5 Amazing "Alien Technologies" in Life That Strike Down Darwinistic Evolution

Terrestrial Alien technology

Digging in the deep jungle tangle, you are in search for lost ancient civilizations. Finding primitive technology is your expected end because of the surrounding primitive cultures.

Your slow sleepy digging suddenly is awakened by the earth's yawning mouth, you are plunged down into the bowels of the earth. A hidden cavern awaits your arrival. Heart pounding, you crawl over the mess, and then you stumble into a maze of artifacts.

One Life Mystery That Is Destroying Darwinism But Points To The Creator

Exponential Life - Epigenetics Deepens the Mystery of Design

I was blown away when the scientist said it; my mind yelled, "What? That's crazy!" His topic was the famous, or maybe infamous, tiny friend living down in our lower digestive tract, Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria. He said that, on average, any given strain of E. coli shares about twenty percent of its core genes with any other E. coli -bacterial strain. In other words, about twenty percent of the E. coli genes are shared by all strains, but around eighty percent can very throughout the species!*

One possible explanation for this phenomenon is that other information-carrying structures besides deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) may partly define the E. coli's final shape. This was startling news to me, for throughout my early biology education, I had understood DNA to be something like destiny.*

Has Science Killed God? Four Reasons Why That Idea Does Not Make Sense.

Some atheists say things like "science has fired God" or "science killed God." What about some who say "science is making belief in God obsolete and incoherent"? Or what about this, "we are getting smarter and we can now explain things without invoking God."

Just like a previous post, "Reason vs. Faith", where I argue that reason and faith are compatible, I want to make a similar claim here, science and God are compatible. There is no conundrum.

Most damaging to the "science makes God obsolete" idea, is science is dependent upon Christian ideology, like a child to her mother. Like the rest of life, such as beliefs and cultures, how we interpret the world is based upon the presuppositions that form our worldview. Science is no different. Modern science arose only once in history and in one place, Christian Europe. The culture was saturated with the Christian faith and philosophy.

A Very Obvious Reason Biology Points To God! (Which You May Not Have Thought About)

Once I met a German engineer working to reinvent the vacuum cleaner. When I say reinvent, I mean that! A totally different design. If he and his team were successful, they would do well. If not, he would be knocking on doors for a new job.

Hard, Hard Work!

Engineers, designers and artists understand how hard it is to design. It is time intensive and there is great need for attention for highly specified patterns. Perfection is the goal, mistake free. As an artist draws the human face and or body, with realism, its a hard strenuous process. Those that do it well have spent years practicing. In fact, very few artists can draw a human well. There are patterns to be memorized, specifications to be accounted for and proper proportions are a must. Then there is perspective and foreshortening. This is just the copy of the human design, and it's hard, it's not the original creative design! Humanoid robots have another level of design, the amount of work is immense!

Designing is an emotional process, whether success or failure, praise or criticism. When one criticizes a design or if it fails, it is depressing. When successful, creativity is rewording and exhilarating. Designers and engineers are very sensitive to their creativity and hard work. The process of designing can be enjoyable as well.

When Does Life Begin? The Answer According To A Biologist.

We all know human life is valuable. But when does it begin? "If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate" [1]. What evidence can we find from science?

First we know that the first stage of life is alive. In fact even gametes (reproductive cells from the male and female, sperm and egg respectively) are alive (biologically speaking) even before they unite to form the zygote. In other words, even though gametes carry half the genetic code, they are still biologically alive.

After the union of the two gametes, they morph into the zygote, caring a full set of genes, the start of a new person. One at day one of conception, one year old, ten years old, or a hundred years old will have the same DNA code as those first cells in the zygote stage of human life (besides accumulated mutations). In other words, your DNA as a zygote has the same sequence now, only now you have many cells containing that same DNA code. The DNA and cell type is not any animal, plant, bug or bacteria, it is human.

This demonstrates a number of items, first life is continuous, a human zygote is alive, made from the union of two living cells. Second, the zygote has a specific DNA finger print, meaning that it is a distinct entity from its mom and dad. Third, the type of DNA and cell type is human.

We know human life is intrinsically valuable. This leads us to the conclusion that taking an innocent human life, including a zygote or fetus, is terribly wrong. It is human, so it is wrong kill the baby at any stage of development.


[1] Greg Koukl

Captain Nemo And His Sub Expose This One Silly Belief.

Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea

Verne's fictitious whaler characters chased Captain Nemo's stupendous submarine all over the ocean. Wild imaginations of a gigantic whale haunted them. You see, captain Nemo's design for his vessel, Nautilus, was somewhat based upon marine creature's hydrodynamic shapes.

Ideological Framework

The single most pervading intellectual ideology of our time (and maybe ever) is the materialistic, neo-Darwinian framework. Many feel that "nature designs" new biological structures. Functional? Complex? Specific? Meaningful?

What? a mindless process designing?

Minds vs. Material

Interestingly, from our experience, we never see natural process pregnant with engineering abilities. We never have. If this concept weren't couched in such technological language, plus holding such high esteem within academia, it would sound foolish.

In fact, the only design originator from our experience is a mind. Why would we ascribe the mindful enterprise to inanimate objects? Do non-animate objects have the capabilities of designing, imagining or communicating?

The same definition of nothing is the same as what rocks think about. Other inanimate objects think about the same thing.

Fall On Your Face And Worship That Stone!

When we look back at ancient cultures and the "uncivilized," we are humored by idol worship, how silly of those people to think wood and stove carvings are life's creators. Modernity strangely struggles with a similar scenario, with the more technical phrase “nature designs.”

This strikes me as facetious. 

It takes multitudes of highly trained, intelligent minds to design a machine functioning like the fictional Nautilus. Hours of mindful fabrication and manufacturing are poured into the creation of submarines. Some are breath-taken, thinking that they're learning from nature's exquisite self-design, when in reality they're looking at seemly endless designs created by the Ultimate Mind.

If you enjoyed this topic and others like it, you can get the latest posts sent straight to your in-box! Please click here to be one of the first to receive the latest articles. You don't want to miss out! (Click here.) 

What biological designs interest you? Bioinspiration is a term to describe when we use these biological designs for new technology. How could you put them to work for yourself? Do you think that natural process have the ability to create complex, meaningful design? Why and how?

Image source: Wikipedia

Neil deGrasse Tyson and Before the Universe

Near the end of his article (here), Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist who stared in the series "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey", talks about what was prior to the universe's existences.

After making some slightly disparaging remarks toward the theists view, he postulates a couple other "where the universe came from" ideas. The multiverse and it "just popped into existences from nothing". It seems that for himself, he holds to the safe and seemly intellectually superior skeptics view of "I don't know". Then he rises the good o'l question of if God did it, who made God?

The Two Main Competitors Problems

However, I'm blown away with the lack of cogency of the only two real competitors to an intelligent being: the infamous multiverse and the "popped into existences from nothing" views. I'm not trying to sound saucy here, but really, are those the best hypothesis out there?

The multiverse hypothesis has big problems, namely its conjecture in some minds and it's not really possible to demonstrate even if true. It seems to me that if multiverse true, you would still need something to bring them all into existence, who is that prime mover? Plus the complexity of making all those universes rises to infinity.

POOF, Like Magic!

So the naturalists view is still left with the universe(s) going "POOF"... into existence, for no reason? Nothing makes everything? Magic without a magician? I'm scratching my head.

Tyson concedes these views usually don't satisfy people, as you can see why. However, it seems to me he takes them more serious than the possibility of a "prime-mover."

So, Who Made God?

Seemingly, in an attempt to discredit a deity, one of his last questions (more or less rhetorical), asks the infamous question of "what was around before God?" or otherwise cashed out as "who made God?" This question has been answered by the fields of theology, history and philosophy.

The "who made God" question has this problem, who would have made the creator who made the creator? You see, it becomes an infinite regress of creator creating creators - forever. Silly, I know.

A preacher once preached that the Earth sits upon nothing (without getting technical about gravity). An old lady came up afterwords and said "I don't agree with you, the Earth rests on turtles." So the preacher asked "What's under those turtles?" She responded "more turtles." To which he replied, and under those?" Out of finality, she said, "turtles all the way down!"

So What About That God Question?

However, there is an answer to this question. A good one, quite simple and elementary. With just a little knowledge of theology, history and philosophy, Tyson should have known better (except for the fact that he seems to degrade the field of philosophy, while philosophizing). In philosophy this "prime-mover" is also called the "uncaused-first-cause". In other words, this "prime mover" has always been in existence, thus uncaused. He is not dependent upon the space time continuum. In fact, we read in history and theology (ie. the Bible), this exact thing - one who isn't dependent on time and who is eternal.

Even as a scientists he should have known better. We know from experience things that began to exist must have a cause. We know the universe had a beginning, came into existence. We also know that the causes must be outside of the thing that comes into existence. Outside the Universe there's no space, time or matter. To cause a universe and life, this cause must must be super powerful, smart and be able to make choices as well! Plus only minds cause the creation of large amounts of meaningful information, DNA anyone? This uncaused-first-cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, eternal, smart, powerful, has a mind and personal. Ah, that sounds familiar....

What If We Did Not Know Who Made It All?

Even if there was no answer to this question, a being who created everything still seems to be a perfectly good argument. Just because we would not know who the "prime-mover" was, does not seem to effect the idea that there was an original "prime-mover." Does one have to know who painted a picture, carved a horse or even committed an homicide to recognize agent of causation?

Great Rhetorical Value?

But the question, "who created God", seems to be misleading. This rhetorical questions seems to be meant to raise questions in the uninformed mind. Seemly it is an attempt to discredit those who hold to this view. Even though he may view his ignorance as more intellectual, it seems that he created a straw-man for the theists, rhetorically dismissing it while trying to make it look unreasonable.

However, in reality, the most logically satisfying view is the one he seems to dismiss. It is the most logical and coherent. We have a robust worldview with amazing explanatory power. The naturalistic worldview is broken, having very limited explanatory power, a degraded view that has lame and tenuous answers - a view that does not match reality.

You will not want to miss the next posts. If you found this one helpful, you will want to keep an eye open for others. The best way is to click here, because you can get them straight to your inbox so you don’t miss out! (Click here.)

So, what's your view? Do you agree with Tyson? Or does a Creator seem to be the best explanation? Why?


Image source: "Tyson - Apollo 40th anniversary 2009" by NASA/Bill Ingalls. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

New Research Says Life Started Hot, But Here's What They Won't Tell You.

Up From a Hot Micropore We Arose – Did Life Start Hot?

In a recent Nature Chemistry article, we are informed that some scientists feel they may have found a mechanism for the formation of life’s precursors, DNA replication in hot rock micropores [1]. An experiment was set up to mimic hot rock’s micropores in the supposed early earth environment. However, this experiment unintentionally demonstrated that naturalistic process could not have started first life, rather a mind is needed.

On Discrimination and Noah's Ark

During the last few years, Ken Ham’s organization, AIG, has been spearing heading a project to build a full size replica of “Noah’s Ark.” One may not be interested in this project, agree with it, or even go to see it, but, it would seem to me, most would be like “great, if it brings money into the state, more power to them.” Interestingly it is not this way. They have been denied tax incentives because of two reasons:

1. The park owners want to have the right to hire per religious preference.

2. Have the ability to tell others of their religious views.

Practice What You Preach

However, it seems to me, the state is doing exactly what they are accusing this organization of doing: discriminating against those of a different view. Some parks are just for fun, others have more educational aspects such as history, religious education or science. Shouldn't they all have equal access to tax rebates? In fact, this park tries to combine all of these types of parks (even if one disagrees with their conclusions). Is “discriminating” now correct when another “discriminates?” This seems to be a self-defeating position.

Is It That Bad?

In addition, "discrimination" is made out to be a “bad” thing in this case – but why this type of situation? Governments and business do it all the time. In fact you do it too! Why else do businesses drug test people? Why don’t they hire engineers who have not gone to school? Why don’t hospitals hire a welder for a physician position? Why don’t you let anyone move into your house? Why don’t you allow robbers to enter – why do you lock your doors? Why did you marry the one who showers once a day instead of one who showers once a year? These practices are all discriminatory – but is this case different? I think they have the right to decide who they want to hire. If the state wants to discriminate, then they need to call it for it really is – they are “discriminating against non-materialistic worldviews". They don't discriminate against those who hold to a materialistic worldview.

Discrimination At Institutions and Governments

Look at government run institutions that only hire those of the same view point. Think about the educational system, I have personally meet and talked to teachers and scientists who have been demoted, denied a job, fired or had there articles denied in magazines and journals - because of their worldview. Why? Simply because they held to the view that the universe, to some level, had been designed by an intelligent agent. Talk about tolerance, diversity and being non-discriminatory!

Worldview Issue

You see, the foundational issue here is not Ham's boat or even one's science job, but rather worldviews. Nor is the pivot of this issue over religious views. It's the question of whether or not the universe was designed! That is foundational! The line of demarcation is design or no design. The fulcrum is materialism or theism. Both are worldviews, both try to explain our human experience.

However, it seems that preferential treatment goes to one worldview in our cultural – the one that feels that nature is all that exists. Even though this view is weaker in its explanatory power, it is more attractive because of its false sense of immunity to ultimate authority.

This skewed sense of morality leads to strange positions such as "discrimination is good dished out to those who hold to a view of a designer". It seems like it is a one way street by our culture's standards - it's good and upright one way, but the other....immoral and intolerant!

You will not want to miss the next posts. If you found this one helpful, you will want to keep an eye open for others. The best way is to click here, because you can get them straight to your inbox so you don’t miss out! (Click here.)

What are your thoughts? Do you know of cases or have you ever been "discriminated" against because you have a theistic worldview?

The Amazing Cell!

A couple of years ago, I came across a presentation given at one of the TED conferences by a Drew Berry. If I would have a guess, many non-biologists would be really bored with a talk on cell division, right? But no, not this one, it was most interesting, using computer animation, he exposed the cell division process in great detail - and made it breath taking for everyone!

You see, attached to sister chromosomes is something called the "kinetochore" which contains around 200 types of proteins but thousands in all. This little structure acts as an anchoring site for microtubules, part of the cell scaffolding. Microtubules help pull the two daughter chromosomes apart.

But the interesting part is this, the kenetochores are sending out little chemical and motor signals to indicate when the cell will divide! In fact, Drew called the kenetochore a "signal broadcasting system."

The implications of this structure alone are astounding. Along with many other types of epigenetic information within the cell, these attachment sites hold one of the most illustrious keys to the mysterious dividing cell. One can see a designer's creative abilities at play with structures like this. It's mind boggling that such an elegant structure, such as this, doesn't kindle more awe responses from people towards an amazing creator!

I would encourage you to take a look at it for yourself!

Image credit: Flicker/Mehmet Pinarci

What Is The Difference Between Shannon Information and Specified Complex Information? And why it's important.

Information is interesting, here I want to specifically discuss Shannon Information verses Specified Complex Information. I know, you may be saying "so what, it sounds boring to me." Maybe so, it may even zip over your head, in that case duck so it will hit the person behind you! While being of an esoteric philosophical nature, I think it's significant because of its implications.

The Difference Between Shannon Information and 

Specified Complex Information

There's a view that information in DNA and biological systems contain just Shannon Information - this is not true. Yes, biological systems do contains Shannon Information, but it is more specific than that - it contains Specified Complex Information. Let me first define the two and then tell you why biological systems have Specified Complex Information and why this discussion is so important.

Shannon Information verses Specified Complex Information

Shannon Information is only concerned with the improbability or complexity of character strings. In other words, it's just mere complexity or it has information-carrying capacity. Specified Complex Information on the other hand, is complex, but also has patterning significance. This is functional information that carries meaning. 

Let me put it this way, all Specified Complex Information is Shannon Information, but not all Shannon Information is Specified Complex Information (see bottom half of the meme). For example, Shannon Information just means that a string of characters are complex and improbable in their arrangement, but it does not define if this string carries significant meaning. Again, Specified Complex Information is specified and always carries meaning.

For example, this is Shannon Information:

“dfsad sdaf oije .zvsdlkfjas sdlfj” and also can be “Learning about information is fun!” 

However, Specified Complex Information always carries meaning: 

“Learning about information is fun!”

“dfsad sdaf oije .zvsdlkfjas sdlfj” is not specified functional information - at least as far as I know, it holds no meaning to an English speaker!

In case you did not get that, let me put it this way. Consider a key and lock. You can take a key blank and file down any pattern on the key blade - that is Shannon Information. However, if you want the key to fit the lock, you have to cut the key blade to specified sequences, shapes and depths for proper key-lock fit. Now that is Specified Complex Information.

Biological Systems and Text on the Page

Now both the text you are reading and DNA are improbable and complex. However, both carry meaning. The text you are reading is telling you something in English. DNA contains information that transcribes to RNA that gets translated to protein. In fact those sequences must be in a specific order else the organism will not produce the correct protein, a protein that does not function well or maybe none at all! The organism's enzymes must be able to transcribe it, if there is no correct sequence, there is no transcription.

Why Know the Difference?

Oh, by the way, just so you know why this distinction is so important, Specified Complex Information is only generated from a mind. In fact, that is the only source we know of that produces this type of information! Think of the text you are reading now, it has come from my mind. Thus this leads to the conclusion that life's specified informational core is grounded in intelligence - an intelligent mind!


Have you heard materialists say the "DNA is just Shannon Information" so it can arise by chance? What do you think, have you gained a new level of respect for "Information theory?"

FALSE: Adam Did Not have One Less Rib Than Eve

Introduction to Anatomy & Physiology, professor lecturing - I can still picture it even though it was back in the first year of the new millennium. “Men and women on average have 24 ribs” he said. And then he said: “no, men don’t have one less rib”, he want on “that was only Adam.”

First I was kind of surprised he would even bring up a biblical account, many have gotten in trouble talking about anything biblical in a science class, not counting more or less the part of the creation account. However, something else hit me, raising my hand I said “Maybe Adam did have a complete set of ribs, I understand that the rib is the only human bone that can regenerate sections after removal.” “No” he said, “bones don’t grow back, they can heal, but not grow back.”

As the years slid forward, that interaction never left me. A few years later I set out to track down the truth, was I correct? That’s when I ran across an article by Dr. Carl Wieland who told of a previous accident that caused the loss of some of his bone. To replace the missing bones, his surgeon used sections from his ribs - because they regenerate (1)!

As a born and raised thinker and researcher, I went deeper. After searching online, I came across and contacted a few surgeons around the world who seemed to have some knowledge in this area. Over and over I heard the same, yes they use bone from the rib and it regenerates back (2). Even recently researchers also confirmed this same action with rib cartilage (3).

You see, when a surgeon removes the a section of the rib bone they leave a surrounding tissue, called the periosteum, in place. Stem-cells are abundant in this tissue and they regenerate new rib bone.

So, did Adam have one less bone than Eve? Did God know what he was doing when he picked the bone he did to make Eve? Maybe the same God who made him really did know what he was doing, surprise, surprise!

What are your thoughts? Has an experience like this ever happened to you? Have you been told that men are less a rib compared to women? 



 
Sources:
(1) Wieland, Carl. "ADAM’S RIB: CREATION & THE HUMAN BODY." https://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/radio/adamsrib.pdf

(2) Personal email correspondence with a number of surgeons, one was Dr. David Pennington whose name was mentioned in the article that I came across. Also, see this site: http://www.scoliosis.org/resources/medicalupdates/ribthoracoplasty.php

(3) Healing power of 'rib-tickling' found by researchers. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140913141423.htm?

Srour, M., Fogel, J., Yamaguchi, K., Montgomery, A., Izuhara, A., Misakian, A., Lam, S., Lakeland, D., Urata, M., Lee, J. and Mariani, F. (2014). Natural large-scale regeneration of rib cartilage in a mouse model. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, p.n/a-n/a.

Gears

Covering the design company IDEO's product design process, the host of the documentary called “IDEO Deep Dive” said something to the effect of “everything besides nature was designed.”

The Gear

Consider the lowly gear – classically an iconic element to indicate human technological progress and design. We all have seen them - mundane right? Actually no. Gears aren't interesting because of their boring shape, but rather because of the design criteria needed for proper function. Nor are they arbitrary or haphazardly designed and fabricated. Teeth and gear spacing, proper alignment and material type, and optimal size and shape are all essential.

As ancient as almost any other human technology and as human of a design as they come, I think we would be stunned if nature contained a beautiful geared system. One is technology, the other is biology. Gears are very mechanical and systematic, seemingly very different than the organic nature of life.  I want to changeable this notion.

The Nymph

An unremarkable English insect took the biological world by surprise some time ago, the Issus nymph (1). Interlocking gears studs the trocantera this insects hind-legs (above image hosted by gizmag.com).

Synchronizing the jumping legs, these gears coordinate the action of simultaneous movement in both legs (first image below, hosted by makeagif.com). The design is essential for this little creature so its jump is synchronized. Moving at high rates of speed through the air, the insect would spiral out of control without this arrangement (second image below from makeagif.com).

Best Explanation 

As you study these beautiful images, reconsider what the host of that documentary expressed. Now tell me, what's your gut reaction, do these gears look designed or do the demonstrate mindless origins? I'm not asking what you think, but rather your first reaction? If you are like most, you have to agree, they appear designed.

A method that many use to answer historical science questions is to observe the present to understand the past events. While not every historical event may be deduced this way, many concepts can be elucidated. Every new design from our experience has been agent designed. I can' think of an exception. So why wouldn't we expect agent causation in the design in nature? Isn't the most reasonable explanation for the design in nature a mind?

It seems that biology has an habit of surprising us, why? We are stunned with the design we find in nature. Many times technology and biology overlap in design. We infer design in technology, is it not logical to infer design in biology as well? The design in nature seems to jive well well with our presuppositions of design, not chance and random like process. Intuitively we can detect design.
In addition, designs in nature seem to be optimally designed for the function intended. In fact, the designs are so good that we, in our quest for technology, copy biological designs in a field of study called biomimicry. We look in awe at biological artifacts and let them inspire us for tools we make. Technology, while amazing, is clumsily and klutzy in comparison to biology. Brilliant minds spend hours, days and years on designs that are far inferior to what we find in nature.

Elegance At Its Best

Again, let me ask you, from your intuition and from experience, can't you infer design? Your gut reaction is awe at the beauty of the gear design, you don't automatically infer randomness in mechanical like structures like this, do you? The only source of new design, from our experience, is intelligence. In fact, we can even learn from optimal designs in nature, including this gear. We are able to copy these structures, even though they are more elegant than our own mindful designs. From our intelligently designed technology, we come short. Biology has very advanced designs, while it seems illogical to infer origins from mindless process, it's not only natural but also logical to infer design on biological structures - even this gear.


(1) Burrows and Sutton. "Interacting Gears Synchronize Propulsive Leg Movements in a Jumping Insect" http://www.sciencemag.org

Mr. Kingfisher

Problem: Train needs to travel at 200 mph with very little noise-pollution.

Solution: The Shinkansen Bullet Train and a bird-watching engineer.

Excessive noise is generated when trains zip too fast, exiting tunnels. Thus a sonic boom. As it moves through a tunnel, pressure builds up in waves which causes this boom as it emerges. A bird-watching Japanese engineer, on the train design team, put his bird watching skills to work. Capturing the design from the kingfisher's head and beak, he designed the nose of the train.

Kingfishers dart into the water searching for fish - absent a splash and scarcely a ripple. Propelling through a low drag medium to an high drag medium causes shock. Circumventing this issue is accomplished by the exquisitely design of the beak. Now you see the solution for the train with a similar issue - low drag in the tunnel, high drag as it emerged. The wedge design of the kingfisher's beak was the needed key.

But get this, sound was not the only thing that was reduced, but also a fifteen percent less energy usage and an increase in travel speed by ten percent (1)!

(1) http://www.asknature.org/product/6273d963ef015b98f641fc2b67992a5e

Image source: Flicker Karen Roe

That thing that smells

A humans Nose (2)

OK, you know that thing that at times looks ugly, sticking out from your face? Yes, that thing that is messy when you have a little cold and has those few annoying hairs that stick out? Good, we are talking about the same thing here, just to be sure.

So let's ponder here, how many different smells do you think one's nose can discriminate? What would be your guess? Maybe three hundred, maybe a thousand? 

Try something over one trillion (1)! Yes, that is this number here: 1,000,000,000,000 or 10¹². Again, that is one trillion different smells! Can't comprehend the large number, don't worry, you are not alone, most politicians can't either.

So, here's the moment of truth, the core question...how does this type of technology randomly evolve through natural processes? Design is apparent, it is self evident.

(1) Humans Can Discriminate More than 1 Trillion Olfactory Stimuli. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6177/1370
(2) Image source: Wikipedia

OK, I Admit, I'm Biased

One issue that gets me chuckling is the "bias argument". It goes something like this, some scream "bias" on a source you present, which gives them liberty to ignore what you are saying. Now there may be a case made for questioning bias at times, but refraining from commenting on the argument seems to be the main goal.

However, there's more, it gets interesting here. Within a comment that gives bias as the reason to not assess the argument, that person is themselves being biased. How? Think about it, they are "biased" against people who are "biased." In other words, taking their own standard, how can you take them seriously if they are biased? A self refuting statement is raising its ugly head again (see here and here for more).

Those biased biblical writers

For example, let's take the Bible. Some atheists and others have said that we should not trust the biblical writers since they believed in God, they had a bias toward God. Let me show how foolish this sounds. It's like saying that we should not trust a scientists because she has studied science and is a scientist. In other words, she is biased towards science. Sounds silly doesn't?

In addition, this is called a genetic fallacy - an iconic logical fallacy. We ought not judge an idea from its source, rather judge it by its merits. Going back to our negative biblical critic, he falls into the same fallacious argument trap, using his logic, we should not address his views because he comes from a biased atheistic perspective. This argument again sounds silly.

Creator 

Here is another perfect example of one using this fallacy. When talking science, some who hold that life on earth arose only through random process will not address or discuss arguments that come from creationist sources. Why? Because these sources are biased, with a attitude of "case closed, you are stupid for even bringing it up."

Apply the claim to itself

Again, we need to apply the claim to itself. OK...someone, let's call him Joe, is biased against the intelligent design perspective...since he is biased, shouldn't I totally disregard his thoughts whenever he speaks against intelligent design?

I think you see my point, first overtly I have made the argument that not hearing another because they are biased is many times self refuting. Second, more subversively, we all have biases and just because someone has a biases does not necessarily mean they are correct or not - we ought judge ideas by their merits, not source.

I have a biased against ingesting poison...OK...stop listening to me...I'm being biased.

You will not want to miss the next posts. If you found this one helpful, you will want to keep an eye open for others. The best way is to click here, because you can get them straight to your inbox so you don’t miss out! (Click here.)

Biblical Riddle

The Riddle

In front of me now lies an old piece of paper with a biblical riddle. It was copied from some unknown source. Think about it before you google the answer!

But before the riddle, please remember to sign up for the RSS feed or enter your email (on the right side of this page) for updates and posts!

Enjoy!

Adam, God made out of dust,
But thought it best to make me first.
So I was made sometime before man,
To answer God’s most holy plan.

A living being I became,
And Adam gave to me my name.
I, from his presence, then withdrew,
And more of Adam I never knew.

I did my Maker’s Law obey,
Nor never went from it astray.
Thousands of miles I go in fear,
But seldom on earth do I appear.

For purpose wise which God did see,
He put a living soul in me.
The soul in me, God had fed,
Until, finally, the soul had fled.

I am the same
As when first made.
Without hands, feet, or face,
I travel on from place to place.

I labor hard by day and night,
To fallen man I give great light.
Thousands of people, young and old,
Will, by my death, great light behold.

No right or wrong can I conceive,
The Scriptures I cannot believe.
Although my name therein is found,
They are, to me, an empty sound.

No fear of death doth trouble me,
Real happiness I’ll never see.
To heaven I shall never go,
Nor to hell far below.

Now when, these lines, you slowly read,
Go search your Bible with all speed.
For that my name is written there,
I do, honestly, to you, declare…

Throw Your Genome Away!

In a recent article by Dr. Tomkins, he writes the following:

It was once believed that the regions in between the protein-coding genes of the genome were wastelands of alleged nonfunctional “junk DNA.” However, we now know that these previously misunderstood regions are teeming with functional activity—and a new study shows they are actually required for life (1).

The idea of junk DNA is another area where the evolutionary ideology has failed us. Only about 1-5% of the DNA codes for protein. The rest of the DNA was assumed by many to be leftovers from evolutionary ancestors.  Most who held to this view were biologists with evolutionary presuppositions. Directly steming from this assumption, much of the genome regions went unexplored for years.

Now we know different. In fact most of the DNA has been assigned roles, very important roles within the cell. Interestingly, many of those who held to the view of life originating from a deity, have for years theorized function to most of the "junk DNA". Truly, as the old saying states "ideas have consequences."

(1) Quoted text and image are from the following source: Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., . N.p.. Web. 3 Mar 2014. <http://www.icr.org/article/7875/>.

Geckos and Robots

Gecko; Source (1)

Geckos are truly awesome creatures. One intriguing attribute is that they can walk on walls and ceilings. There is a secret however to this ability. Researchers have been trying to elucidate this secret for some time, and have come up with technology to mimic geckos toes. This includes glue, tape and a rubberized material used to make a gecko robot.

The secret of this mind boggling ability is biologically multilevel. Geckos feet and legs are lined with lamellae (image B), these are small ridges that form flaps. On each of these there are hairs called setae (image C & D). These little hairs divide into microscopic hairs called spatula (image E). These spatula attach to its climbing surfaces by weak chemical bond called Van der Waals forces. However, the spatula only stick in one direction. Detachment is easy, but the design is complex, they have rotational ankles so they can "stick" and then rotate to "un-stick".

Gecko's feet; source (3)

Researchers visioned a robot with the same wall climbing abilities. To mimic this sticking action, they designed a rubber-like material that has micro hairs on the surface. This adhesive does not just have hairs, but also the same lamellae design mimicked from the gecko. Lastly they attached this material to their robot called "Stickybot" (2)

What I find just a little curious is the quantity of research time (probably years), the amount of money needed, the vast knowledge base and many minds to make this thing work. The technology, chemical design and engineering also should not be forgotten. However, this Stickybot is still not as finely designed as our little lizard friend. Silly how a mindless process can do more amazing things they our brightest minds. Don't forget we copied this "mindless" design. I wonder....




(1)Gecko image 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gold_Dust_Day_Gecko.jpg
(2) More about the Stickybot: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/gecko-082410.html
(3) Gecko image 2: http://www.pnas.org/content/102/2/385/F1.large.jpg

Things I Have Learned From Dr. Steven Meyer

Throughout the years I have listened and have learned from Dr. Steven Meyer. I agree with most concepts he presents, but do take exception to others. However, this post is not about this arguments, rather his methods and tactics in presenting and talking to those who oppose his views. I am impressed by how he handles himself in conflicting situations. Because of this, I have tired to isolate attributes that I can learn from.

There are three main categories: his personal attributes, his conflict handling persona, and how he argues his case.

Personal Character

He comes across as intellectual but illustrative, making the complex simple. His dress and demeanor does not draw attention away from his arguments. I remember him and his arguments, not some sort of jazz, fancy or sloppy clothing. While intellectual, he is still modest and minimizes himself in debate. He ignores it when people don't call him "Doctor" or when others minimize his credentials.

Handling Conflict

When I see him in conflict, he handles himself well. I think part of this comes for confidence and knowledge of the subject material. However, he is open to critique and is fair minded. He admits mistakes and he is willing to learn from his antagonist. He critiques the arguments rather than his antagonist. Lastly, he is quick witted and he is open to dialog with anyone.

Arguing His Case

I like how he argues his case. He makes modest claims which have much evidence. He uses what I would call "minimalist argumentation method," he focuses on things that provide the best arguments and gives the greatest evidence supporting those arguments. In other words, he uses only few topics but gives powerful arguments for them. This gives him less "turf" to defend. This allows him to stay focused and reduce sidetracking. Other issues are often baited in front of him, he does not budge, he stays focused and argues for his modest claims.