Tag Archives: science

America’s Streets Are Filled With Poop, And Billions Of Gallons Of Untreated Wastewater Are Being Poured Into Our Lakes And Rivers | The Economic Collapse

All over the United States, the streets of our major cities are covered in poop. So exactly what does that say about us? It isn’t as if this is a new problem. As long as human societies have existed, human and animal waste has been a problem. Civilized societies have always found ways to deal with it, while uncivilized societies have always struggled to keep things clean. Unfortunately, despite all of our advanced technology, we seem to be fighting a losing battle. In fact, one New York City resident recently complained that there is “poop everywhere” this winter…

“It’s horrible: It’s, like, garbage and poop everywhere,” Mott Haven resident Lulu Gerena, 28, fumed to The Post while walking her Beagle-mix Pinkie near the stench-filled stretch.

“It’s not fair, because everybody has to step in the poop, because nobody is picking it up.”

Residents are steaming over the slobs who are turning city sidewalks into a sewer trail.

For months, snow has been mixing with poop to create gigantic mountains of “snow poop”.

Now that those mountains have been melting, people are posting videos of what is being left behind…

Of course conditions on the west coast are even worse.

At one elementary school in San Francisco, students have turned jumping over piles of human excrement into a game…

But the school, located a block from the 16th Street BART Plaza, has been dealt a tough hand, geographically. Six school staffers and six parents told Mission Local about their routine sights: Drug use, drug dealing, public intoxication, public urination, public defecation, littering, sex and nudity. All are in the school’s immediate environs.

“My daughter covers her mouth and nose,” said Karen Puc, the mother of a seven-year-old student, in Spanish. “Sometimes we play that we jump poop on the street,” she said. They make it a game, like hopscotch.

Isn’t that horrible?

No student should have to grow up in such conditions.

Further north in the once beautiful city of Vancouver, the human waste problem has become so severe that local businesses are actually hiring “poop fairies” to help clean up the mess…

Vancouver, renowned for its natural beauty and laid back lifestyle, has a human waste problem so bad that businesses have hired “poop fairies” to speed the cleanup on city sidewalks.

Dodging human and dog waste has become a real problem for pedestrians navigating the city’s sidewalks, and it’s not just a problem plaguing the Downtown Eastside. The city’s own feces removal response program can’t seem to keep up so business improvement districts have hired the “poop fairies.”

“Everybody down here feels that you end up walking in stuff no matter where you go. So, basically, it’s getting tracked around,” said Dave Hamm, vice president of the Vancouver Network of Drug Users, which counts about 3,000 people in its membership.

Sadly, this is a crisis that isn’t going away any time soon.

As the ranks of the homeless and the ranks of the drug addicts continue to expand, the number of people pooping in the streets will only continue to grow.

Meanwhile, America’s crumbling pipes are pouring billions of gallons of untreated wastewater into our lakes and rivers.

I know that sounds crazy, and so let me give you some examples.

When a section of the Potomac Interceptor recently failed, 243 million gallons of untreated wastewater went directly into the Potomac River…

In Montgomery County, Maryland on Jan. 19, a 72″ diameter section of a sewage pipe known as the Potomac Interceptor collapsed. The pipe carries about 60 million gallons of wastewater daily from near Washington Dulles Airport in Virginia to a station that pumps it to an advanced wastewater treatment plant.

As a result of the collapse, more than 243 million gallons of untreated wastewater have flowed into the Potomac River, DC Water, the utility responsible for the system, reported on Feb. 6.

That was a major disaster, but an incident that occurred in Wisconsin last August was far worse.

When the city of Milwaukee was overwhelmed by a giant rainstorm, 5.14 billion gallons of untreated wastewater were “discharged into nearby waterways and Lake Michigan”…

For example, intense rain in Milwaukee in August 2025 led to 5.14 billion gallons of untreated wastewater from the city’s combined sewer being discharged into nearby waterways and Lake Michigan, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported.

Needless to say, incidents like this are just the tip of the iceberg.

There are more failures of our rapidly aging wastewater systems literally every single day.

Some of the pipes that are in the ground are more than 100 years old, and that is a major problem…

While the average lifespan of a wastewater system is 40 to 50 years, many of the plants and pipes installed across the nation could be twice that old or more. In cities like Washington, D.C., for example, Olson said, wastewater systems were put in well over a century ago.

In some cases, those pipes may have been replaced, but in many cases, including Chicago, the pipes have not been replaced, he said. “They may have been repaired or maintained at times, but there are still pipes (sewers) in the ground throughout the United States that are well over a century old.”

According to the EPA, it would take more than 300 billion dollars over the next two decades to properly upgrade our wastewater systems.

And of course this is just one element of the unprecedented national infrastructure crisis that we are now facing.

Overall, we literally need trillions of dollars that we do not have to deal with America’s crumbling infrastructure.

Since we are absolutely drowning in debt, it is highly likely that our rapidly aging infrastructure will continue to be neglected.

So more pipes will break, more bridges and tunnels will collapse, more roads will crumble, more accidents will happen, and power grid failures will become more frequent.

We have a giant mess on our hands, and it is really starting to stink.

Michael’s new book entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

About the Author: Michael Snyder’s new book entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com. He has also written nine other books that are available on Amazon.com including “Chaos”, “End Times”, “7 Year Apocalypse”, “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America”, “The Beginning Of The End”, and “Living A Life That Really Matters”. When you purchase any of Michael’s books you help to support the work that he is doing. You can also get his articles by email as soon as he publishes them by subscribing to his Substack newsletter. Michael has published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News, and he always freely and happily allows others to republish those articles on their own websites. These are such troubled times, and people need hope. John 3:16 tells us about the hope that God has given us through Jesus Christ: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” If you have not already done so, we strongly urge you to invite Jesus Christ to be your Lord and Savior today.

The post America’s Streets Are Filled With Poop, And Billions Of Gallons Of Untreated Wastewater Are Being Poured Into Our Lakes And Rivers appeared first on The Economic Collapse.

321 Earthquakes Hit The San Francisco Area In 1 Week – Is The San Andreas Fault Entering A Very Dangerous New Phase? | The Economic Collapse

Leave a reply

The west coast is shaking again. In recent weeks we have witnessed so much seismic activity along the portion of the Pacific Ring of Fire that sits directly along the California coastline. There had been hope that the shaking would settle down, but instead it appears to be accelerating. As you will see below, there have been 321 earthquakes in the San Francisco area within the past 7 days. If I was living in northern California, that would definitely get my attention. Scientists have warned us over and over again that “the Big One” is inevitably coming, and almost every day there are more reminders of this. In fact, San Ramon was just hit by a swarm of more than 30 earthquakes on Monday morning…

A 4.2 earthquake struck near San Ramon Monday morning, following a 3.8 quake amid a string of over 30 temblors in the area, U.S. Geological Survey said.

The 4.2 quake struck at 7:01 a.m. and followed a string of quakes that began with a 3.8 at 6:27 a.m. Dozens of earthquakes have followed.

USGS said the 4.2 quake was about 9.4 km in depth.

A magnitude 4.2 quake is quite significant.

The shaking that it caused was so extensive that people living in the heart of San Francisco actually felt “windows rattling”…

Residents in San Francisco’s Glen Park and Nopa neighborhoods reported rumbling and ‘windows rattling’ during the quake, and public transportation throughout the area was also affected by the swarm, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

The moderate quake even activated the National Tsunami Warning Center, however, officials said there was no danger of a major wave hitting the Bay Area.

Of course this was not an isolated incident.

According to the USGS, this latest earthquake swarm was “a continuation” of a pattern of heightened activity that the region has been experiencing since last November…

ABC7 Eyewitness News spoke with the USGS Monday morning, and they say this is a continuation of the swarm of quakes the area has been experiencing.

On Friday, the area saw its first earthquake in several weeks, but there have been dozens of quakes since November.

Could it be possible that all of this activity is building up to some sort of a really big event?

According to the Southern California Earthquake Data Center, there have been 321 earthquakes in the San Francisco area in the last 7 days. The following is a screenshot…

Needless to say, this isn’t normal.

The swarm of earthquakes that hit San Ramon on Monday was centered on one of the main branches of the San Andreas Fault System…

Still, Monday’s noticeable swarm broke out right on the Calaveras Fault, a main branch of the San Andreas – the monstrous 800-mile-long fault spanning from Southern California through the Bay Area and into the Pacific.

The Calaveras splits off from the main fault line near Hollister in central California and runs parallel to it through the East Bay region.

Scientists with USGS have warned that one of these faults or other major branches nearby could soon reach their anticipated breaking point and rupture right in the heart of California.

And it isn’t just northern California that has been shaking lately.

A couple of weeks ago, a magnitude 4.9 earthquake rocked Southern California…

A 4.9-magnitude earthquake and several aftershocks rattled Southern California on Monday night, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The first and largest quake happened approximately five miles northeast of Indio Hills, which is in the Palm Desert region of Riverside County, at around 5:57 p.m., the USGS reported. It occurred at a geological depth of nearly two miles. The preliminary magnitude of the earthquake was first reported as 5.1 before it was downgraded to 4.6 and then adjusted to 4.9 by USGS officials.

Scientists keep telling us that it is just a matter of time before the San Andreas Fault System “rips wide open”.

This is something that I have written about extensively over the years.

These latest quakes are a major league wake up call.

Unfortunately, most people living in California have learned to tune out such warnings.

Interestingly, the earthquake swarm that shook San Ramon on Monday morning occurred just after the Sun released “a relentless barrage of powerful solar flares”…

The sun has erupted in a relentless barrage of powerful solar flares over the past 24 hours, firing off at least 18 M-class flares and three X-class flares, including an X8.3 eruption — the strongest solar flare of 2026 so far. Solar flares are ranked by strength from A, B and C up to M and X, with each letter representing a tenfold increase in energy — meaning X-class flares are the most powerful explosions the sun can produce

The culprit is sunspot region 4366, a volatile active region that has grown rapidly in just a few days. The flurry of activity began late Feb. 1 and has continued into Feb. 2, with multiple M-class and X-class flares erupting in quick succession. The prolific region appears to be far from finished. Spaceweather.com described the region as a “solar flare factory”, warning that its rapid growth and magnetic complexity make further eruptions highly likely.

Many scientists believe that we tend to see more seismic activity when the Sun is highly active.

Needless to say, the Sun has been extremely active lately.

And we are being warned that Sunspot AR4366 will soon be directly facing our planet…

It’s also possible that more eruptions are still to come. Sunspot AR4366 remains highly active and continues to rotate into an Earth-facing position, raising the chance that future eruptions could launch CMEs more directly toward our planet. NOAA forecasters say they expect more exciting space weather activity from this region in the coming days.

Sunspot AR4366 is absolutely massive, and I think that we should all be watching it very closely.

We live at a time when the giant ball of fire that we revolve around is becoming increasingly unstable.

We also live at a time when the ground under our feet is becoming increasingly unstable.

Unfortunately, I am entirely convinced that what we have experienced so far is just the tip of the iceberg.

The post 321 Earthquakes Hit The San Francisco Area In 1 Week – Is The San Andreas Fault Entering A Very Dangerous New Phase? appeared first on The Economic Collapse.

Latest in DNA Research Destroys Evolutionary “Proof” | Around the World with Ken Ham

Leave a reply

For decades, we’ve heard that so-called “junk DNA” is proof of evolution. After all, what kind of Creator would fill our genome with large areas of DNA that don’t do anything? Clearly, those regions are just leftovers from millions of years of evolutionary processes . . . except the latest in DNA research doesn’t confirm this decades-old “proof” of evolution!

For a long time, scientists virtually ignored the “junk” portions of our DNA—after all, if they’re just evolutionary leftovers, there isn’t much point in studying them. But once they began to look into these regions, researchers realized the “junk” is anything but junk! These regions of our DNA don’t code for proteins, but they are regulatory switches that are extremely important to organisms. And that’s what we would expect from a biblical worldview.

These regions of our DNA don’t code for proteins, but they are regulatory switches that are extremely important to organisms.

This new DNA research is fascinating, and it destroys this long-cherished “proof” of evolutionary ideas. On a recent episode of Answers News, geneticist Dr. Georgia Purdom shared about the latest in DNA research and how its incredible complexity confirms it was designed by the all-knowing Creator. I encourage you to watch and share this with others:

Watch the video on YouTube.

Be sure to subscribe to our Answers in Genesis YouTube channel so you don’t miss another episode of Answers News or any of the other video content our social media team produces.

When we launched this ministry in 1993, I could never have imagined YouTube and other social media platforms giving us the opportunity to reach millions of people. But praise the Lord, God has allowed us to use social media to promote the message of biblical authority and the gospel to people across the nation and in many different countries. What an incredible opportunity!

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/junk-dna/latest-dna-research-destroys-evolutionary-proof/

3 Ominous Harbingers Appear As We Draw Near To The End Of 2025 | End Of The American Dream

Leave a reply

It is hard to believe that 2025 is almost done. This year has flown by, and it has been absolutely packed with historic events. Unfortunately, I fully expect 2026 to be even more chaotic. We are facing all sorts of economic challenges, terror attacks are becoming more frequent, and nations all over the globe are preparing for war. Meanwhile, the ground underneath our feet continues to shake with alarming regularity. In fact, the state of California was just hit by a significant earthquake swarm for the fourth day in a row…

California has been rattled by multiple earthquake swarms over the past four days, with the latest hitting on Tuesday.

The US Geological Survey (USGS) reported a 3.1-magnitude quake at 5.53am PT (8.53am ET) near San Ramon, the epicenter of the recent seismic activity.

This tremor followed a dozen smaller quakes ranging from 1.1 to 1.6 magnitude.

Just yesterday I was telling Sam Rohrer about the earthquake swarms that have been hammering California day after day, and now another one has struck today.

Interestingly, this latest series of earthquake swarms began just three days after California Governor Gavin Newsom made a very controversial statement about “trans kids”…

Newsom, 58, made his comments on “The Ezra Klein Show” in the Dec. 10 episode. The California governor told the host that, although he has suggested it’s unfair for transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports, he is still a supporter of the trans community.

“I want to see trans kids,” he said. “I have a trans godson. There’s no governor that signed more pro-trans legislation than I have, and no one’s been a stronger advocate for the LGBTQ [community].”

Newsom is currently considered to be the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination in 2028.

So it was a really big deal for him to say something like this.

The entire California coastline sits directly along the Pacific Ring of Fire, and we have seen so much seismic activity along the Pacific Ring of Fire in recent months.

Is all of this activity leading up to something really big?

A USGS research geophysicist named Annemarie Baltay is warning that there is “a 72 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake occurring anywhere in the Bay Area between now and 2043″…

USGS research geophysicist Annemarie Baltay said she is not unusually concerned that the recent earthquakes signal anything larger on the horizon for San Ramon.

‘These small events, as all small events are, are not indicative of an impending large earthquake,’ Baltay told Patch.

‘However, we live in earthquake country, so we should always be prepared for a large event,’ she said. ‘There is a 72 percent chance of a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake occurring anywhere in the Bay Area between now and 2043. So we should all be aware and be prepared.’

It was certainly newsworthy for such a prominent geophysicist to make a statement like that.

Needless to say, I am far less optimistic than she is.

As our world continues to be shaken by an unusual level of seismic activity, comet 3I/Atlas is preparing to make its closest approach to our planet on Friday…

A stray comet from another star swings past Earth this week in one last hurrah before racing back toward interstellar space.

Discovered over the summer, the comet known as 3I/Atlas will pass within 167 million miles (269 million kilometers) of our planet on Friday, the closest it gets on its grand tour of the solar system.

NASA continues to aim its space telescopes at the visiting ice ball, estimated to be between 1,444 feet (440 meters) and 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers) in size. But it’s fading as it exits, so now’s the time for backyard astronomers to catch it in the night sky with their telescopes.

If you can believe it, the deadline for the government to release the Epstein files is also on Friday…

The deadline for the Justice Department to release records in its investigation into notorious convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is just days away.

By Friday, Attorney General Pam Bondi must make the files publicly available “in a searchable and downloadable format,” per the Epstein Transparency Act signed into law by President Donald Trump last month.

Is the fact that these two things are occurring on the exact same day just some sort of really bizarre coincidence?

Hopefully all of the Epstein files really will be released in a “searchable and downloadable format” by the end of this week, because the American people deserve the truth.

There is one other thing about comet 3I/Atlas that is getting a lot of attention.

A comet typically has a “tail”, but comet 3I/Atlas also has an “anti-tail”…

Ever since NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope first gazed upon the object on July 21, scientists noticed a strange protrusion jutting out of the object, a second tail that counterintuitively points directly at the Sun, not away from it like the characteristic tails of familiar solar system comets.

This “anti-tail” could be the result of “enhanced mass loss in the Sun-facing side,” as Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb told Futurism earlier this year, which causes larger fragments to be broken off. These larger fragments are less susceptible to being affected by the Sun’s radiation pressure, causing them to move more slowly and accumulate on the Sun-facing side.

Over a month after its perihelion, or closest pass of the Sun, observations still clearly show 3I/ATLAS’ anti-tail, as Loeb noted in a new update on his blog. A December 13 image taken by the Teerasak Thaluang telescope in Rayong, Thailand “shows a prominent anti-tail, uncommon for comets, pointing in the direction of the Sun,” he wrote.

I have never heard of a comet having an “anti-tail” before.

And I think that it is kind of weird that this comet with an “anti-tail” will be closest to Earth just 6 days before Christmas.

On another note, on Monday a replica of the Statue of Liberty that was a total of 115 feet tall toppled over in front of a large retail store in Brazil…

A powerful storm toppled a 115-foot replica of the Statue of Liberty outside a Havan megastore in southern Brazil on Monday, December 15.

As the storm raged through the area, wind gusts reached 50 to 56 miles per hour, according to local authorities.

A lot of people are really freaking out about this.

And this happened just two days before President Trump is scheduled to deliver a major address to the nation from the White House…

President Donald Trump will give an address to the nation live from the White House on Wednesday night, he announced on Tuesday.

Trump teased the address in a statement on social media, saying the speech will take place at 9 p.m. ET on Wednesday. He has not clarified a topic for the address.

“My Fellow Americans: I will be giving an ADDRESS TO THE NATION tomorrow night, LIVE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, at 9 P.M. EST. I look forward to ‘seeing’ you then. It has been a great year for our Country, and THE BEST IS YET TO COME!” Trump wrote.

If the president is going to interrupt prime time television, that usually means that something really big is going to be announced.

Is President Trump going to tell us that we are going to war with Venezuela?

If so, that will certainly be a very ominous sign.

Of course it is entirely possible that President Trump wants to talk to us about something else.

Wednesday night will be here before we know it, and then we will find out what is on his mind.

Global events are moving at a breathtaking pace, and I have a feeling that the weeks ahead are going to be quite momentous.

The post 3 Ominous Harbingers Appear As We Draw Near To The End Of 2025 appeared first on End Of The American Dream.

Is Christianity “Anti-Science”? | Cold Case Christianity

Leave a reply

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-christianity-anti-science/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=is-christianity-anti-science

The idea that Christians are inherently anti-science is not only common but persistent, echoed in conversations and cultural commentary for as long as I can remember. I often hear claims that Christianity has historically repressed scientific progress, sometimes citing stories of Christians burning scientists at the stake or actively inhibiting scientific advancement out of dogmatic stubbornness. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the very opposite is supported by history if we care to examine it closely, step by step.

When you chart the history of scientific progress on a timeline, it moves along steadily, with incremental developments across the centuries. But suddenly, things start ramping up—with a surge that becomes unmistakable during the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries, a period we now call the Scientific Revolution. If you plot the life of Jesus on that same timeline, something fascinating emerges: Jesus stands right before this explosion of scientific discovery. Is that a coincidence? I don’t think so. The worldview that Jesus initiated served as a powerful catalyst for what became an unprecedented age of scientific achievement.

Why? First, Christianity introduced a way of seeing the universe that was absolutely critical for science to flourish. Instead of a world ruled by a disordered, chaotic pantheon of gods (as was common in the ancient Near East, Greece, and Rome), Christianity described the universe as the creation of one singular, orderly God. This God was not part of the creation, but separate from it—rational, consistent, reliable. Under the older pantheons, why would anyone investigate “why lightning strikes” when it could simply be attributed to Zeus’s anger? But in a Christian worldview, lightning, like everything else, was understood as part of a creation governed by consistent natural laws—discernible, rational, and worthy of investigation. That belief alone changed everything about how we approached the natural world.

This worldview didn’t just stay in theory; it quickly found institutional expression. The first modern universities—Bologna, Paris, and Oxford—were Christian institutions, conceived and sustained by a distinctly Christian commitment to intellectual formation. From these three sprang dozens of “daughter” universities, and from these seats of learning emerged most of the pioneering minds who drove the Scientific Revolution. These were individuals shaped by a deeply Christian educational tradition, whose curiosity and inquiry were supported, not stifled, by their faith.

If you make a list of the figures who founded the great scientific disciplines—whether biology, astronomy, or quantum mechanics—you’ll find, again and again, that they were Christians. Not only did Christians dominate the birth of new scientific fields, but a staggering number have been awarded Nobel prizes in the sciences, more than all other groups combined. So, what made the difference? It’s a particular view of science, rooted in our faith.

If you make a list of the figures who founded the scientific disciplines, you’ll find, again and again, that they were Christians.
Share on X

For Christians, science isn’t just about cataloging facts or engineering new technologies; it is an act of worship. When we investigate the natural world, we are reading the “book of nature,” another volume authored by God. We are worshiping Him not just in church, but with our hearts and our minds, discovering more about His nature as it’s reflected in all creation. If you believe your scientific work is revealing not only the “how” but something of the “who”—the character of the Creator Himself—that brings an entirely different level of passion and intensity to the work. And history shows this to be more than empty rhetoric. Many of the founders of scientific disciplines wrote about Jesus in their journals, books, and correspondence. If all you had to reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus were the letters, journals, and books of these pioneering scientists, you could recover the story of Jesus with even more detail than from the early church fathers’ writings.

The impact is profound. To erase the person of Jesus from history, you’d not only have to erase the pages of the New Testament but also obliterate the personal writings and scientific heritage of centuries of Christian scientists. Christianity didn’t stifle scientific progress—it was the soil from which modern science grew. That’s a truth we need to remember, celebrate, and share as both scientists and people of faith.

For more information about the impact Jesus and His followers had on science, read Person of Interest: Why Jesus Still Matters in a World That Rejects the Bible. This unique and innovative book makes a case for the historicity and Deity of Jesus from history alone, without relying on the New Testament manuscripts. It contains over 400 illustrations and is accompanied by a ten-session Person of Interest DVD Set (and Investigator’s Guide) to help individuals or small groups examine the evidence and make the case.

The post Is Christianity “Anti-Science”? first appeared on Cold Case Christianity.

The Human Brain: The Most Advanced Computer in the Universe | The Log College

Leave a reply

The Human Brain: The Most Advanced Computer in the Universe

ByStuart Atkins; November 24, 2025

Key Takeaways

The human brain contains ~86 billion neurons and performs 10¹⁶ to 10¹⁸ operations per second, showcasing unmatched processing power.
It adapts and rewires itself, learning from experience, making it a self-learning, self-organizing system.
Consciousness, a key feature of the brain, cannot be explained by materialism, according to Stephen Meyer.
The brain exhibits specified complexity and functional integration, suggesting it is engineered rather than an outcome of evolution.
The biblical perspective views the human mind as a reflection of the divine mind, emphasizing its unique design.

Brain Power Beyond Matter And Imagination

The human brain is often called the most complex structure in the known universe—and for good reason. With billions of neurons, trillions of synapses, and unimaginable processing power, the brain has no rival in artificial technology.

Computers outperform humans in raw arithmetic, but the brain is superior in:

energy efficiency
dynamic learning
pattern recognition
real-time environmental interaction
self-organization
creativity
awareness

This makes it arguably the most advanced information-processing system known in the universe.

Its complexity raises a compelling question: Is the brain a product of mindless evolution, or the work of an intelligent Creator?

1. The Brain’s Unmatched Processing Power

The brain contains:

~86 billion neurons
Each connecting to up to 10,000 others
Forming over 100 trillion synapses

Together, these allow the brain to perform an estimated:

10¹⁶ to 10¹⁸ operations per second

—roughly equivalent to the world’s most powerful supercomputers.

Yet the brain runs on 20 watts—less than a dim light bulb.

Supercomputers require:

huge cooling systems
warehouses full of hardware
megawatts of electricity

The brain fits into a three-pound organ between your ears.

2. A Self-Learning, Self-Organizing System

Unlike artificial computers:

the brain rewires itself
strengthens useful pathways
prunes inefficient ones
learns from experience
adapts to injury
stores memory chemically and electrically
integrates information from all senses simultaneously

This is AI—but biological, not artificial.

No machine comes close.

3. Consciousness: The Ultimate Mystery

Perhaps the most profound feature is consciousness—the existence of subjective experience, self-awareness, thought, emotion, and rationality.

Materialism cannot explain:

intentionality
abstract reasoning
logic
moral awareness
the existence of consciousness itself

Stephen Meyer emphasizes this in Return of the God Hypothesis, arguing that consciousness is not reducible to matter. Matter produces electrical signals—not thoughts, meaning, or rational deliberation.

Mind cannot emerge from non-mind.

4. The Brain Looks Engineered

The brain exhibits all hallmarks of design:

specified complexity
functional integration
information processing
efficiency
fine-tuned architecture

If an AI researcher discovered a machine with these properties, they would infer one thing:

Someone designed it.

5. Biblical Insight

Scripture describes humanity as uniquely endowed:

“God breathed into man the breath of life.” — Genesis 2:7
“We have the mind of Christ.” — 1 Corinthians 2:16

The biblical worldview has always held that the human mind is not an accident but a reflection of the divine mind.

Conclusion

The brain is a masterpiece of engineering—far beyond human invention. Its processing power, architecture, adaptability, and consciousness all point to intelligent design rather than mindless evolution. The more we learn, the more the evidence mounts: The human mind is the product of a greater Mind.

Let me know what your brain thinks…

Stuart Atkins

DNA: Darwin Or A Divine Programmer? | The Log College

Leave a reply

DNA: Darwin Or A Divine Programmer?

ByStuart Atkins; CHRISTIAN PROOFS; November 18, 2025

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Key Takeaways

DNA serves as a digital, information-rich code that suggests intelligent design rather than random chance.
The complexity of the human genome surpasses human-made software, featuring 3.2 billion ‘letters’ that form biological instructions.
Dr. Stephen Meyer argues that DNA contains specified digital information, which only intelligence can produce.
Life and DNA exhibit a circular dependency, as life requires DNA to exist and vice versa.
The structure of DNA aligns with the idea that rational intelligence created it, supporting a biblical worldview.
As DNA evidence is reversed engineered, evolutionary theories on human origins are collapsing.

I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist. Read on to see why…

In the last century, science has uncovered something astonishing at the heart of every living cell: a digital, information-rich code known as DNA, or Deoxyribonucleic acid. This discovery has revolutionized biology—and it has profound implications for the biggest question of all: Does life point to a Creator?

The DNA code is by far the strongest intelligent design argument for the existence of God. The latest scientific and medical DNA evidence puts the atheist on notice. If God does not exist, the burden of proof now falls on atheism or agnosticism, not theism. Apart from the “faith” or “religion” or “myth” or “wishful thinking” or “opiate of the people” arguments, the facts of DNA ushers both scientist and atheist into God’s sanctuary of intelligent creation. They can no longer escape to a naturalistic, materialist lab. Is it a Designer DNA universe with no exit?

The human genome is not random chemistry. It is a sophisticated, encoded language—far more advanced than anything humans have ever written. When examined objectively, the information within DNA strongly suggests design rather than chance. The tired evolutionary formula of time plus chance plus matter cannot explain the mind behind the DNA matter. This following explores why.

1. DNA Is a Digital, Symbol-Based Language

Every human cell contains about 3.2 billion “letters”—sequences of A, T, C, and G that form biological instructions. These are arranged in meaningful, ordered sequences that function exactly like a written code or software program.

DNA is:

Digital (only four symbols)
Ordered, not chaotic
Meaningfully arranged
Used to direct complex functions

Bill Gates once remarked:

“DNA is like a computer program, but far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”

This is not an analogy—it is a description. DNA stores, processes, and transmits information, exactly like computer code.

2. The Human Genome Surpasses Human Software

Highlights of the human genome:

One cell would fill 3,000 books of 1,000 pages each
The human body contains ~37 trillion such copies
3.2 billion base pairs arranged in a precise, sequential language
DNA uses a four-letter digital alphabet (A, T, C, G)
Molecular machines inside the cell read, copy, correct, and operate on this code
Leading scientists—even non-theists—have noticed its computer-like nature: Richard Dawkins: “The machine-code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.”
DNA compresses data with efficiency that computer scientists still cannot replicate
Every instruction to build and sustain life—from bone density to brain development—is encoded inside this language-like system.

The question is simple: Where does information come from?

In every instance we observe, information comes from a mind. Codes don’t write themselves.

Human DNA and Rust, CUDA, and Triton code.

3. Stephen Meyer and the Case From Information

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer—Cambridge-trained philosopher of science—argues in Return of the God Hypothesis that DNA is the single most powerful biological evidence for intelligent design.

His argument is straightforward:

DNA contains specified, digital information.
The only known cause of such information is intelligence.
Natural selection cannot begin until a self-replicating system exists.
Therefore, the origin of life requires a mind—not material processes.

Chance, chemistry, and natural selection cannot generate meaningful digital code from nothing.

4. The Origin of Life Problem

Here’s the dilemma naturalism cannot escape:

Life needs DNA to exist.
DNA needs life to copy itself.
Therefore, neither can form without the other already present.

This circular dependency is why Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) wrote:

“The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle.”

The more we learn, the more this statement makes sense.

5. DNA and the Biblical Worldview

The Gospel of John begins with a profound statement:

“In the beginning was the Word (logos)…All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” — John 1:1–3

“Logos” means mind, intelligence, rationality. DNA is precisely the kind of system a rational mind would create.

DNA is not random. It is structured, meaningful, digital information—the kind that always comes from intelligence. The discovery of DNA gives modern science a powerful reason to affirm what Scripture has said all along: Life comes from a Mind — not from matter alone.

Final Thoughts

The naturalistic evolutionist is now caught between a coding rock and a hard decision: If evolution cannot solve the DNA question what is the materialist to do? Darwinism is in trouble and modern science is making that case clear. “Intelligent intervention” is the term that modern science is now using to explain the story DNA is telling them. See Joe Rogan’s podcast interview with Gregg Braden.

Is an infinite God lurking behind stage? It’s certainly probable. Based on the ramifications of DNA design, the decision to believe in a random universe takes more faith then rational faith in God.

Does this take us to the infinite, personal God of the bible? I believe it does. If an infinite, personal God exists why would He not want to communicate with the creatures he made in His own image. That image is defined by a specific, intentional mind. As 1 Corinthians 2:16 says: “For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.”

“I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.” Psalm 139:14

I welcome your questions, thoughts, and comments.

Stuart Atkins

Facebook Mastodon Email Share

Biochemist Michael Behe lectures on Darwinian evolution at Cornell University | WINTERY KNIGHT

Leave a reply

Biochemist Michael Behe lectures on Darwinian evolution at Cornell University

I have exciting news. Do you remember a long time ago, when the famous atheist professor Will Provine invited Michael Behe to make the case for intelligent design at Cornell University? Well, 22 years later, Behe has returned to Cornell, to give a lecture to students and answer questions. Let’s find out what Behe’s arguments were and whether any biologists showed up to stump him.

So, it’s always fun to start with the announcement of the event. I like to support these events because I am very passionate about events on campus where students are presented with evidence that will help them to form more accurate views about the big questions of life.

So, here is the link to the event announcement, and it says:

Throughout history, most people, including most scientists, thought that the intricate mechanisms of life were purposefully designed. The design hypothesis fell out of favor in academia after 1859, the year Charles Darwin instead proposed that life evolved by utterly unguided random variation sifted by natural selection. In the past 75 years, however, much has been learned about the molecular basis of life that was completely unknown in Darwin’s era. In my talk I will argue that the astonishing discoveries of modern biochemistry require a reversal of our evaluation of Darwin versus design: the conclusion that, in large part, life was purposely designed has once again become rationally compelling.

I would like to get my hands on the slides for this lecture. Roger Pielke just gave a talk at Cornell earlier this month, and he posted his slides. Maybe I can get Mike to do the same. If you have ever seen one of his lectures, he actually has fun slides – he puts Far Side cartoons into his lectures to keep people paying attention.

Anyway, here is the audio from the talk, and here are his main arguments: 1) irreducible complexity and 2) Darwinian mechanisms cannot create new forms over time.

But he actually made 5 points in the presentation:

Design is NOT mystical – it is a normal empirical conclusion from physical evidence
Everyone (even Richard Dawkins) admits biology appears to be designed.
The progress of science has revealed structural obstacles to Darwinian explanations (irreducible complexity “Darwin’s Black Box” and the discovery that most observed beneficial mutations break genes “Darwin Devolves”).
Darwinian claims still rest on imagination and “just-so stories”.
We have strong evidence for real design but almost no evidence that Darwinism can build complex molecular machines.

What was interesting about this podcast? Well, like I said, I am really, really committed to helping students to hear two sides to the big questions of life. Most of the college students that I talk to in the workplace explain to me that their process of forming their worldviews was two-fold: 1) I wanted to have fun, and 2) I wanted the smart people (professors) to like me. It was just easier for them to accept certain beliefs in the college environment, and that’s why they accepted them. A lot of things that are false are just easier to believe for social or professional reasons: the universe is eternal, the origin of life is a solved problem, the fossil record shows gradual increases in complexity, the genome is 90% junk DNA – just complete nonsense. And the best way for them to correct these false beliefs is to bring an honest scholar like Mike Behe or Mike Licona to speak about evidence at the local university campus.

The podcast is fun because they really explain all the details of what happened. Who invited Behe to speak? Where did Behe speak? Who did Behe speak to? Were biologists invited? Did any biologists show up to confront Behe? How long was the talk? How long was the Q&A? Was the tone of the Q&A calm or argumentative? Did the Q&A stop because no one had questions, or was there a long line of people waiting to ask more questions?

Confronting naturalism on campus

I have a friend named Stephanie who just loves all sorts of protests and gatherings and marches. But for me, this is much better. Instead of people yelling at each other over politics, we can actually have some evidence presented, and minds can change. Maybe not right in the moment, but afterwards. This worked well for me when I was in my 20s. I used to order dozens and dozens of lectures and debates from university campuses from places like Veritas Forum and Access Research Network. I would listen over and over, and then when I tried out the evidence on co-workers (and I mean people with graduate degrees from good schools like UIUC and Purdue and Northwestern) they always had to concede. There is just something about being able to listen to Christians speak about evidence to college students – it’s just the right level of difficulty for software guys like me to understand it and learn how to speak like that. And this led to a lot of adventures.

Secrets of the Cell with Mike Behe

Well, if you listen to the podcast, and you like it, and you want to try to explain Michael Behe’s arguments to college students yourself, he does have quite a good series of lectures posted on YouTube:

Everything is so much easier now than it used to be for me in the old days. You guys don’t have to rewind VHS tapes and audio cassettes like I used to have to do! And if you hear a word or phrase that you don’t understand, just ask Grok to explain it to you like it would explain it to a high school student. Anyway, have fun.

Is Climate Change or Climate Science the Real Threat? | Around the World with Ken Ham

Leave a reply

We’re told over and over again by the media that climate change is the biggest, most imminent threat to the future health, stability, and happiness of mankind and everything else that lives on earth. But is it really climate change or is it climate science that’s the real threat to our future?

Well, the science of climate change is very much a science involving a lot of interpretation. Many of the conclusions presented as facts to the public are nothing more than the results of computer models—and models are only as good as the data they receive and how that data is interpreted! And it’s humans—fallible humans who don’t know everything and are biased—who decide which data points to include and how to weight those data points. The result is models that are very worldview dependent. And that’s why the predictions—the so-called facts—are wrong over and over again.

And bear in mind that scientists who disagree with the perceived threat that climate change represents or who give alternative interpretations will likely not receive funding, be published in mainstream journals, or have their scientific careers advanced. There’s a lot of gatekeeping that goes into ensuring the climate hysteria narrative is the only narrative that anyone hears (just as one example, an editor of one journal was fired for publishing an article skeptical of man-made climate change—in a special issue all about various views on the climate!).

What the public, the government, activists, and watchdog groups hear as “scientific fact” or “consensus” matters because those views shape policy—and that policy impacts people.

Climate science isn’t just some theoretical idea with little impact on our day-to-day lives either. What the public, the government, activists, and watchdog groups hear as “scientific fact” or “consensus” matters because those views shape policy—and that policy impacts people.

Consider how the myth of overpopulation and the belief that humans are destroying this planet’s climate and future have resulted in the spread of abortifacient birth control and abortions in developing countries to try to halt population growth.

Or that lack of access to efficient and cheap energy negatively impacts the poorest among us.

Or that fear-mongering causes anxiety and depression in the younger generations, making them believe they have no future—so much so that many are choosing not to have children because the future is so “bleak”!

Yes, climate “science” has real implications that impact real people, and that’s why we care about this issue. You can learn more in this episode of Answers News, our weekly show posted to our YouTube channel every Friday, featuring special guest and wildlife ecologist Jessica DeFord:

Watch the video on YouTube.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

This item was written with the assistance of AiG’s research team.

https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/climate-change/climate-change-or-climate-science-real-threat/

U.S. Scientists Assembled Viruses That Were Designed By AI, And They Were Shocked When They Started Hunting Down Bacteria And Reproducing | End Of The American Dream

Leave a reply

Now we are allowing AI to create new viruses? Are we mad? What scientists at Stanford University are doing sounds like the plot to a really bad disaster movie. Viruses that are designed by AI are assembled by crazy researchers, and then those viruses start hunting down bacteria and reproducing. Needless to say, it doesn’t take much imagination to see where the rest of the movie would go. I realize that all of this sounds completely insane, but this is actually happening in real life. Our scientists really are assembling viruses that have been dreamed up by AI, and those viruses really are “capable of hunting down and killing strains of Escherichia coli”…

Scientists have created the first ever viruses designed by artificial intelligence (AI), and they’re capable of hunting down and killing strains of Escherichia coli (E. coli).

“This is the first time AI systems are able to write coherent genome-scale sequences,” says Brian Hie, a computational biologist at Stanford University, California. “The next step is AI-generated life,” says Hie, although his colleague Samuel King adds that “a lot of experimental advances need to occur in order to design an entire living organism”.

We are bringing viruses into existence that have never existed before.

Since AI can dream them up, allowing them to exist must be a good idea, right?

The AI entity that created these new viruses is known as “Evo”, and it was trained on the genomes of approximately 2 million different viruses…

In the new work, researchers at the Arc Institute sought to develop variants of a bacteriophage—a virus that infects bacteria—called phiX174, which has only 11 genes and about 5,000 DNA letters.

To do so, they used two versions of an AI called Evo, which works on the same principles as large language models like ChatGPT. Instead of feeding them textbooks and blog posts to learn from, the scientists trained the models on the genomes of about 2 million other bacteriophage viruses.

Ultimately, “Evo” designed 302 viruses.

The scientists conducting this twisted research decided that the best approach would be to chemically assemble all of them and see what happens.

Of the 302 viruses, 16 of them were capable of infecting real strains of E. coli and “cranking out copies of themselves”…

After probing the AI model, the team came up with 302 virus designs. The best way to test them, the researchers figured, was to print, or chemically assemble, all of them and unleash them on real strains of E. Coli.

As it turned out, some of them worked. Once inserted into the poor waiting germs, 16 of the AI-designed viruses successfully infected their hosts by inserting their DNA, hijacking the bacteria to start cranking out copies of themselves, and then burst through the cell’s body, killing it.

So what would happen if these viruses escaped from the lab and got loose?

Hopefully it would not cause a major crisis.

We are being told that these researchers specifically avoided viruses that could potentially infect people.

But they also admit that other researchers could potentially use AI to design viruses that would be extremely lethal to humans…

The Stanford researchers say they purposely haven’t taught their AI about viruses that can infect people. But this type of technology does create the risk that other scientists—out of curiosity, good intentions, or malice—could turn the methods on human pathogens, exploring new dimensions of lethality.

“One area where I urge extreme caution is any viral enhancement research, especially when it’s random so you don’t know what you are getting,” says Venter. “If someone did this with smallpox or anthrax, I would have grave concerns.”

It is just a matter of time before someone actually does this.

And once a highly contagious virus starts spreading all over the globe, it will be impossible to put it back in the bottle.

I don’t even want to think about how AI could modify the bird flu or the Marburg virus or the Ebola virus.

There is no way that we can stop those that are evil from using AI to create designer viruses that have the potential to kill hundreds of millions of people.

Once they are released, the entire planet would be instantly paralyzed.

I keep warning that the next great pandemic is coming, and when it arrives it may not look like anything that the world has ever seen before.

In addition to monkeying around with viruses, mad scientists all over the world are using genetic engineering to create all sorts of really bizarre animals…

In April of this year, a company called Colossal Biosciences announced that it had brought back the dire wolf, which was extinct for more than 10,000 years. This was an incredible feat even if you’d been paying attention to recent developments in animal engineering. Today, humans who want to tinker with evolution have sophisticated and accelerated tools — not just cloning but also gene editing. Where cloning creates a genetic twin of an existing animal, gene editing via technology like CRISPR changes an animal’s DNA sequence, editing specific locations. CRISPR has led to new medical treatments for sickle-cell anemia and other diseases; it can also be used to create animals, often in conjunction with cloning. Gene-edited animals can be innovative, beautiful, and grotesque. Over the past couple of decades, scientists have used the technology to make cats, rabbits, monkeys, and mice glow in the dark for disease research; to create pigs specifically made to be farmed for their organs; to develop extra-muscly (and thus meaty) rabbits, sheep, pigs, and cattle; and to produce a drove of miniaturized pigs meant for drug-testing. (These ended up being so cute their creators sold them as pets.)

Our scientists are “playing God”, and nobody is stopping them.

They insist that they have everything under control and that there will never be any serious consequences.

But of course there are always consequences.

Just look at what happened when a nasty little bug escaped from a lab in Wuhan.

In the future, the “accidents” that we will witness will be far more dramatic.

For years, many of us have been ranting and raving about how reckless our scientific community has become.

But nothing ever changes.

So they will just keep on doing what they have been doing behind closed doors, and ultimately millions will die as a result.

The post U.S. Scientists Assembled Viruses That Were Designed By AI, And They Were Shocked When They Started Hunting Down Bacteria And Reproducing appeared first on End Of The American Dream.

Evolution is Going Nowhere | The Log College

Leave a reply

Evolution is Going Nowhere

by John Stonestreet | September 16, 2025

According to the “Principle of the Day” posted on August 26 by multibillion dollar hedge fund manager Ray Dalio, “Evolution is the single greatest force in the universe; it is the only thing that is permanent, and it drives everything.”

He went on to declare, “Everything from the smallest subatomic particle to the entire galaxy is evolving. While everything apparently dies or disappears in time, the truth is that it all just gets reconfigured in evolving forms. Remember that energy can’t be destroyed—it can only be reconfigured. So the same stuff is continuously falling apart and coalescing in different forms. The force behind that is evolution.”

If this Psalm to the glory of non-religious materialism sounds religious, it is. Often, those who are most wholeheartedly dedicated to atheism and aimless cosmic progression make proclamations such as “Universe created,” “Nature provided,” or, as Dalio put it, “Evolution drives.” They claim that everything results from a purposeless, pointless series of atomic reactions but then imply this story of the universe is also the storyteller. They talk of evolution as if it is the Mind behind it all, a Mind that may not love us but which, nonetheless, has a plan for our lives.

In the dramatic opening to his 1980 documentary, Cosmos, Carl Sagan announced, “The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” Decades later, Neil deGrasse Tyson reincarnated the series by declaring, “A generation ago, the astronomer Carl Sagan … launched hundreds of millions of us on a great adventure.” I doubt he meant to quote Steven Curtis Chapman here, much less to borrow his theistic assumptions, but he saddled up the same horse.

Even the best attempts to demonstrate that the universe is meaningless tend to smuggle in language of purpose, transcendence, and wonder. And they are every bit as evangelistic as the religions they often despise in their attempts to convince and convert others. As it turns out, the theistic impulse shows up wherever and whenever human beings try to make sense of their world. The same impulse that drove the ancients to explain the world drives all of us today. The same impulse that led pagans to worship something is seen in the reverence for scientific theories and technological innovation.

Every worldview assumes that there is a plan to life, even those that deny the Planner. If the materialists are right, “all that is, or ever was, or ever will be” amounts to nothing. There is no “great adventure” to be found or had. All of the high-sounding rhetoric is a way to talk about the entropy that will end in the “Heat Death” of the universe, where all life, light, and order ends in darkness. Life is but a much longer version of Samuel Beckett’s short play, “Breath.” Life begins with a gasp, ends with a gasp, and everything that happens between is garbage.

This worldview, however, is simply not big enough. G.K. Chesterton said, “The worst moment for an atheist is when he is really thankful and has no one to thank.” Dalio may wish to credit evolution for it all, but he’s really just looking for Someone behind it all, even as He denies that anyone is there.

But there is Someone there. There is a direction in which the universe is heading. Life is an adventure worth exploring. Even better, He has made Himself known in what He has made, what He has said, and ultimately, in Jesus of Nazareth. As He has said to us in Isaiah 43, “But now thus says the Lord, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: ‘Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine.’”

15 Questions for Evolutionists | Creation Ministries International

Leave a reply

The teaching of biological evolution in science classes amounts to the teaching of a materialistic religion based on arguments that lack scientific merit.

Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity

(The General Theory of Evolution, as acknowledged by prominent evolutionists, includes the origin of life; see introduction to Origin of life.)

1. How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”¹ Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.² A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
  See:
  - The origin of life explained.
  - Video on Question 1
2. How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?
  See:
  - - The remarkable language of DNA.
    - Video on Question 2

Thanks to “Cowboy Bob” Sorensen for this ‘YouTube’ version of the 15 questions brochure.

1. How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?
  See:
  - The evolution train’s a-comin’ (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction).
  - Video on Question 3
2. Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?
  See:
  - Evolutionist Dr John Endler’s refreshing clarity about ‘natural selection’ has been largely ignored.
  - Video on Question 4

8227-vase-flowers — Everyone recognizes design in a glass vase, but evolutionists refuse to believe that the flowers in the vase must also have been designed. The problem is not that they do not show design, but that they show *too much* design.

1. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence? Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”³
  See:
  - Design in living organisms (motors: ATP synthase) (includes animation).
  - Video on Question 5
2. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”⁴ Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”⁵ The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?
  See:
  - Is the design explanation legitimate?
  - Video on Question 6
3. How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?
  See:
  - Evolution of multicellularity: what is required?
  - Video on Question 7
4. How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).
  See:
  - Argument: Evolution of sex.
  - Video on Question 8

8227-horseshoe-crab — The horseshoe crab is one of thousands of organisms living today that show little change from their ‘deep time’ fossils. In the supposed ‘200 million’ years that the horseshoe crab has remained unchanged (no evolution), virtually all reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, mammals and flowering plants have supposedly evolved.

1. Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.⁶ Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem.
  See:
  - That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils.
  - Video on Question 9
2. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”⁷
  See:
  - Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation.
  - Video on Question 10
3. How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?
  See:
  - G.K. Chesterton: Darwinism is ‘An attack upon thought itself’.
  - Video on Question 11

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”⁸
See:
- ‘Just-so’ stories of sex and family life.
- Video on Question 12
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”⁹ Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”¹⁰ Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.¹¹ Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?
See:
- Is evolution relevant or helpful to real science?
- Video on Question 13
Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”¹²
See:
- A valid distinction: origins science versus operational science.
- Video on Question 14
Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”¹³ Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”¹⁴ If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?
See:
- The religious nature of evolution and “It’s not science”.
- Video on Question 15

Source: 15 Questions for Evolutionists

ICYMI: Video Of RFK Jr. Pile-Driving Bill Maher Over Vax on His Own Show – Left Audience Applauding for Kennedy | The Gateway Pundit

Leave a reply

ICYMI: Video Of RFK Jr. Pile-Driving Bill Maher Over Vax on His Own Show – Left Audience Applauding for Kennedy

Last April, then-independent presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr., left, discussed the COVID vaccine with Bill Maher, right, expressing his belief that the jab doesn't work.

Sometimes, one needs reminding that the public debate over the efficacy of COVID vaccines has always pitted faith against reason.

No one, of course — certainly no one who reads The Western Journal — should denigrate faith in general. But the object matters. Faith in what exactly?

In April 2024 — four months before he allied with now-President Donald Trump — now-Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was running as an independent presidential candidate.

He appeared on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” and delivered what any reasonable person would regard as a knockout blow to the host’s pro-vaccine argument.

Maher, however, would not concede defeat. After all, as a liberal, his faith in science — particularly COVID vaccine science — amounts to a kind of religion.

Clips of the exchange began circulating again this week on the social media platform X. It became even more relevant on Monday, when Trump used his social media platform Truth Social to demand that “Drug Companies justify the success of their various Covid Drugs.”

Moreover, last week, the Trump administration fired Director Susan Monarez from the Centers for Disease Control. This prompted resignations from four other CDC officials.

In short, the debate over COVID vaccines has taken center stage once again. And this time, there isn’t a Biden administration around to censor it.

Thus, the Kennedy-Maher exchange reminds us of why this debate remains so maddening to skeptics of coronavirus vaccinations.

In a clip posted to YouTube, Maher began by asking about Kennedy’s vice-presidential running mate, Nicole Shanahan. The host noted that Shanahan wanted to recall the Moderna vaccine, which Maher happened to have gotten.

Kennedy responded by citing polls on the subject.

“There’s 25 percent of Americans who believe that they know somebody who was killed by a COVID vaccine,” Kennedy stated.

“Killed?” Maher queried.

“Killed — 25 percent. Fifty-two percent of Americans believe the vaccines are causing injuries, including death,” Kennedy continued. If nothing else, that amounts to a significant public-perception problem for the drug companies.

Kennedy also mentioned clinical trial studies of the Pfizer vaccine.

“People who got the vaccine had a 23 percent higher death rate from all causes at the end of that study,” he said.

Then came the remarkable exchange that ignited huge applause.

“But that could not be the disease itself?” Maher asked.

“If it is, then the vaccine doesn’t work, does it?” Kennedy replied.

The laughter and applause from the crowd practically drowned out the host’s protests.

“Well, no, no that’s … not true at all,” Maher insisted, appearing annoyed at his own audience.

The host then claimed that “many people who would have died because they were not in good health” (i.e. elderly and obese people) remain alive thanks to the vaccine.

Another segment of the audience applauded for that claim.

Readers may view the entire exchange in the YouTube video below.

In the end, Maher spent so much time talking over Kennedy, that he wasn’t able to respond to Maher’s lives-saved claim. So ultimately, that’s all it amounts to: a claim only.

One must acknowledge, however, that Maher sometimes arrives at sound conclusions. To his credit, he does not slavishly carry water for the Democrats.

On the other hand, effete liberals like Maher — whether they know it or not — tend to worship science. Or, at minimum, they accept at face value whatever the scientific establishment tells them to.

“I believe the vaccine saved lives,” Maher effectively said, “so heck with your studies and polls.”

Of course, if Trump himself can come around to the need for serious scrutinizing of the COVID vaccine data, then perhaps Maher can, too.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

The post ICYMI: Video Of RFK Jr. Pile-Driving Bill Maher Over Vax on His Own Show – Left Audience Applauding for Kennedy appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Casey Luskin and Sean McDowell discuss human and chimpanzee DNA | WINTERY KNIGHT

Leave a reply

Casey Luskin and Sean McDowell discuss human and chimpanzee DNA

I listened to a lot of different apologetics-related shows last week, and the very best one was Dr. Casey Luskin appearing on Dr. Sean McDowell’s podcast to discuss new findings about chimpanzee and human DNA. Have you ever heard the argument for common descent that says “human and chimpanzee DNA only differ by 1% so of course they have a common ancestry”? I had a friend in high school who believed that. Let’s see what the evidence says.

This is the YouTube episode from Sean’s popular YouTube channel:

This is 64 minutes long.

Here are the questions from the interview:

How did you first get interested in the topic of origins, and human origins in particular?
What interested you in the topic of human-chimp genetic similarity?
Can you give us some examples of people who’ve claimed that we’re 99% genetically similar to chimps or apes or kind of 1% different from them as they use that to make an argument for common descent slash evolution?
How do museums present the data to visitors?
When did that data that questions the 1% chimp-human DNA difference first emerge?
What is an “icon of evolution”?
Does human-chimp genetic similarity falls into that category of “icons of evolution”?
Do you have a sense of how significant this piece of evidence is for supporting Darwinian evolution?
How was the original 1% genetic difference calculation made?
So now we have new evidence that the 1% number was wrong. A new paper suggests that there is a 15%. How did they calculate that?
Are these numbers being challenged? Are critics accepting them, saying this is the new data?
Now, one response that I’ve heard is that our genome is full of what’s called junk DNA. So, the differences are like repetitive DNA and thus junk. Thus, we can ignore them and get a much smaller number getting closer to that 1% if we assess the genome that way. Is that fair or reasonable?
Humans can vary by as much as 10% difference in DNA, so is 15% between humans and chimps really a big difference?
Does a small genenetic difference automatically imply common ancestry or it could be because of a common creator?
Is this new 15% difference evidence against common descent?
You’ve written a piece in the New York Post about how this is presented in museums. Did the museums respond at all? And if so, what did they say?
Are there other areas of scientific misinformation at the Smithsonian that either you saw when you were there in person or you’ve just seen in your research?
Where does this go next as far as you can see?
If a follow-up comes in a journal article as prestigious as Nature and they go, you know what, we got it wrong, it’s 0.5% genetic difference and we blew it, whether two years, five years, 10 years, will you come back and say, you know what, I’ll own it.

If you don’t have time to watch the whole video, Casey did write a nice recent article in the New York Post about it.

He writes:

The National Museum of Natural History’s Hall of Human Origins vastly distorts the scientific evidence on human evolution, seeking to convince visitors that there’s nothing special about us as human beings.

“There is only about a 1.2% genetic difference between modern humans and chimpanzees,” the exhibit starts, with large photos of a human and apes. “You and chimpanzees [are] 98.8% genetically similar.”

No doubt you’ve heard this statistic before because many science popularizers say the same thing.

Yet it’s been known for years that these numbers are inaccurate. Thanks to a groundbreaking April paper in the journal Nature, we know just how wrong they are.

For the first time, the paper reports “complete” sequences of the genomes of chimpanzees and other apes done from scratch. When we compare them to humans, we find our genomes are more like 15% genetically different from chimpanzees’. That means the true genetic differences between humans and chimps are more than 10 times greater than what the Smithsonian tells us.

It’s very good for him to point this out, because we a lot of people go to these taxpayer-funded museums and believe things that we now know have been discredited by the progress of science. I had a friend in high school who saw this in some History Channel or Discovery Channel documentary, and he believed it. So I think it’s important for Christians to know that there is evidence available now, to push back against the claim. Even if you don’t know how to discuss it as well as Sean and Casey, you should know how to pull up this discussion, or maybe the New York Post article, and respond.

9 Sickening Abominations That Are Being Created By Our Top Scientists | End Of The American Dream

Leave a reply

Just because something is possible doesn’t mean that our scientists should actually be doing it. We live at a time when technology is advancing at an exponential rate, but there are very few guardrails. As a result, researchers are pretty much doing whatever they feel like doing. In secret laboratories all over the planet, atrocities are being committed and monstrosities are being created. Unfortunately, since the mainstream media talks very little about what is going on behind closed doors, the vast majority of the population has no idea what is happening. Hopefully articles such as this one will help to shed some light in the darkness. The following are 9 sickening abominations that are being created by our top scientists…

#1 Researchers in China have successfully created mice that have two fathers and no mothers, and those mice were able to produce offspring of their own…

In a world first, scientists have created mice with two fathers, capable of having offspring of their own. It’s a huge step forward for our understanding of mammalian reproduction, and could, in theory, have implications for us humans – though this is still a long way off becoming reality.

Led by Yanchang Wei of Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China, the team injected two sperm cells into an empty egg, before using epigenome engineering to reprogram the sperm DNA, allowing an embryo to develop. Over 250 embryos were implanted in female mice, but only two – both male – survived to adulthood. It may be a low success rate, but both mice were fertile and fathered further offspring, something that has never been achieved before.

Previously, researchers have created mice with two mothers; however, attempts to do the same for mice with two fathers have been less successful. The embryos develop until a point, but eventually stop growing, hindered by a process known as genomic imprinting. This happens when certain maternal or paternal genes are shut down during development, and it is a fundamental barrier to unisexual reproduction in mammals.

#2 A company known as “Colossal Biosciences” was able to use genetic engineering to bring dire wolves back from extinction, and now they want to do the same thing for the wooly mammoth, the dodo and the Tasmanian Tiger. Anyone that has watched a Jurassic Park movie knows how this story is likely to end…

Relying on deft genetic engineering and ancient, preserved DNA, Colossal scientists deciphered the dire wolf genome, rewrote the genetic code of the common gray wolf to match it, and, using domestic dogs as surrogate mothers, brought Romulus, Remus, and their sister, 2-month-old Khaleesi, into the world during three separate births last fall and this winter—effectively for the first time de-extincting a line of beasts whose live gene pool long ago vanished. TIME met the males (Khaleesi was not present due to her young age) at a fenced field in a U.S. wildlife facility on March 24, on the condition that their location remain a secret to protect the animals from prying eyes.

The dire wolf isn’t the only animal that Colossal, which was founded in 2021 and currently employs 130 scientists, wants to bring back. Also on their de-extinction wish list is the woolly mammoth, the dodo, and the thylacine, or Tasmanian tiger. Already, in March, the company surprised the science community with the news that it had copied mammoth DNA to create a woolly mouse, a chimeric critter with the long, golden coat and the accelerated fat metabolism of the mammoth.

#3 It is being reported that a group of very prominent scientists intends to “play God” by building synthetic human DNA from scratch…

A radical new endeavor, the Synthetic Human Genome Project, is attempting to build synthetic human DNA from scratch, but who is asking how this science will impact society?

Leading an effort to analyze these new genomic developments from a social science perspective is Professor Joy Zhang of the University of Kent. With major technologies poised to radically transform society, staying ahead of these changes has become a significant concern for technologists and policymakers alike.

#4 How would you feel if you were literally frozen for 3 decades before you were born? Recently, a couple in Ohio set a brand new record by giving birth to a child that was born from an embryo that had been frozen for over 30 years…

A baby boy has been born to an Ohio couple from an embryo that was frozen for more than 30 years, reportedly setting a new world record.

Lindsey, 35, and Tim Pierce, 34, welcomed their son, Thaddeus Daniel Pierce, on Saturday. Ms Pierce told MIT Technology Review her family thought “it’s like something from a sci-fi movie”.

It is believed to be longest that an embryo has been frozen before resulting in a successful live birth. The previous record-holder was a pair of twins who were born in 2022 from embryos frozen in 1992.

#5 A team of researchers that is led by a scientist at Stanford University has developed a brain-computer interface that can literally read minds. This new brain-computer interface reportedly has an accuracy rate of 74 percent…

Scientists have now identified brain activity patterns linked to inner speech and decoded them into text with a 74% accuracy rate.

Published in the journal Cell, the work could enable brain-computer interface (BCI) systems to help people who cannot speak out loud communicate by silently thinking a password to activate the system.

“This is the first time we’ve managed to understand what brain activity looks like when you just think about speaking,” explains lead author Erin Kunz of Stanford University.

#6 A company that is being backed by Bill Gates would like us to start eating “butter” that is made out of carbon…

“Innovative food tech company Savor has launched the world’s first butter made out of carbon,” explains a recent puff-piece from The Carbon Herald.

“The company, backed by Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy Ventures, was able to achieve this technological advancement by molecularly constructing fat out of carbon dioxide (CO₂), green hydrogen (GH₂), and methane (CH₄).

“This revolutionary product aims to answer the growing need for sustainable food chain solutions that offer a reliable alternative to agriculture-dependent oils.”

#7 How can anyone possibly think that this is a good idea? Scientists in Brazil have created “chimeric H5N1 viruses that did not previously exist in nature”…

A newly published peer-reviewed study states that researchers at Brazil’s Butantan Institute have engineered entirely new influenza viruses in the lab using reverse genetics, constructing chimeric H5N1 viruses that did not previously exist in nature.

When chicken embryos were exposed to these new viruses, they rapidly developed “hemorrhagic lesions”…

The study also reports that chicken embryos inoculated with these lab-created viruses developed hemorrhagic lesions, an abnormal result not seen with seasonal influenza viruses.

“The recovered embryos displayed hemorrhagic lesions… These features were not observed with seasonal influenza strains. The reasons… are unknown.” (p. 8)

If a strain of the bird flu that causes humans to develop “hemorrhagic lesions” ever gets loose, we will know exactly who to blame.

#8 Researchers at Johns Hopkins University are creating human “mini-brains” in order to study neurological diseases. I do not even have the words to describe how sick this is…

To understand how neurological diseases and conditions develop, scientists have created simplified versions of the brain called brain organoids.

These are three-dimensional tissue cultures that grow from stem cells and replicate the structure and function of the brain.

More recently, they have developed brain assembloids, which are fusions of multiple brain organoids. They combine organoids representing different parts of the brain, such as the cortex, midbrain, and hindbrain.

#9 Apparently they did not learn their lesson the first time, because now researchers at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology are playing around with the monkeypox virus…

A new peer-reviewed study reveals that scientists at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and Wuhan University have cloned and engineered a monkeypox virus protein, known as OPG147, which suppresses the human immune system’s early-warning signal without triggering obvious alarms.

The researchers are particularly interested in a protein that can disrupt the human immune system’s “ability to signal the presence of viral material”…

The new research, published in PLOS Pathogens on June 11, 2025, shows that OPG147—originally found in the purported wild-type monkeypox virus—has a covert capacity to interact with a key human immune sensor called MITA/STING, disrupting its ability to signal the presence of viral material.

What I have shared in this article is just what we know about.

How much more is going on behind closed doors that we don’t know about?

When our scientists try to “play God”, there will inevitably be unexpected consequences.

Of course when the next great pandemic breaks out, there will be a tremendous effort to shield the scientific community from blame.

But the truth is that so many of the things that they are doing right now are completely and utterly insane.

They are literally gambling with billions of lives, and they need to stop before it is too late.

The post 9 Sickening Abominations That Are Being Created By Our Top Scientists appeared first on End Of The American Dream.

When Scientists Use Theological Premises to Argue for Evolution | Stand to Reason

Leave a reply

Have you ever noticed theological or metaphysical premises built into some scientists’ arguments? This might be surprising given how often scientists argue that science and religion are entirely separate. Consider, for example, the arguments that have been made for homologies, which serve as one of the primary evidences for universal common descent in naturalistic evolution.

A homology, in biological terms, refers to a structural pattern that is common to different species and is thought to be the byproduct of evolution. The pentadactyl (i.e., five-digit) structure found in tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates) is one example. It’s used by mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians alike, but for very different purposes (crawling, flying, climbing, digging, etc.). Evolutionists reason that since these various animal groups share this structure instead of having distinctive structures uniquely suited to their activities and environment, this is an indication of shared ancestry. Charles Darwin went so far as to say the existence of homologies would lead him to “without hesitation adopt [the theory of evolution], even if it were unsupported by other facts or arguments.”

But consider the metaphysical and theological arguments surrounding the evidence of homologies. Darwin says that the existence of similar structures among a variety of species is “inexplicable…on the ordinary view of creation,” and vestigial organs (a type of homology) present “a strange difficulty…on the ordinary doctrine of creation.” But, he argues, they can be readily explained by his theory of evolution. Why does he think homologies pose a problem for the creationist? His argument is that if God had created the different species, we should not find similar patterns among species.

Darwin held to the common view during his time that, as philosopher of biology Stephen Dilley puts it, “just as humans do not invent locomotive machines from a common type, but rather directly for specific purposes, so God created limbs at the species level de novo for specific environments, rather than modifying a more general type.” So, we would not expect to find common patterns, like the pentadactyl structure, in nature if God created the various species. Since we do find patterns like this repeatedly, God did not create them, or so the argument goes. And if God did not create them, then blind naturalistic forces did.

It becomes clear that this argument hinges upon a certain assumption about the way God would have created. Indeed, the utilitarian argument from design, which claims that every part of an organism has a function or purpose (which indicates it’s designed) had been employed by natural theologians like William Paley before Darwin began developing his theory, and Darwin, who had studied Paley’s work, attempted to falsify creationism with this understanding of creation in mind. Homologies were seen to contrast with this widespread notion of anatomical utilitarianism. So, in the words of biophysicist Cornelius Hunter, it appears “the proof of [Darwin’s] theory was the failure of divine creation.”

Evolutionists have used similar arguments in more recent times. Theodosius Dobzhansky, for example, claimed creation is false and evolution is true because God would not use common patterns throughout the various species. Rather, he expected that God would have used new traits and designs when creating different species. But notice once again that this is a theological argument.

Moreover, when we come across an “imperfect design,” philosopher of science Michael Ruse argues that it’s “good evidence that evolution has been at work…rather than a grand, directly intervening intelligence.” The assumption here is that God would not create such “imperfect” designs in nature. Yet Ruse’s argument here is a theological argument since it’s based on how he thinks God would have created.

Further, Stephen Jay Gould, who advocated the “nonoverlapping magisterial” approach to the relationship between science and religion (which holds that science and religion are separate spheres that don’t overlap) has used theological arguments to support evolution. He claimed, for example, that “Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce.” Once again, this argument deals with Gould’s understanding of what creation should look like if God created it.

In this way, arguments for evolution are often intermingled with metaphysical and theological premises—even though scientists today often argue that religion has nothing to do with science. Evolutionists, from Darwin to today, have used “negative theology”—that is, “the failure to reconcile God and nature”—to support evolution. Keep in mind that these arguments aren’t scientific arguments but instead are metaphysical arguments since they’re based on one’s understanding of the nature of God and of creation.

Yet, it should be pointed out:

One could just as easily argue that the Creator used the patterns found in homologous structures so that scientists could more easily analyze his creations and figure out how biology works. On the other hand, one could argue that the imperfections of nature that the homologies reveal are a manifestation of the burden of sin upon the world. Such ideas are no more religious than evolution’s notion of a restricted god.

https://www.str.org/w/when-scientists-use-theological-premises-to-argue-for-evolution

In Our New High Tech Dystopia, The Elite Are “Breeding Smarter Babies” As They Pursue New Technologies That Will Allow Them To “Live Forever” | End Of The American Dream

Leave a reply

The high tech elite that have accumulated so much wealth and so much power over the past couple of decades really are trying to create an entirely new class of people. While the majority of the population continues to decline physically and mentally, they intend to use technology to transform themselves and their children into superhumans. I know that this sounds really bizarre, but they truly believe that they will ultimately be far smarter, far stronger and live much longer than the rest of us. In fact, there are some wealthy individuals that are now “breeding smarter babies” by using genetic testing services to select embryos with the highest potential intelligence…

This isn’t science fiction. It is Silicon Valley, where interest in breeding smarter babies is peaking.

Parents here are paying up to $50,000 for new genetic-testing services that include promises to screen embryos for IQ. Tech futurists such as Elon Musk are urging the intellectually gifted to multiply, while professional matchmakers are setting up tech execs with brilliant partners partly to get brilliant offspring.

The goal of the matchmaking services is to pair highly intelligent individuals together in order to create “genetically optimized” embryos.

Subsequently, those embryos are then screened to select only those with the highest potential.

Yes, I realize that this sounds like the plot to a really bad science fiction movie.

But this is actually happening. Wealthy individuals in Silicon Valley really are paying enormous amounts of money to be paired with others that have “good genes”…

“Right now I have one, two, three tech CEOs and all of them prefer Ivy League,” said Jennifer Donnelly, a high-end matchmaker who charges up to $500,000.

The fascination with what some call “genetic optimization” reflects deeper Silicon Valley beliefs about merit and success. “I think they have a perception that they are smart and they are accomplished, and they deserve to be where they are because they have ‘good genes,’” said Sasha Gusev, a statistical geneticist at Harvard Medical School. “Now they have a tool where they think that they can do the same thing in their kids as well, right?”

One couple has actually admitted that they selected their latest embryo because it was in “the 99th percentile per his polygenic score in likelihood of having really exceptionally high intelligence”.

We were always warned that the era of “designer babies” would be coming.

Now it is here.

Meanwhile, our high tech overlords are also obsessed with how they can extend their own lifespans…

The “future” of ageing research often looks surprisingly like its past. By now, you’ve probably seen countless media stories about ultra-rich and powerful men like Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel and Bryan Johnson investing hundreds of millions of dollars in longevity startups, scientific laboratories or treatments, all in the hopes of outwitting their (and our) internal biological clocks. Wealthy people are spending a lot of time, effort and money on the latest so-called anti-ageing treatments, like using an immunosuppressant to “biohack” the process of cellular ageing. And those of us without billion-dollar bank accounts want to know the secrets, too: one current estimate of the global market for anti-ageing products is $54bn and growing.

Longevity enthusiasts’ oft-stated goals are not only to help themselves and others live to the ripe old age of 120 in perfect health, but also to strip away what has, until very recently, been considered the natural biological limit on the human lifespan. Why not, people in longevity circles ask, live until the biblical age of 1,000 or longer?

Biohacking has become really big business.

Many among the high tech elite are convinced that technology can eventually solve all of our problems, and that even includes death.

In a recent piece for Popular Mechanics, Ray Kurzweil revealed that he believes that nanotechnology that will allow humans to “overcome the limitations of our biological organs altogether” will be available by the year 2030…

A recent article from Popular Mechanics reported that the key to living forever comes from merging biotechnology and artificial intelligence to make nanotechnology.

In the article, futurist Raymond Kurzweil said that this nanotechnology will help “overcome the limitations of our biological organs altogether.”

The required nanotechnology is predicted to become a reality by the year 2030, according to Wired.

Kurzweil envisions a time in the not too distant future when dying will be optional. He claims that vast numbers of nanobots flowing through our bloodstreams will be able to fix cellular damage and keep our bodies from breaking down.

As nanotechnology grows at an exponential rate, pretty soon human life expectancy will increase “more than a year every year, thus allowing humans to become essentially immortal”…

Kurzweil compares it to the rusting of a car in that “metabolism creates waste in and around cells and damages structures through oxidation. When we’re young, our bodies are able to remove this waste and repair the damage efficiently. But as we get older, most of our cells reproduce over and over, and errors accumulate. Eventually, the damage starts piling up faster than the body can fix it.”

This is where the nanobots come in. According to an article from Columbia One, in the near future, humans might have nanobots flowing through our bloodstreams. These nanobots will repair cellular damage and link us to the cloud.

The article reports that this will allow humans to increase their life expectancy for “more than a year every year, thus allowing humans to become essentially immortal.”

Of course most of us will not be able to afford such technology.

But they will, and this is exactly what they want.

They literally want to live forever.

Another way that some among the tech elite are attempting to prolong their lifespans is by using the blood of younger people.

You may have heard of one tech billionaire that is actually infusing himself with blood plasma from his own son in a desperate attempt to stay young.

Needless to say, he is far from alone, and well-funded scientists are doing a tremendous amount of research in this field.

In fact, one team of researchers recently conducted experiments on mice that showed that young blood could reverse signs of aging under certain conditions…

The researchers wanted to follow up on animal experiments where old mice were rejuvenated by sharing blood circulation with young mice, something New Atlas has previously reported on, using human models. So, they created an advanced “organ-on-a-chip” system containing two 3D human organoids – a full-thickness skin model, and a bone marrow model, which included stem cells that give rise to blood cells. They introduced young (under 30) and old (over 60) human blood serum into this system to see if young serum improved the signs of aging in skin.

The researchers found that when the skin model was exposed to young serum without bone marrow cells, there was no improvement in aging markers. It was only when the skin model was co-cultured with bone marrow and then exposed to young serum that the researchers observed increased cell proliferation, reduced biological age, and improved mitochondrial (energy-producing) function in bone marrow cells. The young serum triggered changes in bone marrow cells, leading them to secrete rejuvenating factors. These altered cells secreted proteins that were shown to reverse signs of aging in skin models.

What they are doing is morally wrong.

But they are going to keep doing it anyway because nobody is going to stop them.

We live in a society that loves wealth and power.

And the high tech elite are becoming more wealthy and more powerful with each passing day.

At this stage, it really is becoming very difficult to escape their reach. Let me give you a perfect example of what I am talking about. It is being projected that a brand new AI data center that is going to be constructed in Wyoming could use five times more electricity than all of the households in the entire state…

Plans for a new AI data center in Cheyenne, Wyoming, have raised serious questions about energy use and infrastructure demands.

The proposed facility, a collaboration between energy company Tallgrass and data center developer Crusoe, is expected to start at 1.8 gigawatts and could scale to an immense 10 gigawatts.

For context, this is over five times more electricity than what all households in Wyoming currently use.

That is insane.

Given enough time, AI would eventually take over virtually every aspect of our society.

Unfortunately for the tech elite, I don’t think that we are ever going to get to that point.

The tech elite may want to create a utopia in which they become superhuman “gods” which can live forever, but they will never achieve that goal.

Now matter how hard we may try, we will always be imperfect humans, and for each one of us the clock is ticking.

The post In Our New High Tech Dystopia, The Elite Are “Breeding Smarter Babies” As They Pursue New Technologies That Will Allow Them To “Live Forever” appeared first on End Of The American Dream.

The Myth of Settled Science | VCY

Leave a reply

Date: August 11, 2025
Host: Jim Schneider
Guest: Jay Seegert
MP3 | Order

https://embed.sermonaudio.com/player/a/12122222243967/

How many times have you heard the phrase: settled science. It’s been used in regard to man-caused climate change, the use of COVID masks, social distancing, and more. We’re told that the debate is over and we must act now because if we don’t, there will be grave consequences. If you resist or even dare to ask probing questions, you’re labeled a science denier.

How should a Christian respond when confronted like this? Joining Jim for discussion on this issue was Jay Seegert. Jay is the keynote speaker and managing director of The Starting Point Project. He is the author of Creation to Christ, Creation & Evolution, and Faith is Not a Four-Letter Word. He also has produced numerous videos. He holds degrees in both Physics and Engineering Technology. He’s a former president of the Creation Science Society of Milwaukee.

First of all, what is science? Jay explained that in the Bible, science means knowledge, but it doesn’t mean wisdom. He went on to note that most major areas of science were birthed out of the Christian community. For example: antiseptic surgery, calculus, chemistry, computer science, electrodynamics, fluid mechanics, galactic astronomy, gas dynamics, genetics, hydraulics, hydrostatics, oceanography, optical mineralogy, paleontology, physical astronomy, thermodynamics, thermokinetics, the scientific method, and many more were founded by Bible-believing Christians.

The founders of these fields of study took it for granted that God created everything and since God is a God of order they expected to see order in His creation. So a simplistic definition of science would be the search for explanations in the natural world around us to see how it functions. In other words, what did God do to get these things to work.

Since then, the definition has been hijacked. Ruling out the supernatural from the beginning, now it’s become the search for “natural” explanations for the world around us.

With this definition changed, some are misled on their science in sincere efforts to accomplish something they believe is good. Others use it as a “club” and an opportunity to beat others into submission to get them to do what they want. For example:

They will purposely engage in that which is overly technical in order to avoid push-back.
Elephant Hurling—This involves the use of large, vacuous statements like, “Evolution is an absolute fact!” or “It’s proven from every area of science!” These are simply large statements thrown out without any supporting evidence.
Appeal to Authority—This is when someone says something must be true because the world’s leading authorities say it’s so.
Shaming–This is where people will state that if you don’t believe something or do what you’re being told, you’re obviously a science denier.

As you can see, the idea of “settled science” can have a lot of misleading elements attached to it. Find out what to watch/listen for and how to respectfully respond when you review this edition of Crosstalk.

More Information

TheStartingPointProject.com

https://www.vcy.org/crosstalk/2025/08/11/the-myth-of-settled-science/

Life’s fragile towers: why proteins and RNA need a Designer’s hand | WINTERY KNIGHT

Leave a reply

Life’s fragile towers: why proteins and RNA need a Designer’s hand

Non-theists are committed to the idea that the building blocks of life emerged spontaneously from chemicals on the early Earth. Well, Dr. James Tour and a couple of colleagues have written a new article that argues that proteins and RNA both break down faster than they can be formed in a realistic early Earth environment. To get them formed, you would need an intelligent designer.

Before we get to the paper, I should say what a protein is. A protein is a chain of amino acids. If you imagine a chain of kid’s blocks that can chain together, then the amino acids are the blocks, and the chain of blocks is the protein. Once the chain of amino acids is long enough, it can fold up into a shape to do things in the body. BUT the chain only folds into a useful shape if the sequence of blocks is in the right order. It’s similar to how Scrabble letters can form words and sentences. If the amino acids make meaningful words and sentences, then they will fold up, and be useful. Otherwise, they are junk.

RNA is like a messenger that reads recipes out of a book of recipes (DNA) and carries them to the kitchen (cells) where the recipes can be followed to make dishes. The recipe tells the kitchen how to put the blocks (amino acids) together to make a protein chain (a meal). Without RNA, the body wouldn’t know how to build the right proteins to perform biological functions. Again, the RNA itself is another chain, but this time it’s a chain of nucleotides. Nucleotides are also like letters, but more complex than amino acids.

So, the paper is asking the question: could these chains of components arise in the early Earth, without an intelligent designer to arrange them?

The paper was published in the journal BioCosmos, and it’s posted on Sciendo. You can read the full text and even download the PDF.

Anyway, Evolution News reported on the article, and here is what they said:

Rice University chemist James Tour, along with co-authors M. C. Parker and C. Jeynes, recently published an article in BioCosmos titled “Thermodynamic Limitations on the Natural Emergence of Long Chain Molecules: Implications for Origin of Life.” The study demonstrates that proteins and RNA degrade at rates that render their spontaneous formation under natural, undirected conditions highly implausible. To date, no origin-of-life researcher has provided a substantive response to the thermodynamic challenges outlined in the paper.

The early Earth environment is a much more messy place than a university lab, and as a result, chains tend to break down. It would be like trying to chain together blocks while running or swimming.

The authors calculate the decay time of proteins and RNA, to see how quickly they break down. And it turns out that the longer the chain is, the faster it breaks down.

Here’s how Evolution News explains it:

More specifically, the half-life of a dipeptide — two amino acids linked by a peptide bond, as found in proteins — is approximately 7 years. Therefore, a polypeptide chain of 200 amino acids, which is typical for many functional proteins, has a half-life of only 13 days. The situation is even more severe for RNA. A chain of two nucleotides has a half-life of about 100 days, meaning that an RNA strand of 200 nucleotides would degrade in roughly 12 hours. Both classes of molecules decay far more rapidly than they could plausibly form under natural conditions, making their spontaneous emergence highly unlikely in any undirected origin-of-life scenario.

The key point again is that the longer the chain gets, the faster it breaks down. But how fast is the building up rate?

In comparison to a protein’s half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025) identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than one added amino acid per chain per day.

Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200 amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles during formation.

So the building up rate for proteins and RNA is much slower than the breaking down rate.

I’m not a biochemist, I’m a software engineer. So my job is to try to come up with a good analogy for you so that you remember this well enough to use it in a conversation, later. After all, we must help the evolutionists to come to their senses!

Imagine building a tall tower of toy blocks on a windy beach. You carefully stack each block (amino acids or nucleotides) to make a protein or RNA chain, but it’s slow work—maybe one block a day. Meanwhile, big waves (the harsh early Earth environment) keep crashing in, knocking your tower down faster than you can build it. For a 200-block tower (a functional protein), it’d take months to stack, but waves destroy it in days (protein half-life: 13 days). For RNA, it’s even worse—your tower collapses in hours (half-life: 12 hours)! Without a skilled builder (an intelligent designer) shielding and guiding the process, the tower will never get built.

Well, I think this is a very interesting piece of work these gentlemen have put together, so we shall see how good of a job the other side does at finding an answer. If you have ever seen Dr. Tour debate, he likes to draw a formula on the chalkboard, and then hand the chalk to his opponent and ask them to solve it. Will they be able to solve this problem? If not, then they should quit being so bold about their naturalistic view of life!

The psychological motivation of those who embrace postmodernism | WINTERY KNIGHT

Leave a reply

The psychological motivation of those who embrace postmodernism

Can a person be postmodern and a Christian? Not for long

Famous analytical philosopher John Searle has written a book “Mind, Language And Society: Philosophy In The Real World”, explaining what’s factually wrong with postmodernism. In the introduction, he explains what postmodernism is, and what motivates people to accept postmodernism.

He writes:

[…][W]hen we act or think or talk in the following sorts of ways we take a lot for granted: when we hammer a nail, or order a takeout meal from a restaurant, or conduct a lab experiment, or wonder where to go on vacation, we take the following for granted: there exists a real world that is totally independent of human beings and of what they think or say about it, and statements about objects and states of affairs in that world are true or false depending on whether things in the world really are the way we say they are. So, for example, if in pondering my vacation plans I wonder whether Greece is hotter in the summer than Italy, I simply take it for granted that there exists a real world containing places like Greece and Italy and that they have various temperatures. Furthermore, if I read in a travel book that the average summer temperature in Greece is hotter than in Italy, I know that what the book says will be true if and only if it really is hotter on average in the summer in Greece than in Italy. This is because I take it for granted that such statements are true only if there is something independent of the statement in virtue of which, or because of which, it is true.

[…]These two Background presuppositions have long histories and various famous names. The first, that there is a real world existing independently of us, I like to call “external realism.” “Realism,” because it asserts the existence of the real world, and “external” to distinguish it from other sorts of realism-for example, realism about mathematical objects (mathematical realism) or realism about ethical facts (ethical realism). The second view, that a statement is true if things in the world are the way the statement says they are, and false otherwise, is called “the correspondence theory of truth.” This theory comes in a lot of different versions, but the basic idea is that statements are true if they correspond to, or describe, or fit, how things really are in the world, and false if they do not.

The “correspondence theory of truth” is the view of truth assumed in books of the Bible whose genre is such that that they were intended by the authors to be taken literally, (with allowances for symbolism, figures of speech, metaphors, hyperbole, etc.).

But what about the postmodernists, who seek to deny the objectivity of external reality?

More Searle:

Thinkers who wish to deny the correspondence theory of truth or the referential theory of thought and language typically find it embarrassing to have to concede external realism. Often they would rather not talk about it at all, or they have some more or less subtle reason for rejecting it. In fact, very few thinkers come right out and say that there is no such thing as a real world existing absolutely, objectively, and totally independently of us. Some do. Some come right out and say that the so-called real world is a “social construct.”

What is behind the denial of objective reality, and statements about external reality that are warranted by evidence?

It is not easy to get a fix on what drives contemporary antirealism, but if we had to pick out a thread that runs through the wide variety of arguments, it would be what is sometimes called “perspectivism.” Perspectivism is the idea that our knowledge of reality is never “unmediated,” that it is always mediated by a point of view, by a particular set of predilections, or, worse yet by sinister political motives, such as an allegiance to a political group or ideology. And because we can never have unmediated knowledge of the world, then perhaps there is no real world, or perhaps it is useless to even talk about it, or perhaps it is not even interesting.

Searle is going to refute anti-realism in the rest of the book, but here is his guess at what is motivating the anti-realists:

I have to confess, however, that I think there is a much deeper reason for the persistent appeal of all forms of antirealism, and this has become obvious in the twentieth century: it satisfies a basic urge to power. It just seems too disgusting, somehow, that we should have to be at the mercy of the “real world.” It seems too awful that our representations should have to be answerable to anything but us. This is why people who hold contemporary versions of antirealism and reject the correspondence theory of truth typically sneer at the opposing view.

[…]I don’t think it is the argument that is actually driving the impulse to deny realism. I think that as a matter of contemporary cultural and intellectual history, the attacks on realism are not driven by arguments, because the arguments are more or less obviously feeble, for reasons I will explain in detail in a moment. Rather, as I suggested earlier, the motivation for denying realism is a kind of will to power, and it manifests itself in a number of ways. In universities, most notably in various humanities disciplines, it is assumed that, if there is no real world, then science is on the same footing as the humanities. They both deal with social constructs, not with independent realities. From this assumption, forms of postmodernism, deconstruction, and so on, are easily developed, having been completely turned loose from the tiresome moorings and constraints of having to confront the real world. If the real world is just an invention-a social construct designed to oppress the marginalized elements of society-then let’s get rid of the real world and construct the world we want. That, I think, is the real driving psychological force behind antirealism at the end of the twentieth century.

Now, I’ll go one step further than Searle.

People, from the Fall, have had the desire to step into the place of God. It’s true that we creatures exist in a universe created and designed by God. But, there is a way to work around the fact that God made the universe and the laws that the universe runs on, including logic, mathematics and natural laws. And that way is to deny logic, mathematics and natural laws. Postmodernists simply deny that there is any way to construct rational arguments and support the premises with evidence from the real world. That way, they imagine, they are free to escape a God-designed world, including a God-designed specification for how they ought to live. The postmoderns deny the reliable methods of knowing about the God-created reality because logic and evidence can be used to point to God’s existence, God’s character, and God’s actions in history.

And that’s why there is this effort to make reality “optional” and perspectival. Everyone can be their own God, and escape any accountability to the real God – the God who is easily discovered through the use of logic and evidence. I believe that this is also behind the rise of atheists, who feign allegiance to logic and science, but then express “skepticism” about the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, objective morality, the minimal facts concerning the historical Jesus, and other undeniables.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Key Takeaways

Brain Power Beyond Matter And Imagination

1. The Brain’s Unmatched Processing Power

10¹⁶ to 10¹⁸ operations per second

2. A Self-Learning, Self-Organizing System

3. Consciousness: The Ultimate Mystery

4. The Brain Looks Engineered

5. Biblical Insight

Conclusion

Share this:

Key Takeaways

1. DNA Is a Digital, Symbol-Based Language

2. The Human Genome Surpasses Human Software

3. Stephen Meyer and the Case From Information

4. The Origin of Life Problem

5. DNA and the Biblical Worldview

Final Thoughts

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: