice were created by modifying their DNA to mimic a mutant gene first found in a Scottish family with a high incidence of schizophrenia, which affects about one in every 100 people. The mice’s brains were found to have features similar to those of humans with schizophrenia, such as depression and hyperactivity

I wonder what a schizophrenic mouse would act like? Poor little things.

[Side note: I'm not condemning this research. I think it would be awesome if it led to a cure for various mental illnesses. I just feel sorry for the little things.]

Aren't we bloggers pretty??

BLOGGING: The easiest way to find someone - anyone - to take you seriously.

[I'm still looking for that "someone"...and, I promise I'm not *that* big. Oh, and I've only blogged naked once.]

HT: prosthesis

Just Say NO!!

Smoking marijuana can raise your risk of developing a psychotic illness by 40 percent, British researchers say.

"People who used cannabis had a greater risk of developing psychotic outcome then people who didn't use cannabis," said study author Stanley Zammit, a clinical lecturer in psychiatric epidemiology at Cardiff University.

40% people....think about it.

And, no, you Darwinian dodos, I wasn’t a pot smoker in my youth so don’t go assuming that my inability to grasp the concept that I'm the byproduct of a microbe that crawled out of a pond of primordial soup is due to psychosis brought on by smoking too many doobies. I tried it a few times, but I didn’t inhale...LOL!

Honestly, I think the concept of microbe to man was initially the brain child of someone who was trippin' on something funky.

Creation Museum hosts its 100,000th visitor

Looks like the museum is averaging around 1700 visitors a day. Jeez, I certainly didn't think it would be that popular.

The Creation Museum just southwest of Cincinnati hosted its 100,000th visitor over the weekend, less than two months after it opened, putting the museum on pace to easily exceed the 250,000 visitors organizers were hoping to get in the first year.

...

The response has been so overwhelming that the museum is petitioning to add 650 spaces to the parking lot, which currently has about 500 spaces available. The museum would also like to add a canopy over the entrance to protect people waiting in line from the weather.

Hospice Cat

I heard about this little guy on the news this morning. He seems to be able to tell when someone at the nursing home where he “works” is about to die.



He’ll curl up next to that individual during their last few hours of life. Evidently he’s “predicted” 25 deaths.

Spooky...what do you think the scientific explanation is for this?

Human Variability

Remember my post the other day in regard to the tallest and shortest men in the world?

Here is a picture of 7’9” Bao, and his new wife who is more than two feet shorter than he is:



And, here’s a picture of Bao again with his short friend, He Pingping:



Gotta wonder if these three individuals would be classified as separate species if all we had were their bones to examine.

Another Woolly Mammoth Picture

My kids have really enjoyed checking out the pictures and reading about this latest find. Here is another very cool picture of the baby frozen mammoth surrounded by a group of scientists.



If you’re familiar with Dr. Walter Brown’s hydroplate theory, which starts here, he also has a detailed and compelling analysis in regard to the connection that these frozen mammoths may have had to a worldwide flood starting at this link.

Something to think about...

Help?

Hey, if anyone has access to this article and wouldn't mind sharing, you could email me a copy.

Edit: Got it...thanks MB.

Discovery of a 4-month old Woolly Mammoth

University of Michigan paleontologist Daniel Fisher just returned from Siberia where he spent a week as part of a six-member international team that examined the frozen, nearly intact remains of a 4-month-old female woolly mammoth.

Samples will be sent to Fisher's Ann Arbor laboratories for analysis, he said. "It's the best and most complete mammoth carcass—baby or adult—ever found," said Fisher, curator of paleontology at the U-M Museum of Paleontology.

More here.

Can you hear it??

...that click, click, clicking?

I swear I can hear PZ hammering away at his laptop as he tries to address Dr. Egnor's latest post in regard to his recent talk presented to the MN Atheists.

The subject of the talk?

"There are no Ghosts in your Brain: Materialist Explanations for the Mind and Religious Belief"

PZ writes that "religion itself is a kind of conceptual parasite that takes advantage of other desirable and even "virtuous" intrinsic qualities of the brain."

Wow...far out. I'm ridden with a parasite...and I like it! Does this mean that PZ's brain is more or less evolved due to his lack of religious mind parasites? Is he more virtuous due to his lack of parasites? Is this phenomena in any way related to some kind of "meme"?

Good grief...

Can we Trust the Gospels?

I just finished reading Can we Trust the Gospels, by Mark D. Roberts.





I've read several books on biblical criticism as well as books that provide apologetic arguments for the reliability of scripture. So, although I'm familiar with many of the points Roberts made in this book, it is one of the best I've read in regard to pulling all relevant information together in one source.

Roberts is a Harvard alumni who was surrounded throughout his education by very liberal, skeptical instructors. This was clearly not a bad scenario in Mark's case as he became extremely adept to critical thinking in regard to the questions of whether one can trust the words we find in the New Testament. In fact, he went on to critically examine the liberal criticisms which, in turn, led him to more confidently trust the history that the Gospel writers relay to the reader.

He writes:

...these days it's often the skeptical scholars who seem to have cornered the market on certainty. And as long as they write mainly for each other, talk mainly to each other, and make sure their scholarly publications and meetings are dominated by each other's work, these skeptical scholars can pretend as if their "assured results of scholarship" are rock solid. In fact, however, they're often more like a house of cards built on the sand, if you'll pardon an intentionally mixed metaphor.

But, by that statement, don't think that Roberts is not critical of scripture. He was critical throughout, and is certainly not a biblical literalist by any means of the imagination. He writes the following:

...I don't believe I've proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the New Testament Gospels are historically reliable. I do believe, however, that I've shown it is reasonable to trust the Gospels as historically accurate. Though certain elements of the Gospels are problematic in this regard, I find that the evidence, when taken as a whole, strongly supports the view that the biblical Gospels paint a reliable picture of Jesus (or to be more precise, several accurate, complementary pictures of Jesus).

Some of the relevant points he covers are as follows: Can we trust what the original Gospel manuscripts really said?, did the evangelists know Jesus personally?, when were the Gospels written and what were the sources?, was oral tradition reliable?, are there contradictions in the Gospels?, do miracles undermine the reliability of the Gospels?, do historical and archaeological sources support the reliability of the Gospels?, where do the gnostic gospels fit in?

I love reading this stuff. A family member once said to me that they didn't want to dig too deeply into the criticisms of the Bible because they were afraid it would waver their faith in God. This type of attitude is shocking to me because what is the point of putting your faith in something that cannot reasonably stand up against criticism? I've found that the doubts I've had about my faith have led me back around to the most wonderful discoveries about the truth we find in scripture.

Poor thing...

Holy crap. Tree Hugger Jr. needs some serious therapy and a lotta love to get him through this dilema.

Quotes for the Day

Richard Dawkins:

"Lewis, you are starting to sound like a creationist."

Lewis Wolpert responds:

"It is funny that you should say that. [pause] Sometimes in the dark of the night, I wish that it (creationism) were true."

Source

The "Sterilization of ID Memes"

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry...

Remember me saying that I was banned from an anti-ID forum where posters complain daily that pro-ID blogs and forums moderate too heavily, and boasted that virtually anything could be posted at their venue?

I explained that I was banned for a very minor incident in which Wesley Elsberry defended Lenny Flank and apparently wanted me to retract an example I put forth in an effort to try to get Flank to stop jacking threads.

Well, unbeknownst to me, Lenny has a plan in which he hopes to rid the world of ID supporters, and he was apparently in full tilt boogie while I was posting in his presence...

IDers [] depend very very heavily on their horde of brainless minions, who infest the Internet and spread the ID memes. I'd prefer to sterilize those memes, by shutting up every one of the carriers. I want every fundie who opens his mouth about creationism to get burned and ridiculed so badly that he thinks better of it, and never opens his mouth about the matter again. As Harry Truman said, "if you can't stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen". I want to burn the fundies' asses so badly that they never go near a kitchen again. I want their minions to drop like flies. I want them to cloister themselves in their monasteries, console each other as much as they want, and never venture out into the big bad hurtful world ever again. It weakens their grassroots power, it helps stamp out their memes, and it cripples their ability to do everything from raise money to organize political pressure campaigns.

I do of course realize that some of you, perhaps even MANY of you (and particularly the scientist types), will think these to be "unfair" or "unsporting" or "not nice". Tough. They're damn effective. This isn't a scientific symposium, it's not a debate, it's not a polite disagreement between buddies. It's a political war. One side will win; the other side won't. One side will emerge alive; the other side won't. Politics is a business full of knives, and this is a knife fight. Sorry if the sight of blood bothers you. If so, perhaps you too would be happier out of the kitchen and into the living room watching TV instead.
...
But when the zombie rises from the dead again, I'll be ready and waiting, fiery torch in hand, ready to burn their ass again.

Here is what really boggles the mind. I realize that there are scary people out there who teeter on the edge of sanity, but the fact that a guy like Wesley Elsberry feels the need to defend this guy against an insignificant poster like myself is just, well, alarming.

The real kicker is that Lenny wants people like me to “drop like flies”, retreat from the “big bad hurtful world”, “never open our mouths again”, etc., etc., etc., but in reality, I can’t think of any IDer who would buckle under Lenny’s oh so very scary ridicule. His freakiness didn’t run me off, the moderators did.

Question: Are we to take Lenny seriously, or do you think he is some kind of sock puppet who is set up as comic relief for the Dawinists? ...kinda like Professor Steve Steve (only much less cuddly).

If he’s for real, then I’m just seriously creeped out. The Dude’s talkin’ knives, blood, zombies, fiery torches...

Tree huggers dine on endangered fish

Okay, Jason, this one had me rolling...









"Hello, I'm a Chilean Sea Bass."



















"Get in mah bell-ay!!!!!!"

Tall meets Small

Bao Xishun is 7'9" and He Pingping is 2'4".

Shoot, Bao is only 11" taller than my brother. More here.

THE DARWIN SLAYER!!!

Linky to interview

Which theologian are you?

You scored as Karl Barth, The daddy of 20th Century theology. You perceive liberal theology to be a disaster and so you insist that the revelation of Christ, not human experience, should be the starting point for all theology.

Karl Barth		60%
Anselm		53%
Friedrich Schleiermacher		47%
Augustine		47%
John Calvin		40%
Charles Finney		40%
Jonathan Edwards		33%
Martin Luther		33%
Paul Tillich		13%
Jürgen Moltmann		7%

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

I'm sure no one disagrees with that outcome. LOL!

More on Karl Barth.

Mercy

Mention prayer, and you're liable to have anti-ID Darwinist bloggers and their followers breathing down your neck like the hounds of hell. Figures...site meter has blown a fuse...moderator has gone into full Darwinian alert.

Truth

Unfortunately, I’m the type of person who has the audacity to confront Darwinists in some of the anti-ID on-line forums when I feel they are misrepresenting me or my position in this debate.

I really should steer clear of these folks because there is ~no~ reasoning with them. From what I’ve experienced, they are extremely hateful individuals who seem to complain daily about the intolerance of others, yet they display the most rabid intolerance I have *ever* witnessed personally.

They continually write posts and articles about religion and politics and complain that the Bush administration has fouled up the war in Iraq, yet they are starting their own war and don’t even seem to realize it. Wars start with words, and from what I can tell, they are *dead set* on taking this culture war to a whole new level. To read some of the things they write is, in all truthfulness, frightening at times.

The latest bit of misrepresentation in regard to my position in this debate that I need to address is as follows:

FtK says that she is looking for the "truth", and acts as if her search for truth includes a scientific seeking. But it is most assuredly not true. Her truths are pre-ordained, and fixed, and she admits in her most recent rant that she doesn't think that her mind will ever be changed. If she had admitted from the start that she was really focused on atheism, and equated atheism with mainstream science, AND that she apparently feels that atheists are less than honorable/respectable/human, she would get respect for her honesty (at least from me). She is not honest about her motives, and that dishonesty is a sure route to getting disrespect from anyone in the scientific community.

Everyone is searching for truth to some degree. Science is not the only source in which to find it. I search for truth from many sources, and both theology and science are important (to me) in that search. I've never stated otherwise. I’ve made many changes in my outlook about both topics from the discussions I’ve had online, but those will remain private.

Then there was this statement...

"... [she] acts as if her search for truth includes a scientific seeking. But it is most assuredly not true",

...the only way a person can make a statement like this is if they believe they have the truth, and can the truth about life only be understood through the eyes of scientists? Some Darwinists believe that since I question them, I cannot be searching for the truth. Their own truths must be “pre -ordained and fixed” to make a statement like that. This particular Darwinist has never shared his beliefs about "truth" other than stating that I’m wrong in regard to my belief that common descent should be examined with a more critical eye by our students. By his own words in various forums and blogs, he obviously believes that religious beliefs are open for ridicule, and that religion is most probably an evolutionary trait that has been passed on for generations.

He accuses me of conflating discussions about atheism/theism with science, but religious and philosophical beliefs are absolutely a major part of this debate. These religious and philosophical beliefs affecting the work of science are not limited to the ID advocates by any means. The writings of Dawkins / Harris / Dennet / Weinburg / Hitchens et. al. have made it very clear that they are out to put an end to religious thought and they mean to do it by ridiculing religion and raising science to a level by which it is the only avenue to truth. PZ Myers plays out this objective every day via the internet.

I do believe that there is a strong surge from a very vocal group of atheists, who have a strong footing in the scientific community, to denigrate religion at every opportunity. I watch them do it *daily*, I've read their books, I've listened to their lectures...so it's not possible to convince me otherwise. I certainly don’t feel that the majority of scientists feel this way, but I do believe that those Darwinists holding the reins in this debate have a strong influence on what will and will not be considered in the domain of science. I don't know where I've been “dishonest” about my beliefs in this regard. I've been writing both about religion and science since starting my blog.

I’m also not sure what hidden "motives" this individual thinks I have. I can't think of a time when I've ever said that I am only interested in scientific truth. I don't think we are anywhere near the point where science is the only means by to establish *truth*.

He wrote:

AND that she apparently feels that atheists are less than honorable/respectable/human...

Where have I ever said this? This is what you want to believe about me, it's not actually who I am. If I had only to go by the attitudes and the hatred displayed by the majority (not all) of the atheists at AtBC and the horrendous tactics and hate filled rants of atheist bloggers like PZ Myers, then yes, I’d believe that atheists are less than honorable and, in fact, quite hateful and despicable individuals.

But, luckily, I know people personally who do not believe that there is an ultimate creator, and they are no different than my family. But, on the other hand, the atheists I know personally don’t wear their atheism on their sleeve. They have respect for themselves and the beliefs of others, and they aren’t on a mission to do away with or ridicule religion, neither do they treat me like dirt because of my personal religious beliefs.

I have tried very hard to get along with atheists in this debate, and a handful have been kind to me, and I appreciate that more than they’ll probably ever realize. But, the majority I’ve run across on-line are simply nasty, unforgiving individuals who truly *enjoy* the opportunity to treat those whose views they oppose like they are less than human with no feelings or importance in life whatsoever.