Mind Control? Scientists Have Discovered How To Use Nanoparticles To Remotely Control Behavior! | End Of The American Dream

We live at a time when technology is increasing at a faster pace than we have ever seen before in all of human history.  But is humanity equipped to handle the extremely bizarre technology that we are now developing?  Earlier this month, I discussed some of the frightening ways that AI is changing our society.  Today, I want to focus on nanotechnology.  This is a field where extraordinary advances are being made on a regular basis, and we are being told that nanotechnology is already “revolutionizing myriad industries”…

Nanotechnology, a cutting-edge discipline at the intersection of science, engineering, and technology, is revolutionizing myriad industries with its focus on manipulating matter at the nanoscale. At this minuscule level, materials exhibit unique properties and behaviours, paving the way for unprecedented advancements in fields as diverse as medicine, electronics, energy, and materials science.

A “nanoparticle” is a particle of matter that is less than 100 nanometers in diameter.  Highly specialized equipment is necessary to work with nanoparticles, because they are way too small to be seen with the naked eye…

One of the hallmarks of nanotechnology is the utilization of nanoparticles, minute entities often ranging from 1 to 100 nanometers. These particles, when engineered with precision, bring forth distinctive characteristics that can redefine the functionality of materials. In medicine, for instance, nanoparticles serve as drug carriers, enabling targeted delivery and enhancing therapeutic efficacy while minimizing side effects. Nano-engineered materials have found their niche in the realm of electronics.

Scientists are promising us that nanotechnology has the potential to make all of our lives much better.

But are there any dangers?

Many are concerned that the healthcare industry is one area where nanoparticles are already being used on a widespread basis…

The healthcare sector is witnessing a transformative impact through nanotechnology. Nanomedicine, an interdisciplinary field, employs nanoscale tools for the diagnosis, imaging, and treatment of diseases. Nanoparticles, with their ability to navigate biological barriers, offer a novel approach to targeted drug delivery, ensuring precise and efficient treatment with reduced side effects.

“Precise and efficient treatment with reduced side effects” certainly sounds good.

But there have been other developments in this field that are rather ominous.

For example, a team of researchers in South Korea has discovered a way to use nanoparticles to “control the minds of mice”…

Scientists at the Institute for Basic Science (IBS) in South Korea have developed a new way to control the minds of mice by manipulating nanoparticle-activated “switches” inside their brains with an external magnetic field.

The system, dubbed Nano-MIND (Magnetogenetic Interface for NeuroDynamics), works by controlling targeted regions of the brain by activating neural circuits.

Using an external magnetic field, these scientists were able to make mice eat more or eat less.  And in another experiment, they were able to manipulate the maternal behavior of female mice…

In experiments, the researchers activated inhibitory neurons within specific areas of the brain to increase appetite and feeding behaviors by 100 percent. By exciting these neurons, the team could conversely reduce the food the mice ate by 50 percent.

They also used the system to selectively activate receptors responsible for maternal behaviors in the brains of female mice that hadn’t reproduced. By activating these pathways, the mice “significantly increased nurturing behaviors, such as bringing pups to their nest, similar to maternal mice,” according to a press release.

Of course this is just the tip of the iceberg.

If they can control the minds of mice, it is inevitable that research will be done into how to control human minds.

So what would happen if scientists develop “nanoparticles” that have the ability to search out and attach themselves to key areas of the human brain?

Such “nanoparticles” would be far too small to be seen by the human eye, and people could become “infected” with these “nanoparticles” without even knowing it.

In fact, if a tyrannical government could find an effective way to use nanoparticles to remotely control the minds of the general population, a mass mind control program could be implemented without the general public even realizing what is going on.

If that sounds very frightening to you, that is because it is very frightening.

Sadly, most of us don’t even realize that there are nanoparticles in many common foods that we eat on a regular basis…

Among the foods most likely to have nano-tech: Foods with caramelized sugar, nutritional supplements, toothpastes, gums, M&Ms, Jello Banana Cream Pudding, Pop Tarts, Mentos, Nestle Original Coffee Creamer, and even… purified water!

One of the scariest elements of the article isn’t that these pieces of nanotechnology are harmful to the human bodies. It’s that no one knows if they’re harmful. Testing has been nearly nonexistent. The FDA, the governing body we’ve put in charge to keep bad things from entering our bodies, doesn’t even have a list of foods that contain nanotechnology.

And most people don’t even realize that there are nanoparticles in many of the shots that we are encouraged to get.

In fact, this is an area that is being heavily researched.  The following comes from an MIT article entitled “MIT scientists use a new type of nanoparticle to make vaccines more powerful”…

Many vaccines, including vaccines for hepatitis B and whooping cough, consist of fragments of viral or bacterial proteins. These vaccines often include other molecules called adjuvants, which help to boost the immune system’s response to the protein.

Most of these adjuvants consist of aluminum salts or other molecules that provoke a nonspecific immune response. A team of MIT researchers has now shown that a type of nanoparticle called a metal organic framework (MOF) can also provoke a strong immune response, by activating the innate immune system — the body’s first line of defense against any pathogen — through cell proteins called toll-like receptors.

In a study of mice, the researchers showed that this MOF could successfully encapsulate and deliver part of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, while also acting as an adjuvant once the MOF is broken down inside cells.

It doesn’t take much imagination to come up with a scenario in which the use of nanotechnology goes horribly wrong.

For example, have you seen a movie or a television show where self-replicating “nanobots” threaten to destroy everyone and everything in their path?

If we are not careful, such a scenario could someday become a reality.

Just like AI, nanotechnology is potentially an existential threat to the human race.

Our scientists should be proceeding with extreme caution, but unfortunately that simply isn’t happening.

Michael’s new book entitled “Why” 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 “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com. He has also written eight 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 Mind Control? Scientists Have Discovered How To Use Nanoparticles To Remotely Control Behavior! appeared first on End Of The American Dream.

Scopes Monkey Trial Then and Now | Juicy Ecumenism

Scopes Monkey Trial Then and Now

Supposedly the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton, Tennessee, over whether evolution could be taught in public schools, embarrassed Christian “fundamentalists” out of public life until the 1970s. The reality is more complex.

Keeping the Faith: God, Democracy, and the Trial That Riveted a Nation by Brenda Wineapple tells the story of the trial but does not reflect deeply about its long-term impact on religious public witness. Instead, she focuses on the supposed similarities of the trial and its era to today, amid debates over populism, Christian nationalism, and race.

The trial was chiefly about the large personalities of perennial presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who joined the prosecution, and famed trial lawyer Clarence Darrow, who joined the defense. In 1960, the trial was dramatized in the film “Inherit the Wind,” with Spencer Tracey portraying Darrow, Fredric March as Bryan, and Gene Kelly as cynical Baltimore reporter H.L. Mencken, who despised backcountry America. Of course, the film is not historically accurate. Defendant John Scopes was never jailed. The jail was never attacked by an angry mob. Scopes was not romantically involved with the daughter of the town’s fundamentalist “spiritual leader.” That fiery preacher, whose denomination is never cited, is sinisterly portrayed consigning a drowned unbaptized boy to hell in his funeral sermon, an odd teaching for any Protestant preacher, fundamentalist or not. The film portrays the town’s religious people as dangerously reactionary.

In reality, Dayton during the controversy was friendly and civil. It virtually invited national notoriety by staging the controversial trial to invite publicity and commerce. The American Civil Liberties Union publicly advertised for a schoolteacher to defy the law to precipitate a test trial, which the ACLU hoped would eventually overturn the Tennessee law as unconstitutional. John Scopes amiably agreed to cooperate as a defendant, although it’s unclear whether he ever taught evolution in the classroom. He persuaded students to testify against him. There was never any question that he would be found guilty, with hopes placed on higher court appeals.

Bryan eagerly volunteered to help the prosecution. He was a vociferous critic of Darwinian evolution as dehumanizing and immoral, a threat against the weak and vulnerable. He was the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate in 1896, 1900 and 1908. Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson, and he strove to be a political kingmaker at the 1912, 1920 and 1924 Democratic Party conventions. At the 1924 convention, he successfully denounced a resolution condemning the Ku Klux Klan. Although a self-styled friend of the commoner, he was not a friend to black people, whom he thought should passively accept subordination in a white-led society. Bryan rejoiced at the 1919 enactment of Prohibition. And like many others, he saw post World War I America, despite Prohibition, as morally degenerating, with divorce increasing, rising religious liberalism and secularism, permissive sexuality, debauched entertainment, and America losing its definitive Protestant character.

Both Bryan and Darrow were political progressives. Darrow had supported two of Bryan’s three presidential campaigns. Both ultimately opposed eugenics as a threat to society’s most vulnerable. Both strove, selectively, to defend society’s outcasts. Both wanted activist government enacting greater justice. But Bryan was an ardent Presbyterian who wanted a society and public life centered on the Bible. Never ordained, he was a popular lay preacher and speaker on the Chautauqua circuit. He was a polished and charming if not sophisticated exponent of American populist folk religion. In the film “Inherit the Wind,” rapturous crowds in Dayton repeatedly great Bryan with the hymn “Give Me That Old Time Religion.” 

Darrow was an outspoken religious agnostic who defended unsavory murderers, enjoying publicity and money, but also sincerely defended unpopular political dissidents and racial minorities. He often spoke cynically but was suspected of being a secret idealist. He feared political and religious conformity. Some in the ACLU resented and feared his role in the trial, which they did not want to be clash over religion. But Darrow and Bryan ensured it would be exactly that. And the national media, including newsreels filmed in the courtroom, portrayed it so. It was a battle over God and the Bible.

“Inherit the Wind” portrays the town’s fiery preacher leading a histrionic evening outdoor revival full of threats and thunder that horrified even Bryan and the preacher’s daughter. In reality, Dayton was dominated by more subdued Methodists and Baptists. The trial judge was a devout Methodist who carried a Bible into the courtroom. Amid soaring Summer heat, the trial was eventually moved outdoors, adding to its theatricality.

As the book recalls, Darrow with reporters and others one evening during the trial attended a “holy roller” revival outside town. It was perhaps Pentecostal. The worshippers were anti-Darwin but mostly focused on repentance and salvation with great passion. Darrow and the reporters watched mostly in reverential silence, with Darrow admitting their sincerity and their need for faith amid poverty. He offered respect to them that he could not give to Bryan, whom he deemed self-serving.

Refused permission to call scholarly witnesses about evolution, Darrow surprised everyone by summoning Bryan to the witness stand to query him about the Bible. Appalling the rest of the defense team, Bryan readily acceded, his ego unable to resist. Although a lifelong teacher of the Bible, Bryan was no scholar or deep thinker. He superficially responded to Darrow’s efforts to discredit the Bible with bromides and quips. It was a fiasco for Bryan’s reputation. Darrow won in the court of public opinion even as Scopes was found guilty and sentenced to a $100 fine, later overturned on a technicality. The Tennessee law was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court forty years later.

Bryan died in Dayton, only five days after the trial, after attending church, age 65. As a populist exponent of progressive politics and religious conservatism, he left no successor, which may partly explain why public “fundamentalism” receded as a political force. Prohibition was revoked in 1933. As the book notes, Bryan in 1923 was defeated as a candidate for Presbyterian Church Moderator. The New York Times reported in its front-page story that his “controversy” over evolution factored in his defeat. A nominating speech hailed his “uncompromising position for civic righteousness.”  His successful opponent was hailed for not bringing politics into the church.

Wineapple, the author, tries to parallel Bryan with today’s “Christian nationalists.” And perhaps there is overlap but only to the extent that religion of all stripes has always infused American public life. The author stresses that southern segregationists opposed teaching evolution while also admitting that black Christians largely agreed. The Scopes Monkey Trial was about two opposing forms of progressivism. Both claimed to defend the vulnerable. Bryan and Darrow in the end were too absolutist to find common ground.

The post Scopes Monkey Trial Then and Now appeared first on Juicy Ecumenism.

How Old Are Fossils? | VCY

How Old Are Fossils?

How long does it take to make a fossil? Would you believe that when the correct natural conditions are duplicated in the laboratory, the process only takes a few days to get underway?

Anything that was once alive can become a fossil. Bone, hair, feathers and even cloth can fossilize. However, the conditions must be just right, or the candidate simply decays. This is what happens to most things that were once alive. To become fossilized, the candidate for fossilization has to be protected from air and other things that could cause decay. Then the original once-living molecules are replaced by molecules of silica before they can decay.

We are often given the idea that it takes millions of years for something to be fossilized. Scientists who believe in creation have never accepted that fact because they do not believe that the world is that old.  Research into how things fossilize shows that believers in a young creation were right. For example, scientists made a discovery while they were studying fossilized silk fabric from a human burial site. They discovered if copper was buried with the person, the copper atoms would be washed into the silk by water and begin to deposit within the fiber. The result was a fossil that even showed the detail of the original threads in the cloth. In lab tests, researchers found that it only takes a few days for a considerable amount of copper to deposit in the silk.

The truth is, you could be older than a fossil!

1 Timothy 6:20
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called…”

Prayer: Dear Father, I thank You for the work of scientists who are showing that true science does not contradict the truth of Your Word. Prosper their work and give them the support of Your people so that we can make a better witness to those who are hindered by stumbling blocks raised up by false science. In Jesus’ Name. Amen.

Notes: Stefi Weisburd. “Fossils of Fabrics and Fibers.” Science News, Vol. 126, p. 328. Photo: Archaeological Excavations of Human Skeleton, Envato.

The peril of AI and the path to transcendent hope | Denison Forum

The peril of AI and the path to transcendent hope

• NOTE: Jimmy Carter, the 39th US president and Nobel Prize recipient, died yesterday at his home in Plains, Georgia, at the age of one hundred. We will be publishing a Daily Article Special Edition this morning in response.

I am focusing today on hope that transcends every challenge we face. But to get to the good news, we need to set the stage.

Today’s headlines illustrate the fragility of life: from the passenger plane that skidded off a South Korean airport runway yesterday, killing all but two of the 181 people on board; to the Azerbaijan Airlines plane crash for which Russian President Vladimir Putin apologized; to a weekend storm system that killed at least four people across the South; to the death of longtime sports announcer Greg Gumbel at the age of seventy-eight.

And there’s this: Nobel Prize-winning physicist Geoffrey Hinton, often called the “godfather of artificial intelligence,” is warning that AI could wipe out the human race within the next decade. He said the technology is developing “much faster” than he expected and could make humans the equivalents of “three-year-olds” and AI “the grown-ups.”

In his view, “We’ve never had to deal with things more intelligent than ourselves before.”

Is that so?

“Dark matter” and “dark energy”

Scientists tell us that the universe began around 13.8 billion years ago with an event called the Big Bang that suffused space with light. In that moment, they say, the universe was a septillion (one followed by twenty-four zeroes) times hotter than the center of our sun today. However, they still do not know what caused the Big Bang. Nor do they know how the universe will end.

They also note that the galaxies of our universe are “rotating with such speed that the gravity generated by their observable matter could not possibly hold them together; they should have torn themselves apart long ago.” They theorize that unknown matter is giving them the mass and thus the gravity they need to stay intact, calling it “dark matter.” They calculate that it outweighs visible matter roughly six to one.

Since “dark matter” by definition does not absorb, reflect, or emit light, physicists can only infer its existence from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter.

Then there’s “dark energy,” comprising approximately 68 percent of the universe, which they credit for causing the universe to expand at an accelerated rate. Once again, they do not know what it is or exactly how it works. A new paper claims that dark energy doesn’t even exist, proposing other explanations for our expanding universe.

From the macro to the micro: scientists tell us that the strongest force in the universe, aptly called the “strong force,” binds together the nuclei in the atoms that comprise the physical universe. It is one hundred trillion trillion trillion times stronger than the force of gravity and accounts for around 99 percent of the mass in the visible universe. Without it, nothing we can see would exist.

“Greeted by a band of theologians”

The event science theorizes as a Big Bang is described in Scripture this way: “God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Genesis 1:3). The New Testament adds the trinitarian note,  “All things were made through [Christ], and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3). It adds, “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (v. 5).

So we have a biblical explanation for the light that began the universe. What about the rotational forces that should tear the universe apart, the energy that theoretically causes it to expand, and the “strong force” that binds mass together?

Consider this statement: “By [Christ] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:16–17, my emphasis).

I am reminded of the NASA physicist Robert Jastrow, who famously wrote in God and the Astronomers:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

“Is anything too hard for the Lᴏʀᴅ?”

It is obviously very bad news if an intelligence greater than ourselves wishes us harm. If, however, such an intelligence wishes us well, that is outstanding news. It means that this entity has the knowledge and ability to do for us what we cannot do for ourselves.

Now, suppose that this power can work not only on us but also in us, transforming both our external universe and our internal lives in ways we cannot even imagine.

This is just what the Bible proclaims:

To him who is able to do far more abundantly than all we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever (Ephesians 3:20–21, my emphasis).

Here’s the catch: Unlike the forces that hold our physical universe together or an artificial intelligence that could one day surpass us, “the power at work within us” requires our cooperation to experience his best. For example:

• “He himself is our peace” (Ephesians 2:14), but we must admit that we are at war with God, others, and ourselves, and seek what he alone can give.
• He assures all who know him personally, “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jeremiah 31:34), but we must admit our sin and seek his forgiving grace.
• “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:6), but we must settle for nothing less than his perfect will for our lives (Romans 12:2).

Here’s the bottom line: We experienced God’s best in 2024 to the degree that we sought his provision and submitted to his Spirit. The same will be true in 2025.

Our omniscient, omnipotent Father still asks,

“Is anything too hard for the Lᴏʀᴅ?” (Genesis 18:14)

The answer depends not on him but on us.

Monday news to know:

• Putin apologizes over “tragic incident” involving crashed plane
• Fiery crash kills at least 174 in worst airline disaster in South Korea
• Warren Upton, the oldest living survivor of the attack on Pearl Harbor, dies at 105
• US homeless count surges 18% to record high
• On this day in 1922: USSR established

*Denison Forum does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in these stories.

Quote for the day:

“Prayer is the slender nerve that moves the muscle of omnipotence.” —Charles Spurgeon

The post The peril of AI and the path to transcendent hope appeared first on Denison Forum.

Why Is Nature Intelligible? | The Log College

Why Is Nature Intelligible?

by Katie Hulse; STAND TO REASON; PUBLISHED; 12/12/2024

  

The natural world exhibits a rational ordering—that is, it follows regular patterns, what we call the “laws of physics” or the “laws of nature”—and humans have the ability to comprehend the world and how it’s structured.

Regarding this, theoretical physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne commented,

We are so familiar with the fact that we can understand the world that, most of the time, we take it for granted. It is what makes science possible. Yet it could have been otherwise. The universe might have been a disorderly chaos, rather than an orderly cosmos. Or it might have had a rationality that was inaccessible to us.

Polkinghorne raises important points. Why is it that the natural world is ordered? Why is it that the human mind is able to comprehend the natural world?

The world could have been different. Yet we find ourselves in a world that makes sense to us, that we’re able to grasp. We find ourselves in a world that’s conducive to scientific study and investigation. The natural world exhibits a universal consistency and patterns that allow us to make predictions and to progress in our knowledge. Our world has the key properties that make the success of the scientific enterprise possible. Why?

Theoretical physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies made an interesting observation after asking this question:

Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are—they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality—the laws of physics—only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.  

The frequent response to the way the world is logically ordered is “There’s no reason” or “That’s just the way it is.” Albert Einstein even described the universe’s comprehensibility as “the eternal mystery of the world.” Yet, as Davies points out, the notion that the natural world is orderly for no reason is “deeply anti-rational.” It’s not a satisfactory answer.

But the Judeo-Christian worldview has long offered a unique explanation for the way the world is.

The Judeo-Christian worldview recognizes and accounts for the fact that nature exhibits patterns and regularity (see Gen. 8:22; Jer. 33:20–21, 25–26). It explains that the universe was created by a rational God and therefore exhibits a rational ordering and structure. It reflects “the mind of the Maker,” as Dorothy Sayers put it.

The Judeo-Christian worldview accounts for nature’s intelligibility as well. It says that we’re able to comprehend the natural world because God made human beings in his image (Gen. 1:27). We’re rational beings made in the image of a rational God, able to make sense of the logical structuring of the universe. Johannes Kepler expressed this interconnectedness of the natural order, human reason, and the divine mind when he said, “God wanted us to recognize them [i.e., the laws of mathematics] by creating us after his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts.”

The Judeo-Christian worldview accounts for these essential qualities that make scientific endeavors possible. We attribute the logical ordering of nature to the fact that it’s the creation of a rational God, and we understand that the human capacity to reason and comprehend the natural world are the result of being made in the image of God. This is one of the reasons the Judeo-Christian framework led to the development of modern science.

Casey Luskin and Fuz Rana: Nobel Prize supports intelligent design | WINTERY KNIGHT

Casey Luskin and Fuz Rana: Nobel Prize supports intelligent design

Exciting news! Not only has the winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine been announced, but the winning discovery supports intelligent design. Do you remember a while back when we had Dr. Casey Luskin and Dr. Fazale Rana on the Knight and Rose Show to discuss junk DNA and the origin of life? Well, they discussed it with Lenny Esposito on a new Come Reason podcast episode.

Here’s the description from Evolution News, written by Casey Luskin:

What’s the biggest science story of the year? My vote goes to the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, awarded for the discovery of function for a type of “junk DNA” that produces microRNA (miRNA), a crucial molecule involved in gene regulation. That so-called genetic junk would turn out to be functional was a prediction of intelligent design going back to the 1990s. On that, ID has been vindicated over and over again, now by the Nobel Committee. Our colleagues Richard Sternberg and Bill Dembski were early predictors, as critics of what Jonathan Wells called in a 2011 book, The Myth of Junk DNA.

[…]Not only was this 2024 Nobel Prize awarded for the discovery that a type of junk DNA is actually extremely important (it produces microRNAs that regulate gene expression), but we see that the evolutionary “junk DNA” paradigm probably hindered acceptance of this groundbreaking discovery.

Here’s the video of the podcast:

Here are the topics:

• Introduction
• The Mystery of Protein Creation in the Cell
• Replication, Transcription, and Translation
• The Central Dogma and its Oversimplification
• Junk DNA Isn’t Junk After All
• The Human Genome Project and The Revolution In Understanding DNA
• Ambrose and Ruvkin’s Discovery – Micro RNA
• Micro RNA and protein regulation
• The Complex Interactions That Shows Design in the Cell
• Pseudo Genes and Their Importance For the Cell
• ID-Based Biology Finds Answers That Evolutionary Biology Misses
• Does the Discovery of Micro RNAs show it Isn’t Mutations That Provide New information In DNA?
• The Evolutionary Paradigm Is Getting Harder to Explain
• We See In the Cell Just What Designers Do
• Predictions From an ID Paradigm
• What The Nobel Means to ID as “Real Science”
• Are There Any implications for the RNA World Hypothesis?

If you missed our previous episodes of the Knight and Rose Show with Dr. Casey Luskin and Dr. Fuz Rana, here are the links:

• Casey Luskin: Debunking the Myth of Junk DNA
• Chemist Fazale Rana Investigates the Origin of Life

Why Is The Media Being So Quiet About The Radioactive Material That Has Gone Missing In New Jersey? | End Of The American Dream

Something extremely strange has been happening in New Jersey, but the mainstream media has been eerily quiet about some of the most important threads of this story.  It turns out that an “air restriction alert” banned flights over Picatinny Arsenal in Rockaway, New Jersey for “special security reasons” from November 21st through December 26th.  Many people don’t realize this, but counter-terrorism drones have been getting tested at Picatinny for years.  In addition, we have learned that radioactive material was reported missing in New Jersey in early December.  The following comes directly from the official website of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission…

AGREEMENT STATE REPORT – SOURCE LOST IN TRANSIT

The following information was provided by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) via email:

“The licensee reported to NJDEP on December 3, 2024, that a Ge-68 pin source that they sent for disposal has been lost in transit on December 2, 2024. The source is a Eckert & Ziegler model HEGL-0132, with current approximate activity of 0.267 mCi. The shipping container arrived at its destination damaged and empty. The licensee has filed a claim with the shipper. If the source is not located within the 30 days, the licensee will follow-up with a full written report to include root cause(s) and corrective actions.

“This event is reportable under 10 CFR 20.2201(a)(1)(ii).”

New Jersey Event Report ID number: To be determined

THIS MATERIAL EVENT CONTAINS A ‘Less than Cat 3’ LEVEL OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

The big corporate news sources in the United States are saying very little about this.

But others are reporting about this incident.  For example, the following comes from a British news source…

A piece of medical equipment used for cancer scans was shipped from the Nazha Cancer Center in Newfield on December 2 for disposal, but the ‘shipping container arrived at its destination damaged and empty.’

The device, known as a ‘pin source,’ contained a small amount of Germanium-68 (Ge-68) that is used to calibrate a medical scanner’s accuracy. If handled without proper gear, it can cause radiation poisoning.

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an alert for the missing shipment deemed ‘less than a Category 3,’ meaning it could cause permanent injury if mishandled.

A search for this radioactive material is being conducted.

In fact, Belleville Mayor Michael Melham has confirmed that New Jersey state police have issued an alert about the radioactive material that is missing.

So we know that radioactive material is missing in New Jersey.

And we know that law enforcement is involved in the search for that radioactive material.

Could it be possible that the drones that everybody is seeing are involved in that search as well?

According to the Daily Mail, counter-terrorism drones are developed and tested at Picatinny Arsenal in Rockaway, New Jersey, and that base just happens to be very close to the area where the “mystery drones” were first seen last month…

Official records show the army has been developing and testing ‘counterterrorism’ drones in New Jersey for years, amid claims of a government cover-up.

A 2018 defense contract awarded $50 million to a private robotics company to develop craft capable of creating 3D maps of urban areas for a ‘counter weapons of mass destruction’ program.

The contract was given out by the Army’s Armament Research, Development, and Engineering Center (ARDEC), which is located at the Picatinny Arsenal in Rockaway, New Jersey, where mystery drones were first reported last month.

And as I noted earlier, an “air restriction alert” has actually banned air traffic from flying over Picatinny from November 21st to December 26th…

Meanwhile, documents show the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued an air restriction alert on November 21 prohibiting flights over the Picatinny base for ‘special security reasons’ through December 26.

Armed with this new information, I think that we are a lot closer to solving this mystery.

But the Biden administration continues to insist that everything is just fine and that nothing unusual is going on…

With public pressure growing and concerned citizens filing a skein reports to authorities, White House national security spokesman John Kirby attempted to confront the fury.

He began his remarks to reporters Monday at a briefing by pointing to the proliferation of hobbyist drones over the sky.

‘There are more than 1 million drones that are lawfully registered with the Federal Aviation Administration here in the United States, and there are thousands of commercial hobbyists and law enforcement drones that are lawfully in the sky on any given day,’ Kirby told reporters.

If the Biden administration had any credibility left, they would certainly be losing it now.

This lost radioactive material is not a serious threat to anyone, and most of the drones that people are seeing are probably coming from Picatinny.

So why lie about it?

Of course they are lying about it because they don’t want people freaking out about “radioactive material”.

Whenever there is any sort of a crisis, the primary goal of the government is to keep people calm.

So we should never expect to get the truth.  Instead, we should expect them to tell us whatever they think will keep us docile.

But in this case, there was no need to lie.  The amount of radioactive material that was lost is so small that it probably won’t hurt anyone, and the public may be encouraged to hear that drones are out looking for it.

If they are going to tell really big lies about an incident that is quite insignificant, what would they be willing to do if we were facing a major threat?

As global events get really crazy in 2025 and beyond, the American people will desperately need accurate sources of information.

Unfortunately, our government is in the habit of lying to us, and most of the time the mainstream media happily goes along with those lies.

Michael’s new book entitled “Why” 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 “Why” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com. He has also written eight 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.

Get prepared for what is ahead by visiting some of our sponsors…

The Jase Case is more than an emergency medication supply. The right meds the moment you need them: https://shorturl.at/gMpOj

Protect your home and vehicle with EMP Shield: https://shorturl.at/Hh2oz

Ready Hour Emergency Food: https://shorturl.at/RB6ul

My Patriot Supply: https://shorturl.at/GhppY

InstaFire: https://shorturl.at/brRN1

AlexaPure: https://shorturl.at/CH23z

Operation Blackout: https://eflow.americablackout.com/2964TZB/7XDN2/

Exodus Effect: https://trk.exodusrevealed.com/2964TZB/225JFQ/

Final Famine: https://trk.finaleagainstfamine.com/2964TZB/BP658/

Genesis Code: https://trk.discovergenesiscode.com/2964TZB/M2GJW/

Final Blackout: https://trk.borderdatareport.com/2964TZB/2N721M/

Last Blackout: https://trk.last-blackout.com/2964TZB/2J2CRS/

The post Why Is The Media Being So Quiet About The Radioactive Material That Has Gone Missing In New Jersey? appeared first on End Of The American Dream.

The simplest argument against Darwinian evolution is Junk DNA | WINTERY KNIGHT

The simplest argument against Darwinian evolution is Junk DNA

The Discovery Institute has a new video out in their series on intelligent design, about so-called “junk DNA”. Basically, there are two sides to the origins issue: the design-deniers and the design-recognizers. (And theistic evolutionists belong in the former group). These two groups make different predictions about the information in the human genome. And we can check their predictions.

First, here’s the new video:

Here is description from Evolution News:

The myth of junk DNA is much more than just an evolutionary idea that turned out to be mistaken. As the new episode of Long Story Short makes amusingly clear, it also reflects a “battle of predictions” with intelligent design. Going back to the 1970s, evolutionists predicted that, in line with their premise of a randomly generated genome, DNA would turn out to be full of Darwinian debris, playing no functional role but merely parasitic (atheist Richard Dawkins’s term) on the small portion of functional DNA.

Proponents of intelligent design said the opposite. William Dembski (1998) and Richard Sternberg (2002) predicted widespread function for the so-called “junk.” After all, as a product of care and intention, the genome ought to be comparable in a way with products of human genius, with every detail there for a reason.

On that, ID has since been massively vindicated. Scientific theories are tested by the predictions they make. If those fail, it’s a bad sign for the theory. Mainstream science journals like Science are admitting the truth about the erstwhile “junk” — even as a few diehard Darwinists like Laurence Moran at the University of Toronto deny it.

And these predictions by the design side are not new. My young Earth creationist friend even sent me this today (today is Wednesday, I always write these posts the night before and schedule them for the next morning):

While a Creation/Fall model could account for the accumulation of some random, mutationally defective “extra copies,” evolutionists felt they had a strong point that 97% “junk” DNA pointed more to evolution than intelligent design. Creationists have long suspected that this “junk DNA” will turn out to have a function. In fact, junk DNA research is now a hot topic; not only are more and more functions being detected, but it is suspected that junk DNA is full of yet-to-be-discovered “intellectual riches.

That prediction is from 1994. My friend has a whole article about Junk DNA here, with all the predictions from each side.

He says “Carl Wieland founded CMI”. CMI is Creation Ministries International, which is supposed to be the best YEC web site.

Anyway, if you missed the other videos in the series, there is a playlist, but all the videos are out of order! If you want a quick and snarky introduction to intelligent design, this is it.

Does the fossil record match Darwinist predictions or Design predictions? | WINTERY KNIGHT

Does the fossil record match Darwinist predictions or Design predictions?

Recently, I wrote a post about how you can make a simple argument for intelligent design based on junk DNA.  Step 1: find out what Darwinian naturalists claim about junk DNA. Step 2: find out what design proponents claim about junk DNA. Step 3: compare those predictions with scientific discoveries about junk DNA over the past decades. Today we’ll do it with the fossil record.

I’m going to use an amazing article from Günter Bechly from over at Evolution News. Günter writes an article about fossils every Friday (he calls it “Fossil Friday”).

Here’s last Friday’s article, where he gave a nice overview of why Christians should care about the fossil record.

He writes:

This Fossil Friday I want to address the common request to provide an expanded written form of my lectures on discontinuities in the fossil record (e.g., on YouTube) together with references to mainstream scientific papers that back up these arguments against neo-Darwinism. Since the sudden appearance of trilobites in the Cambrian Explosion is one of the best known examples for discontinuities in the fossil record, I chose the early trilobite Wanneria sp. from the Lower Cambrian of Canada as today’s featured fossil. So let’s jump right in.

Then he talks about the predictions of Darwinists and design proponents:

Every theory makes certain predictions and these predictions have to be tested with empirical evidence. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution necessarily predicts a gradual development of life. Therefore he insisted on gradualism, against the advice of his good friend Thomas Huxley. Darwin quoted in his magnum opus The Origin of Species (Darwin 1859) not less that six times the Latin dictum “natura non facit saltus”, nature does not make jumps, because he wanted to present a fully naturalistic explanation for the history of life on our planet, knowing perfectly well that saltations would have tacitly implied miracle-like intelligent interventions. The prediction of gradualism is not accidental and not a dispensable side issue in Darwinism. This was made clear by Richard Dawkins, arguably the most ardent modern popularizer of Darwinism, in his bestselling book The Greatest Show on Earth (Dawkins 2009), where he explicitly clarified that “Evolution not only is a gradual process as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual if it is to do any explanatory work.” In another book titled Climbing Mount Improbable (Dawkins 1996) he explained the reasons with a beautiful metaphor: Imagine the task to reach the top of a steep and tall cliff from the sea shore. It would be an improbable (or rather impossible) miracle to achieve this task with a single big jump. However, if there was a gentle slope on the backside of the cliff, you could easily and effortlessly climb the mountain with a lot of small successive steps. This is the way evolution must operate according to Darwin and Dawkins: not by sudden miraculous jumps, but many small steps, that are each not unlikely to happen accidentally without intelligent intervention, and which accumulate over long periods of time to add up to big biological differences.

Engineers don’t check in code gradually, one letter at a time. We check in a bunch of related changes to different files that implement some feature. Some days, I have a lot of meetings. Some days, I spend time doing code reviews or making diagrams or writing documentation. And some days, I get to write code all day. So, if you look at my Github history, you’ll see that some days I have 35 commits, and other days none. That’s consistent with having a “designer”. The complexity increases in “jumps”, with each jump containing changes to several files, and the changes add some new feature. But that’s not available to Dawkins and Darwin, they don’t like engineers, or sudden jumps in complexity.

Günter lists out a bunch of biological “jumps”, where God pulled an all-nighter, with pizza and Mountain Dew, and checked in a whole bunch of new code all at once.

Here are a few from his list of about 15 of them:

• The Origin of Life (3.8 bya)
• The Origin of Photosynthesis (3.8 bya)
• The Cambrian Explosion (537-508 mya)
• The Carboniferous Insect Explosion (325-314/307 mya)
• The Early Triassic Marine Reptile Radiation (248-240 mya)
• The Mid Triassic Gliding / Flying Reptile Radiation (230-210 mya)
• Upper Triassic Dinosaur Explosion (234-232 mya)
• The Abominable Mystery of the Origin of Flowering Plants (130-115 mya)
• The Paleogene Big Bang of Modern Birds (65-55 mya)

Günter has the details of each of these, but if you have listened to our recent episode about the origin of life with Dr. Fazala Rana, then you already know about the first one. The point is that the fossil record has a whole bunch of “big bangs”, where God checked in a whole bunch of new code in a very short period of time. This is strictly forbidden in Darwinian theory, but the fossil record doesn’t care about theories.

Günter concludes:

The gradualistic core predictions of any unguided evolutionary mechanisms such as neo-Darwinism are strongly contradicted by the empirical evidence. The cumulative conflicting evidence from molecular biology, genetics, population genetics, and the discontinuous fossil record can no longer be explained away as anomalies or as artifacts such as under-sampling of an incomplete fossil record. The total evidence is better explained with pulses of infusion of new information from outside of the system (top-down), rather than with a purely mechanistic stepwise bottom-up process. The only known cause in the universe that is able to produce significant amounts of new complex specified information is the activity of an intelligent conscious agent, so that intelligent design theory qualifies as superior alternative to unguided Darwinian evolution in an inference to the best explanation (abductive reasoning) among competing hypotheses. This is not an argument from ignorance (i.e., God of the gaps) as is often incorrectly claimed by critics, but is based on empirical data and our positive knowledge about the regular causal structure of the universe and the type of causes that exclusively are known to produce certain effects.

And I found a nice lecture that he gave on the topic:

The article was tough for me to understand, but I think I got the big picture of what he was saying. I blogged on it so that I can find it again if I get questions about what evidence there is for a designer. I sure hope that we are making more scientists like him for Team Design, because his post was quality work.

Aliens or Demons? Examining UAPs in Light of Scripture | My Bible Thoughts With Pastor Rich

Aliens or Demons? Examining UAPs in Light of Scripture

As Christians, we face challenges no previous generation of believers has encountered. One of these challenges is the rise of new ideas about the history of the world.

The recent increase in UAP sightings and the government’s acknowledgment of their reality has sparked various reactions within the Christian community. Some Christians view these sightings as potential evidence of extraterrestrial life, raising questions about the uniqueness of humanity and the nature of God’s creation.

Others interpret these events through a spiritual lens, seeing them as manifestations of angelic or demonic forces. Some Christians remain skeptical, attributing the sightings to natural phenomena or misinterpretations.

Among these is a fascinating, albeit controversial, notion propagated by a man named Erich von Däniken. Perhaps you’ve heard of him? If not, let me fill you in.

Von Däniken is famous for proposing that humanity was created or influenced by astronauts—beings from other planets. Surprisingly, he’s not alone. Numerous other writers echo these ideas.

Take Gerald Hawkins, for example. When studying Stonehenge, Hawkins described it as a monument of astonishing precision, a testament to the scientific abilities of prehistoric humans. Others, like Charles Berlitz in Mysteries from Forgotten Worlds, question whether there were advanced civilizations in humanity’s distant past that we know nothing about.

Many today believe that our distant ancestors possessed knowledge about the universe that modern people lack. Some even argue they had powers or access to cosmic forces unknown to us now. Evidence for these theories, they claim, can be found in prehistoric cave paintings that seem to depict astronauts, spaceships, and flying saucers—suggesting that extraterrestrials once ruled and guided this planet.

Increasingly, people believe in “friendly sky people”—benevolent extraterrestrials who want to help us progress as a civilization but are hindered by astral powers or other malevolent beings. This belief isn’t relegated to fringe groups; it’s shared by people across all levels of society, from esteemed professors to casual readers of pulp fiction.

The recent surge in UFO sightings has ignited a dangerous trend: blending these phenomena with biblical interpretations. Millions now ponder the possibility of extraterrestrial life, often turning to the Bible for answers. Unfortunately, many are fixated on literal interpretations, overlooking the spiritual depth within the text.

History has shown the perils of mixing science fiction with religious belief. Scientology, born from a blend of science fiction and psychoanalysis, is a prime example. This commercialized religion, built on fantastical notions of past lives, galactic rulers, and intergalactic wars, has attracted countless followers. It’s a cautionary tale of how easily people can be swayed by such outlandish ideas.

Adding fuel to the fire is the popularity of science fiction. On one end of the spectrum, you have comics designed purely for entertainment; on the other, serious scientific works grappling with questions about extraterrestrial life. Somewhere in between lies a growing belief that humanity no longer needs God because we might owe our existence to superior beings who visited our planet long ago—and perhaps are still watching us.

This new religion—if I may call it that—mixes a bit of science, a lot of imagination, a sprinkle of spirituality, and a dash of the occult. It tells us that our ancestors wielded ancient powers taught to them by visitors from the stars. What primitive people considered magic, this view argues, was merely advanced knowledge passed down by extraterrestrials.

Take Yuri Geller, for instance. The Israeli psychic became a sensation, claiming he could bend spoons and stop watches without touching them. But Geller didn’t attribute his powers to himself; he said they were a gift from “The Nine,” mysterious cosmic controllers of the universe. According to his official biography, Geller was visited by a messenger from The Nine who revealed astral secrets to him.

Even skeptics are beginning to explore questions about telepathy, mental powers, and the like. The Soviet Union, despite its atheism, once set up a department to investigate psychic phenomena, UFOs, and related subjects. These topics are no longer confined to fringe enthusiasts but have gained a foothold in serious academic and scientific discussions.

So why am I bringing all this up? Because as Christians, we must understand the cultural forces shaping the world around us. UFOs and psychic phenomena are fueling a new belief system that claims to explain humanity’s past, present, and future without any reference to God. It promises enlightenment through unraveling mysteries like UFOs, psychic abilities, and the occult.

Now, let’s consider the Christian response.

First, let’s start with von Däniken himself. Von Däniken was a Swiss hotelier with a colorful past, including convictions for fraud, embezzlement, and forgery. Despite this, he managed to sell 25 million books, beginning with his 1969 bestseller Chariots of the Gods. His success has made him a millionaire, spawned TV programs, films, and even an LP. His books are so popular that they’re often unavailable in libraries or bookstores because they’re constantly checked out or sold out.

Von Däniken’s theories include examples like the Piri Reis map, an ancient Turkish map from the 16th century that supposedly shows the coastlines of North and South America and Antarctica with remarkable accuracy—down to mountain ranges hidden beneath ice. According to von Däniken, such precision could only be achieved by an advanced civilization with aerial technology.

He also points to artifacts like an incredibly fine piece of cloth discovered in “Helwan” (a location that remains somewhat obscure) that supposedly surpasses modern textile technology. Or take the island of Elephantine in the Nile River, which, when viewed from above, resembles the shape of an elephant. Von Däniken argues that ancient people could only have known this by aerial observation.

From examples like these, von Däniken concludes that an advanced race once walked the earth, and humanity owes its knowledge and progress to their intervention.

From examples like these, von Däniken concludes that an advanced race once walked the Earth, and humanity owes its knowledge and progress to their intervention.

However, many serious scientists dismiss von Däniken as one of the most outlandish crackpots, while others argue that his ideas deserve consideration. Personally, I find his theories easily dismissible for several reasons.

1. Questionable Evidence and Misinterpretations

Von Däniken often cites biblical references to support his claims. For instance, he interprets the Book of Exodus as describing advanced technology, suggesting that the Ark of the Covenant was made of an alloy too sophisticated for its time. However, such interpretations are inaccurate. The Bible does not mention an alloy; instead, it describes the Ark using materials available during that era.

He also discusses the Piri Reis map, an 18th-century Turkish map that some claim accurately depicts parts of North America, South America, and Antarctica before their discovery. Von Däniken asserts that such precision could only come from an advanced civilization with aerial capabilities. However, upon closer examination, the map contains significant inaccuracies, such as placing Japan where Cuba should be and inaccurately representing mountain ranges beneath the Antarctic ice. These errors undermine his argument that the map is proof of ancient extraterrestrial influence.

2. Flawed Artifact Interpretations

Von Däniken points to artifacts like a piece of cloth found in Helwan, claiming it was produced by superior textile technology beyond the capabilities of ancient civilizations. Yet, the location “Helwan” remains unclear, and there is no credible evidence to support the existence of such advanced textiles during that period.

Another example is the island of Elephantine in the Nile River. Von Däniken suggests that its elephant-like shape, visible only from the air, indicates that ancient people had aerial observation capabilities. In reality, the island’s shape has changed over time due to natural geological processes. The name “Elephantine” derives from the Greek word for ivory, reflecting the island’s historical role in the ivory trade, not its shape.

3. Logical Inconsistencies

Von Däniken’s theories often contain logical fallacies. For example, he argues that ancient humans drew human skeletons with anatomically correct details before the invention of X-rays in 1995. This claim ignores the possibility that such drawings were based on observation or artistic license, not necessarily scientific knowledge.

Additionally, he asserts that ancient inscriptions in northern China describe astronauts and spacecraft. However, linguistic experts have debunked these claims, noting that the supposed inscriptions are either misinterpreted or fabricated.

4. Misrepresentation of Historical Events

Von Däniken suggests that the biblical story of the walls of Jericho falling is evidence of extraterrestrial intervention through sound waves. This interpretation overlooks the symbolic and theological nature of the narrative. Moreover, if extraterrestrial beings had the capability to cause such events, it raises questions about why they didn’t focus on maintaining their presence or technology on Earth, especially given the vast amounts of space debris we observe today.

5. Contradictions with Scientific Understanding

Von Däniken’s theories often contradict established scientific knowledge. For instance, he claims that Sumerians had highly developed astronomy capable of tracking 25 stars. While the Sumerians were indeed advanced in many ways, their astronomical knowledge was not as precise as von Däniken suggests.

Furthermore, his interpretation of ancient art as depicting spacecraft ignores the cultural and artistic contexts of those works. Many symbols and images in ancient art have been misinterpreted through a modern lens, leading to unfounded conclusions about extraterrestrial influence.

The Christian Perspective

As Christians, it’s essential to approach such theories with discernment. The Bible clearly states that God is the creator of the heavens and the Earth, including all stars and galaxies. Humans are uniquely created in God’s image, and the scriptures do not teach that we are one of many intelligent species in the universe. Instead, humanity holds a special place in God’s creation.

Mixing UFO theories with Christian theology can be dangerous. It can lead people to seek answers outside of God’s revelation, focusing on speculative and often unfounded ideas rather than the spiritual truths found in the Bible. Additionally, adopting such beliefs may cause individuals to drift away from their faith, prioritizing human ingenuity or extraterrestrial explanations over divine providence.

Conclusion

While the fascination with UFOs and extraterrestrial life is understandable, it’s crucial to evaluate these ideas critically, especially from a Christian standpoint. Erich von Däniken’s theories, though popular, lack credible evidence and often misinterpret historical and archaeological data. As believers, we are called to seek truth grounded in Scripture, resisting the allure of speculative and unverified claims that divert our focus from God’s truth.

In a world increasingly captivated by science fiction and alternative explanations for humanity’s origins, Christians must remain steady in their faith, upholding the truths revealed in the Bible. By doing so, we can navigate these cultural phenomena with wisdom and grace, ensuring that our beliefs are anchored in the eternal Word of God rather than the fleeting trends of popular culture.

No amount of technological advancement or extraterrestrial intervention can address humanity’s deepest need: reconciliation with God. Romans 5:8 reminds us, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

The Gospel offers a hope and purpose far greater than any speculative alien narrative. It invites us into a relationship with the Creator of the universe, who loves us and has a plan for our redemption.

Bombshell Fauci Documentary Nails The Whole COVID Charade | ZeroHedge

With the changing of the guard, it’s time for long-promised accountability over the unprecedented COVID scam. Not only has Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) promised to hold feet to the fire as the head of the Senate’s government oversight panel, we may actually have a shot at a special counsel investigation and more with Trump’s incoming Attorney General pick, Pam Bondi – a loyalist who’s on record supporting the lab-leak hypothesis.

As regular readers vividly recall, ZeroHedge paid a hefty price for our early reporting on the pandemic, after we suggested that a Chinese lab playing weaponized God with bat COVID might have “something to do” with the COVID outbreak across town.

Millions in ad revenue evaporated. Corporate media (brought to you by Pfizer!) penned numerous hit-pieces, and various companies such as PayPal, Amazon and Mailchimp dropped us like a hot rock; other outlets suffered similarly. However brave reporting from journalists like Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, Paul Thacker and Lee Fang – armed with factual evidence from Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter (now X) and various FOIA lawsuits, has provided more than just breadcrumbs.

Now, four years later, the entire charade has been exposed piece by piece.

A new must-watch documentary by two-time Peabody Award-winning and four-time Emmy nominated director Jenner Furst, a self-described progressive who has broken with the Democratic party, ties it all together.

Thank You, Dr. Fauci

In early 2020, Furst was contacted to direct a puff piece on former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci. The project was scrapped, however three years later, Furst began investigating what actually happened and created “Thank You, Dr. Fauci” – a project which has received virtually no press coverage, and even Rotten Tomatoes critics won’t touch.

Next week, a documentary called “Thank You, Dr. Fauci is releasing and will expose everything you have ever wanted to know about the worst doctor this country has ever known.

Meta has already blocked the trailer from airing.

Make sure you share this clip and get ready for what… pic.twitter.com/OrR2IXta1i

— Joey Mannarino (@JoeyMannarinoUS) October 26, 2024

If you’re thinking ‘you had me at Fauci’ and just want to watch it, a free preview of “Thank You, Dr. Fauci”  is available, and the film can be rented directly on the film’s website, or by using Vimeo On-Demand or Gathr. People can also use Gathr to Book Private Screenings and Partner on TVOD Sales.

If you’re like Elon Musk and you believe that  ‘Prosecute / Fauci’ should be your pronouns, this is what you need to watch to understand why we should prosecute Fauci.

Heavily Censored

While it’s difficult enough to find “Thank You, Dr. Fauci” thanks to search engine shadowbans and downrankings, perhaps the most notable form of censorship is the ongoing media blackout of the film according to Furst – whose previous work has been heavily reviewed, critically acclaimed, and streamed across Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and Paramount.

But not this one.

“The media blackout of the film just proves that the real Covid story is still highly censored,” Furst told ZeroHedge, adding “Journalists still can’t cover Covid truthfully at major outlets, and the problem is way bigger than them or their editors. The most powerful lobbies on the planet, and the weight of the US government is still sitting on the free press like an 800 pound gorilla.”

Elon to the rescue?

Given the level of censorship the film has been subject to, Furst firmly believes that a massive free speech platform such X would be ideal to get the word out – if even for a couple of days.

“I feel like Elon could change this conversation overnight, the country is divided only due to the success of propaganda on the left. No democrat can sit thru this movie and see Fauci or the pandemic the same way again. That’s why MSM doesn’t want to acknowledge this,” Furst told ZeroHedge.

The documentary features notable figures at the heart of the pandemic response, including Dr. Robert Redfield – the former director of the CDC during the outbreak – who was completely shut out of Anthony Fauci’s inner circle while the NIAID boss and top virologists conspired via secret back channels to shape the narrative around COVID origins. Also featured are former State Department COVID investigator David Asher, and Richard Ebright – a Rutgers molecular biologist who’s spent years pushing back against the Fauci wagon-circling by the scientific community.

“Tony believed that the best way to prepare for the next pandemic, was to create it.” – Dr. Robert Redfield, Virologist and Former Head of the CDC.#ThankYouDrFauci is now streaming at https://t.co/WOIVYpts5Q.#FauciKnew #FauciLiedMillionsDied #WatchNow #Covid19 #documentary pic.twitter.com/ZwCWdhZir9

— Thank You Dr Fauci (@ThankYouDrFauci) November 3, 2024

COVID Origins

As the pandemic gripped headlines around the world, the scientific community positioned Fauci – and eventually the Covid vaccines themselves – against Donald Trump, who was open to both the lab-leak theory and alternative treatments such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

‘Thank You, Dr. Fauci’ details the scramble at the highest levels to come up with a narrative that wouldn’t implicate Fauci – or the US Government, for funding decades of research dedicated to enhancing deadly viruses.

Fauci’s top advisors – who initially believed the virus looked manmade, crafted and promoted the narrative that COVID-19 most likely jumped from bats to humans through an intermediary species, “probably at a wet market,” Fauci repeatedly insisted.

Ex-CDC Director Throws Fauci Under the Bus

“This [COVID] virus was not of natural origin. It was an act of scientific ARROGANCE.”

The “wet market theory” that Fauci pushed hard in 2020 was, according to Dr. Redfield, a HOAX.

Redfield knows this because, in early 2020, the… pic.twitter.com/yH05CmwqsU

— Vigilant News (@VigilantNews) November 4, 2024

The lab-leak theory was condemned as a conspiracy theory by the very scientists conducting gain-of-function research, completely ignoring the fact that the virus emerged across town from an NIH-funded facility in Wuhan, China that was creating chimeric bat COVID, where several workers fell ill with a mysterious respiratory virus weeks before the disease spread like wildfire.

HIV Insertions and DEFUSE

‘Thank You Dr. Fauci’ highlights a preprint study from India which found HIV-like insertions in COVID-19 which appeared manmade (and which got ZeroHedge kicked off of Twitter after Fauci’s damage control ‘conclave’ freaked out).

While the Indian preprint was retracted amid immense political pressure to push the ‘natural origin’ hypothesis and ‘conspiricize’ the lab-leak theory, a leaked proposal known as “DEFUSE” – to create an aerosolized chimeric bat COVID that could infect humans, could potentially explain what the Indian researchers observed.

While DEFUSE was ultimately rejected by DARPA, it’s entirely possible that Ecohealth Alliance – the nonprofit which received NIH contracts to conduct GoF research after the Obama admin banned it in 2014 – simply went ahead with it anyway.

 

Critical Questions

‘Thank You, Dr. Fauci’ raises many critical questions that will come into focus next year under the gavel of Rand Paul:

• Was the pandemic that killed millions and cost trillions of dollars the consequence of scientific arrogance and spy games?
• How did the Anthrax hoax of 2001 create unchecked power for Anthony Fauci?
• Why hasn’t Fauci ever acknowledged that hoax, which resulted in then-Vice President  Dick Cheney giving him billions to fund perhaps the most dangerous research on the planet?
• What is the real purpose of Gain-of-Function research?
• Are past outbreaks potentially scientific accidents which were covered up?
• What is Long Covid, and why are people suffering vaccine injuries with similar symptoms?
• Will a lab-generated Bird Flu be the next chapter?
• Are nameless scientists – in the US, China or elsewhere – quietly working on a new global pandemic?

Meanwhile, the intelligence community continues to cover up the origins of the pandemic, which is why widespread distribution of this work is that much more important.

SENATE LETTER TO CIA IG: We have whistleblowers and IC is covering up how the pandemic began. Investigate and report back.

CIA IG: I’m out of here. Save me, @POGOwatchdog! https://t.co/K7EbNV76Q7 https://t.co/w19TAduFXH pic.twitter.com/GzHhzkmTPH

— Paul D. Thacker (@thackerpd) November 19, 2024

Putting it all together, ​once the general public comes to understan that Covid was likely the product of US research offshored to a French-built lab in Wuhan, China, which resulted in millions of deaths and trillions in debt, not to mention runaway inflation which has crushed incumbent political powers around the globe, the charade will finally be over and the era of accountability must begin.

Again, watch ‘Thank You Dr. Fauci’ here…

Source: Bombshell Fauci Documentary Nails The Whole COVID Charade

Luke Barnes on the fine-tuning of the strong force and fine structure constant | WINTERY KNIGHT

Luke Barnes on the fine-tuning of the strong force and fine structure constant

By now, anyone who has had discussions about scientific evidence for the existence of God knows about the fine-tuning argument. In a nutshell, if the fundamental constants and quantities given in the Big Bang were even slightly other than they are, then the universe itself would not be hospitable for complex, embodied intelligent life.

Here is an article from The New Atlantis written by Australian cosmologist Luke Barnes.

Excerpt:

Today, our deepest understanding of the laws of nature is summarized in a set of equations. Using these equations, we can make very precise calculations of the most elementary physical phenomena, calculations that are confirmed by experimental evidence. But to make these predictions, we have to plug in some numbers that cannot themselves be calculated but are derived from measurements of some of the most basic features of the physical universe. These numbers specify such crucial quantities as the masses of fundamental particles and the strengths of their mutual interactions. After extensive experiments under all manner of conditions, physicists have found that these numbers appear not to change in different times and places, so they are called the fundamental constants of nature.

[…]A universe that has just small tweaks in the fundamental constants might not have any of the chemical bonds that give us molecules, so say farewell to DNA, and also to rocks, water, and planets. Other tweaks could make the formation of stars or even atoms impossible. And with some values for the physical constants, the universe would have flickered out of existence in a fraction of a second. That the constants are all arranged in what is, mathematically speaking, the very improbable combination that makes our grand, complex, life-bearing universe possible is what physicists mean when they talk about the “fine-tuning” of the universe for life.

Let’s look at an example – the strong force. Not only must the strong force be fine-tuned so we have both hydrogen and helium, but the ratio of the strong force must also be fine-tuned with the fine structure constant.

Barnes writes:

The strong nuclear force, for example, is the glue that holds protons and neutrons together in the nuclei of atoms. If, in a hypothetical universe, it is too weak, then nuclei are not stable and the periodic table disappears again. If it is too strong, then the intense heat of the early universe could convert all hydrogen into helium — meaning that there could be no water, and that 99.97 percent of the 24 million carbon compounds we have discovered would be impossible, too. And, as the chart to the right shows, the forces, like the masses, must be in the right balance. If the electromagnetic force, which is responsible for the attraction and repulsion of charged particles, is too strong or too weak compared to the strong nuclear force, anything from stars to chemical compounds would be impossible.

Here’s the chart he’s referencing:

Fine-tuning of the strong nuclear force and the fine structure constant

As you can see from the chart, most of the values that the constants could take would make complex, embodied intelligent life impossible.

We need carbon (carbon-based life) because they form the basis of the components of life chemistry, e.g. proteins, sugars, etc. We need hydrogen for water. We need chemical reactions for obvious reasons. We need the light from the stars to support plant and animal life on the surface of a planet. And so on. In almost every case where you change the values of these constants and quantities and ratios from what they are, you will end up with a universe that does not support life. Not just life as we know it, but life of any conceivable kind under these laws of physics. And we don’t have any alternative laws of physics in this universe.

By the way, just to show you how mainstream these examples of fine-tuning are, I thought I would link to a source that you’re all going to be familiar with: The New Scientist.

The fine-tuning of the force of gravity

So here is an article from the New Scientist about a different constant that also has to be fine-tuned for life: the force of gravity.

Excerpt:

The feebleness of gravity is something we should be grateful for. If it were a tiny bit stronger, none of us would be here to scoff at its puny nature.

The moment of the universe‘s birth created both matter and an expanding space-time in which this matter could exist. While gravity pulled the matter together, the expansion of space drew particles of matter apart – and the further apart they drifted, the weaker their mutual attraction became.

It turns out that the struggle between these two was balanced on a knife-edge. If the expansion of space had overwhelmed the pull of gravity in the newborn universe, stars, galaxies and humans would never have been able to form. If, on the other hand, gravity had been much stronger, stars and galaxies might have formed, but they would have quickly collapsed in on themselves and each other. What’s more, the gravitational distortion of space-time would have folded up the universe in a big crunch. Our cosmic history could have been over by now.

Only the middle ground, where the expansion and the gravitational strength balance to within 1 part in 10¹⁵ at 1 second after the big bang, allows life to form.

Notice how the article also mentioned “the universe’s birth”, which is part of mainstream science.

When I’m writing to you about things like the origin of the universe, or the cosmic fine-tuning, I’m not talking to you about things that pastors found in the Bible. These discoveries are known and accepted by mainstream scientists. It’s amazing that people are constructing their worldviews without having to account for the birth of the universe and this cosmic fine-tuning. We all, as rational individuals, have to bound our view of the universe with the findings of science. Right now, those findings support the existence of a Creator and a Designer. So why am I seeing so many atheists who are just plain ignorant about these facts? Maybe we should tell them about this evidence. Maybe we should ask them why they don’t account for scientific evidence when forming their beliefs.

Positive arguments for Christian theism

• The kalam cosmological argument and the Big Bang theory
• The fine-tuning argument from cosmological constants and quantities
• The origin of life, part 1 of 2: the building blocks of life
• The origin of life, part 2 of 2: biological information
• The sudden origin of phyla in the Cambrian explosion
• Galactic habitable zones and circumstellar habitable zones
• Irreducible complexity in molecular machines
• The creative limits of natural selection and random mutation
• Angus Menuge’s ontological argument from reason
• Alvin Plantinga’s epistemological argument from reason
• William Lane Craig’s moral argument
• The unexpected applicability of mathematics to nature
• Arguments and scientific evidence for non-physical minds

How many evidences do you know for the origin of the universe? | WINTERY KNIGHT

How many evidences do you know for the origin of the universe?

It’s very, very important to get a conversation about spiritual things started off on the right foot. My favorite place to start is with the origin of the universe. I always use the same 3 evidences, but I found an article that has even MORE. First, let me talk about the ones I like, then I’ll send you the link to the article with the bigger list. Once you get the beginning proved, the next question is: who caused it?

Here’s the article from J. Warner Wallace.

He writes this:

My career as a Cold Case Detective was built on being evidentially certain about the suspects I brought to trial. There are times when my certainty was established and confirmed by the cumulative and diverse nature of the evidence. Let me give you an example. It’s great when a witness sees the crime and identifies the suspect, but it’s even better if we have DNA evidence placing the suspect at the scene. If the behavior of the suspect (before and after the time of the crime) also betrays his involvement, and if his statements when interviewed are equally incriminating, the case is even better. Cases such as these become more and more reasonable as they grow both in depth and diversity. It’s not just that we now have four different evidences pointing to the same conclusion, it’s that these evidences are from four different categories. Eyewitness testimony, forensic DNA, behaviors and admissions all point to the same reasonable inference. When we have a cumulative, diverse case such as this, our inferences become more reasonable and harder to deny. Why did I take the time to describe this evidential approach to reasonable conclusions? Because a similar methodology can be used to determine whether everything in the universe (all space, time and matter) came from nothing. We have good reason to believe our universe had a beginning, and this inference is established by a cumulative, diverse evidential case.

Here is his list of evidences:

1. Philosophical Evidence
2. Theoretical Evidence
3. Observational Evidence
4. Thermal Evidence
5. Quantitative Evidence
6. Residual Evidence

Now, if you listened to our podcast with astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, I mentioned the ones that I like, which are #3, #5 and #6. And I like these, because they are scientific, and because I have clever ways of explaining them using simple terms.

Here’s what he says:

3. Observational Evidence (from Astronomical Data)

Vesto Slipher, an American astronomer working at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, spent nearly ten years perfecting his understanding of spectrograph readings. His observations revealed something remarkable. If a distant object was moving toward Earth, its observable spectrograph colors shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum. If a distant object was moving away from Earth, its colors shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. Slipher identified several “nebulae” and observed a “redshift” in their spectrographic colors. If these “nebulae” were moving away from our galaxy (and one another) as Slipher observed, they must have once been tightly clustered together. By 1929, Astronomer Edwin Hubble published findings of his own, verifying Slipher’s observations and demonstrating the speed at which a star or galaxy moves away from us increases with its distance from the earth. This once again confirmed the expansion of the universe.

5. Quantitative Evidence (from the Abundance of Helium)

As Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle studied the way elements are created within stars, he was able to calculate the amount of helium created if the universe came into being from nothing. Helium is the second most abundant element in the universe (Hydrogen is the first), but in order to form helium by nuclear fusion, temperatures must be incredibly high and conditions must be exceedingly dense. These would have been the conditions if the universe came into being from nothing. Hoyle’s calculations related to the formation of helium happen to coincide with our measurements of helium in the universe today. This, of course, is consistent with the universe having a moment of beginning.

6. Residual Evidence (from the Cosmic Background Radiation)

In 1964, two American physicists and radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected what is now referred to as “echo radiation”, winning a Nobel Prize for their discovery in 1978. Numerous additional experiments and observations have since established the existence of cosmic background radiation, including data from the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite launched in 1989, and the Planck space observatory launched in 2009. For many scientists, this discovery alone solidified their belief the universe had a beginning. If the universe leapt into existence, expanding from a state of tremendous heat, density and expansion, we should expect find this kind of cosmic background radiation.

So, I’ve made simple analogies for these, so that I can explain them to people from every background.

For #5, for example, I use the story of leaving you in a room with beads and strings and then watching you make one necklace of beads, and timing you, and then leaving you for an hour, and coming back and estimating how many necklaces you will have made, and how many beads you have left. With respect to the beginning of the universe, at the very beginning, it’s all hydrogen (beads). But there is nuclear fusion going on, and the beads are being fused into heavier elements like helium and carbon and oxygen (necklaces). Well, astronomers made predictions about HOW MUCH helium you could fuse during the very hot period, according to the standard cosmology, and the prediction was for 75% hydrogen (beads) and 24% helium (necklaces), and that’s exactly what we see today.

And for #6, I talk about baking a cake. Suppose you heated up your oven and put a ban full of cake batter in there for an hour. You notice that the room is 68 Fahrenheit (20 Celsius) when the cake went in. Then you take the cake out to cool, but you leave the oven open. An hour later, you notice that the oven is cool, but the temperature of the room has gone up to 72 Fahrenheit (22 Celsius). When you have a source of heat in a small area, then you open it up in a bigger area, the smaller area cools down, and the bigger area warms up a bit. Astronomers made a prediction that the very hot creation event would leave a small 3 degrees Kelvin “cosmic microwave background radiation” everywhere in space, and when they were finally able to measure it, they found that the predicted 3 Kelvin temperature was found exactly as predicted.

So, if you don’t know all of these evidences for a beginning, read the article, pick your favorites, and be ready to explain them.

Why We Know Our Universe, And Everything In It, Had A Beginning first | Cold Case Christianity

https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-we-know-our-universe-and-everything-in-it-had-a-beginning-free-bible-insert/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-we-know-our-universe-and-everything-in-it-had-a-beginning-free-bible-insert

My career as a Cold Case Detective was built on being evidentially certain about the suspects I brought to trial. There are times when my certainty was established and confirmed by the cumulative and diverse nature of the evidence. Let me give you an example. It’s great when a witness sees the crime and identifies the suspect, but it’s even better if we have DNA evidence placing the suspect at the scene. If the behavior of the suspect (before and after the time of the crime) also betrays his involvement, and if his statements when interviewed are equally incriminating, the case is even better. Cases such as these become more and more reasonable as they grow both in depth and diversity. It’s not just that we now have four different evidences pointing to the same conclusion, it’s that these evidences are from four different categories. Eyewitness testimony, forensic DNA, behaviors and admissions all point to the same reasonable inference. When we have a cumulative, diverse case such as this, our inferences become more reasonable and harder to deny. Why did I take the time to describe this evidential approach to reasonable conclusions? Because a similar methodology can be used to determine whether everything in the universe (all space, time and matter) came from nothing. We have good reason to believe our universe had a beginning, and this inference is established by a cumulative, diverse evidential case:

Philosophical Evidence (from the Impossibility of Infinite Regress)
Imagine a linear race track with a start and finish line. Now imagine you’re a new police recruit and I’ve asked you to put on your track shoes and step into the starting blocks for a physical training (PT) test. The finish line is one hundred yards away. As you place your feet in the blocks and prepare to run, I raise the starting pistol. Just before I fire it, however, I stop and tell you to move the start line and blocks back six inches. You reluctantly do that. Again I raise the pistol to the sky—only to command you, once again, to move the line back six inches. You grudgingly comply. Imagine this continues. Question: Will you ever reach the finish line? No. Unless there is a beginning, you’ll never get to the finish. In a similar way, time also requires a beginning in order for any of us to reach a finish; unless time has a beginning, we cannot arrive at the finish line we call “today.”

Theoretical Evidence (from Mathematics and Physics)
Albert Einstein’s calculations related to the general theory of relativity 1916 indicated the universe was dynamic (either expanding or contracting). The notion of a static universe was so common at the time, however, that Einstein applied a mathematical “constant” to his calculations to maintain the unchanging, uniform nature of the universe he hoped for (he later referred to this effort as “the biggest blunder he ever made in his life” ). Einstein’s calculations suggested the universe was not eternally old and unchanging. Alexander Friedmann, a Russian mathematician working with Einstein’s theories in the 1920’s, developed a mathematical model predicting an expanding universe. This conclusion inferred the universe must have had a beginning from which it was expanding.

Observational Evidence (from Astronomical Data)
Vesto Slipher, an American astronomer working at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona, spent nearly ten years perfecting his understanding of spectrograph readings. His observations revealed something remarkable. If a distant object was moving toward Earth, its observable spectrograph colors shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum. If a distant object was moving away from Earth, its colors shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. Slipher identified several “nebulae” and observed a “redshift” in their spectrographic colors. If these “nebulae” were moving away from our galaxy (and one another) as Slipher observed, they must have once been tightly clustered together. By 1929, Astronomer Edwin Hubble published findings of his own, verifying Slipher’s observations and demonstrating the speed at which a star or galaxy moves away from us increases with its distance from the earth. This once again confirmed the expansion of the universe.

Thermal Evidence (from the Second Law of Thermodynamics)
Imagine walking into a room and observing a wind-up toy police car. The longer you watch it roll, the slower it moves. You realize the car is winding down—that is, the amount of usable energy is decreasing. It’s reasonable to infer the car was recently wound up prior to your entry into the room. The fact the toy car is not yet completely unwound indicates it was wound up recently. If the car had been wound much earlier, we would expect it to be motionless by the time we entered the room. In a similar way, the fact our universe still exhibits useful energy—even though the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates we are on our way to a cosmic “heat death”—indicates a beginning. Otherwise, and if the universe were infinitely old, our cosmos should have run out of usable energy by now. We can reasonably infer it was once tightly wound and full of energy.

Quantitative Evidence (from the Abundance of Helium)
As Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle studied the way elements are created within stars, he was able to calculate the amount of helium created if the universe came into being from nothing. Helium is the second most abundant element in the universe (Hydrogen is the first), but in order to form helium by nuclear fusion, temperatures must be incredibly high and conditions must be exceedingly dense. These would have been the conditions if the universe came into being from nothing. Hoyle’s calculations related to the formation of helium happen to coincide with our measurements of helium in the universe today. This, of course, is consistent with the universe having a moment of beginning.

Residual Evidence (from the Cosmic Background Radiation)
In 1964, two American physicists and radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected what is now referred to as “echo radiation”, winning a Nobel Prize for their discovery in 1978. Numerous additional experiments and observations have since established the existence of cosmic background radiation, including data from the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite launched in 1989, and the Planck space observatory launched in 2009. For many scientists, this discovery alone solidified their belief the universe had a beginning. If the universe leapt into existence, expanding from a state of tremendous heat, density and expansion, we should expect find this kind of cosmic background radiation.

---

The evidence for the beginning of the universe is decidedly diverse
Share on X

---

There are numerous, diverse lines of evidence pointing to the same reasonable inference. As we assemble the philosophical evidence from the impossibility of infinite regress, the theoretical evidence from mathematics and physics, the observational evidence from astronomical data, the thermal evidence from the second law of thermodynamics, the quantitative evidence from the abundance of helium, and the residual evidence from the cosmic background radiation, we quickly recognize the different nature of these varied forms of evidence. That’s what makes the case so powerful. Just like my criminal cases, when multiple divergent lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion, you can trust you’re making a proper inference. The evidence for the beginning of the universe is decidedly diverse:

I’ve briefly excerpted this case from one chapter in my book: please read God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for A Divinely Created Universe.

For more information about the scientific and philosophical evidence pointing to a Divine Creator, please read God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe. This book employs a simple crime scene strategy to investigate eight pieces of evidence in the universe to determine the most reasonable explanation. The book is accompanied by an eight-session God’s Crime Scene DVD Set (and Participant’s Guide) to help individuals or small groups examine the evidence and make the case.

The post Why We Know Our Universe, And Everything In It, Had A Beginning first appeared on Cold Case Christianity.

The DNA Replisome: A Paradigm of Design | Cross Examined

The DNA replisome is one of the most remarkable molecular machines, involving a complex of different proteins, each of which is very specifically crafted to fulfill its role in the process of replicating the genome in preparation for cell division. The rate of DNA replication has been measured at a whopping 749 nucleotides per second[1] and the error rate for accurate polymerases is believed to be in the range of 10-7 and 10-7, based on studies of E. coli and bacteriophage DNA replication.[2]

One of the best animations of this incredible process is this one by Australian animator Drew Berry. It is difficult to look at an animation such as this (which is drastically over-simplified) and not come away with the strong intuition that such an intricately choreographed machine is the product of masterful engineering. Stable and functional protein structures are astronomically rare in combinatorial sequence space, and DNA replication requires many of them. But not just any old stably folding proteins will do. These proteins have to be crafted very particularly in order to perform their respective jobs. Indeed, when one focuses on specific proteins, it takes the design intuition to new heights. For example, see these beautiful animations of topoisomerase, helicase, and DNA polymerase. One paper summarizes the engineering prowess of DNA replication thus [3]:

Synthesis of all genomic DNA involves the highly coordinated action of multiple polypeptides. These proteins assemble two new DNA chains at a remarkable pace, approaching 1000 nucleotides (nt) per second in E. coli. If the DNA duplex were 1 m in diameter, then the following statements would roughly describe E. coli replication. The fork would move at approximately 600km/hr (375 mph), and the replication machinery would be about the size of a FedEx delivery truck. Replicating the E. coli genome would be a 40 min, 400 km (250 mile) trip for two such machines, which would, on average make an error only once every 170 km (106 miles). The mechanical prowess of this complex is even more impressive given that it synthesizes two chains simultaneously as it moves. Although one strand is synthesized in the same direction as the fork is moving, the other chain (the lagging strand) is synthesized in a piecemeal fashion (as Okazaki fragments) and in the opposite direction of overall fork movement. As a result, about once a second one delivery person (i.e. polymerase active site) associated with the truck must take a detour, coming off and then rejoining its template DNA strand, to synthesize the 0.2km (0.13 mile) fragments.[3]

Irreducible Complexity on Steroids

DNA replication is an example of what we might call “irreducible complexity on steroids.” Genome duplication is a prerequisite of differential survival, which is necessary for the process of natural selection to even work. Thus, one can hardly appeal to natural selection to account for the origins of DNA replication without assuming the existence of the very thing one is attempting to explain. It is difficult to envision a viable replication system that is simpler than the DNA replisome shown in the animation above. Though the RNA world scenario (which maintains that RNA-based life predates life based on DNA and proteins) is a popular hypothesis, problems abound for this scenario, as has been discussed many times in various other publications (e.g., Meyer, Signature in the Cell, Ch. 14). For example, one of the foremost challenges is the inherent instability of RNA (being single-stranded, and possessing an additional 2’ OH group, rendering it prone to hydrolysis). RNA polymers are therefore extremely unlikely to have survived in the early earth environment for long enough to be of much value. Second, when RNA forms complementary base pairs to fold back on itself, part of the molecule no longer presents an exposed strand that can serve as a template for copying. Thus, there is a physical limitation on the capability of RNA to self-replicate.

A further reason why the DNA replication machinery exhibits irreducible complexity on steroids is that, by being so primitive, it is far more difficult to envision any kind of co-optation scenario than it would be for a system that arose much later, such as bacterial flagella. With the flagellum, one can at least point to alternative functions that might be performed by a number of the flagellar components (such as the Type-III Secretion System). However, with DNA replication, it is unclear what other systems any of the components might be co-opted from – since any other system would need to have arisen after the origins of DNA replication.

An even more striking enigma is that, across the three domains of life, the key enzymes (in particular, the replicative polymerases) are not homologous, which has led to the suggestion that DNA replication may have arisen more than once independently.[4] This observation sits more comfortably on a design paradigm than on one committed to naturalism.

Which Components Are Essential for DNA Replication?

What protein components that are involved in DNA replication are indispensable for function? First, there is the DNA polymerase that actually performs the copying of each strand. Without it, no replication would take place at all. But, the DNA polymerase is unable to begin replication without the presence of a free 3’ OH (hydroxyl) group. Thus, another enzyme — a form of RNA polymerase called a primase — creates a short RNA fragment (called a primer) from which the DNA polymerase can extend (unlike DNA polymerase, the primase does not require the presence of a free 3’ OH group). Thus, in the absence of the primase enzyme, no RNA primers would be laid down on either the leading or lagging strand, and DNA replication would be unable to commence. Furthermore, the DNA polymerase itself has to be attached to the DNA by a ring-shaped protein known as a sliding clamp (which prevents it from falling off the DNA template strand). But, the sliding clamp cannot directly attach to the DNA on its own. Instead, a protein complex called the clamp loader mediates the loading of the sliding clamp onto the DNA at the replication fork, utilizing the energy from ATP hydrolysis to open the sliding clamp ring and load it onto the DNA. In the absence of the sliding clamp or clamp loader, the DNA polymerase would frequently fall off the DNA template, rendering it extremely inefficient.

Of course, the replication process cannot begin unless the DNA double helix is unzipped, and this is accomplished by the enzyme helicase, which breaks the hydrogen bonds along the DNA molecule, thereby opening up and exposing the two strands for replication by the polymerase. In its absence, the DNA polymerase will stall, unable to separate the strands that lie ahead.

Even with the helicase enzyme separating the two strands, the strands are likely to reanneal during the copying process. Enter the single-stranded binding proteins which bind to the exposed DNA strands, preventing them from re-annealing during copying. Without them, the DNA strands would bind together again before they were able to be copied.

The topoisomerase enzymes are necessary for removing supercoils that are induced by the torsional stress. They do so by cutting one strand, passing the other strand through the gap, and then resealing the break. In the absence of the topoisomerase enzymes, the DNA would eventually break, thereby hindering the DNA replication process.

Because of the anti-parallel nature of DNA (and the fact that the DNA polymerase can only replicate in a 5’ to 3’ direction), one strand, the lagging strand, has to be replicated backwards (in order for the replication fork to move in a single direction). This is done discontinuously in small sections. RNA primers are laid down by primase, and from those are synthesized short fragments of DNA known as Okazaki fragments. The RNA primers are then removed and replaced with DNA, and the Okazaki fragments are stitched together by the enzyme ligase. We have already discussed the necessity of the primase enzyme for synthesizing RNA primers. It may be added that, in the absence of the RNA excision enzymes (which remove the RNA primers), the RNA fragments would remain covalently attached to the newly replicated fragments of DNA. Moreover, in the absence of ligase (which links the Okazaki fragments together), the newly replicated strands would remain as fragments.

If the removal of any of the aforementioned components would render the DNA replication machinery non-functional, how could such a system come about through an undirected Darwinian step-wise pathway, preserving selective utility at every step along the way? Whatever process produced the DNA replisome had to know where the target was. Such a cause would have to be teleological in nature.

A Paradigm of Design

The DNA replication machinery represents one of the most extraordinary examples of nanotechnology found in the cell. In any other realm of experience, such a complex and delicate arrangement of parts would be immediately recognized as reflecting conscious intent — that is, as being the product of a mind. Why should such an inference be disallowed when examining biological systems? For more detail on this fascinating molecular machine, see my interview on it from last summer on ID the Future. I also published an earlier series (more than a decade ago) exploring the various protein components in more detail. You can find these here:

• “DNA Replication: An Engineering Marvel”
• “Replicating DNA with Extraordinary Fidelity: Meet DNA Polymerase”
• “Unwinding the Double Helix: Meet DNA Helicase”

If you enjoyed the animation by Drew Berry linked at the beginning of this article, here is a more detailed animation, produced by Oxford University Press. Here is a second animation which reveals how the DNA polymerases are coupled so that they can move in the same direction.

References: 

[1] McCarthy D, Minner C, Bernstein H, Bernstein C. DNA elongation rates and growing point distributions of wild-type phage T4 and a DNA-delay amber mutant. J Mol Biol. 1976 Oct 5;106(4):963-81.

[2] Schaaper RM. Base selection, proofreading, and mismatch repair during DNA replication in Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem.1993 Nov 15;268(32):23762-5.

[3] Baker TA, Bell SP. Polymerases and the replisome: machines within machines. Cell. 1998 Feb 6;92(3):295-305.

[4] Leipe DD, Aravind L, Koonin EV. Did DNA replication evolve twice independently? Nucleic Acids Res. 1999 Sep 1;27(17):3389-401; and Brown JR, Doolittle WF. Archaea and the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1997 Dec;61(4):456-502.

Recommended Resources:

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

---

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.

This article was originally published on March 21st, 2024, at Evolution News & Science Today.

And republished at: https://bit.ly/4f6pp5q

The post The DNA Replisome: A Paradigm of Design appeared first on Cross Examined.

https://crossexamined.org/the-dna-replisome-a-paradigm-of-design/

Scientism -The idea that science is the only path to knowledge | Cross Examined

You have probably heard it said, “You have to prove that scientifically.” Or even in news reports that “studies have shown . . . ”  Or maybe you have heard that science is the final or ultimate source of knowledge. Behind these sentiments may lie a belief called “scientism.”  This mentality has even been put simply: “If I can’t see it, hear it, or feel it, it doesn’t exist.”[i]

What is Scientism?

This belief elevates science to a place of religious devotion and is known as “scientism.” Scientism is the idea that we should believe only what can be proven scientifically. That is, science is the sole source of knowledge and truth.

No doubt, science is a wonderful means of finding out truths about the world and a means of knowledge about the natural world, but science is not the final arbiter of truth. Nevertheless, some claim (or even act as if) science is the only means of knowledge and truth. Here are some examples of people asserting scientism:

• “Whatever knowledge is attainable must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know” – (Bertrand Russell Religion and Science, 243).
• “Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge” – (Stephen Hawking The Grand Design, 13).
• “Science, as the only begetter of truth” – (Richard Lewontin, The New York Review of Books1/9/97).
• “We trust science as the only way to acquire knowledge. That is why we are so confident about atheism” – (Alex Rosenberg The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, 20).

Problems with Scientism

Despite all the acclaim, there are several problems with scientism:

Scientism is too restrictive. If science were the only source and final arbitrator of knowledge and truth, then whole fields of knowledge and truth would have to be abandoned, which most of us consider legitimate truths and knowledge claims.  For example, if science is the only source of truth, we would have to abandon mathematical truths, historical knowledge, logical, moral, and aesthetic truths.  Any theory of knowledge (such as scientism) that excludes these obvious avenues of truth must be abandoned before you abandon these truths.

Scientism is self-refuting – If the only source of knowledge and truth is science, then the claim that “the only source of knowledge and truth is science” is not knowable or true. Why? Because the claim is not true “because of science” or” known through science,” and if science is not known by science, you shouldn’t believe that only science leads to truth and knowledge.

Science is a great and noble discipline. We gain much knowledge and truth through it and will continue to gain knowledge and truth through science. But let’s not come with the mistaken belief that science is the best or only means of truth and knowledge. The attitude that only science can lead to knowledge and truth is unwarranted, misleading, and self-contradictory.

Scientism has been Thoroughly Discredited

In his excellent work Love Your God With All Your Mind, J. P. Moreland shares why we should reject scientism:

“What I do reject is the idea that science and science alone can claim to give us knowledge. This assertion—known as scientism—is patently false and, in fact, not even a claim of science but rather a philosophical view about science.”[ii]

William Lane Craig dismantles the claim that Peter Atkins, a professor at Oxford University, makes that science accounts for everything: [Video]. See also, “Is Scientism Self-Refuting?” Reasonable Faith, Mar 21, 2011

J.P. Moreland, the author of Scientism and Secularism, discusses this issue of scientism in this video. See also, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology(Crossway: 2018)

J. Warner Wallace refutes it in “The Dangers of ‘Scientism’ and an Over-Reliance on Science”Cold-Case Christianity (8 Sept. 2023).

Edward Feser also discredits this theory in “Blinded by Scientism” Public Discourse (9 March 2010).

For more Scientific Apologetics from Steve Lee see:

• Science Series: C. S. Lewis on Scientism, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
• Science Series: The Myth that the Church Hindered the Development of Science
• Science Series: The Myth that Galileo Goes to Jail
• Science Series: The Flat Earth Myth
• Science Series: Finely Tuned Cosmos
• Science Series: The Dawkins Delusion Continues
• Science Series: “Inherit the Wind”
• Science Series: Was Belief in God a Science-Stopper? Not for Newton
• Science Series: Oxford Professor-Atheism in Decline, Will be Defeated by Faith
• Science Series: Creation Confusion – Resources for Research on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design
• Science Series: Bill Nye the Pseudo-Science Guy
• Science Series: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God – the Most Popular Article in Wall Street Journal History
• Warfare Myth: Science vs. Religion

References:

[i] Editor’s Note: Scientism is often paired with empiricism, which is the idea that knowledge/truth can only be accessed through one’s empirical senses (touch, taste, sight, etc.).

[ii] J.P. Moreland, Love God with All Your Mind (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1997), p. 33-34.

Recommended Resources:

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

---

J. Steve Lee has taught Apologetics for over two and a half decades at Prestonwood Christian Academy.  He also has taught World Religions and Philosophy at Mountain View College in Dallas and Collin College in Plano.  With a degree in history and education from the University of North Texas, Steve continued his formal studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a M.A. in philosophy of religion and has pursued doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Dallas and is finishing his dissertation at South African Theological Seminary.  He has published several articles for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students as well as articles and book reviews in various periodicals including Philosophia Christi, Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics, and the Areopagus Journal.  Having an abiding love for fantasy fiction, Steve has contributed chapters to two books on literary criticism of Harry Potter: Harry Potter for Nerds and Teaching with Harry Potter.  He even appeared as a guest on the podcast MuggleNet Academia (“Lesson 23: There and Back Again-Chiasmus, Alchemy, and Ring Composition in Harry Potter”).  He is married to his lovely wife, Angela, and has two grown boys, Ethan and Josh.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4fELbgL

The post Scientism -The idea that science is the only path to knowledge appeared first on Cross Examined.

https://crossexamined.org/scientism-the-idea-that-science-is-the-only-path-to-knowledge/

Why DNA is Best Explained by the Existence of God (Video) | Cold Case Christianity

https://coldcasechristianity.com/videos/why-dna-is-best-explained-by-the-existence-of-god-video/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-dna-is-best-explained-by-the-existence-of-god-video

Does DNA contain coded information? If so, what does this code tell us about the nature of its source? Can anything other than a mind account for information? What kind of mind would explain the information we find in DNA?

To see more training videos with J. Warner Wallace, visit the YouTube playlist.

For more information about the scientific and philosophical evidence pointing to a Divine Creator, please read God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe. This book employs a simple crime scene strategy to investigate eight pieces of evidence in the universe to determine the most reasonable explanation. The book is accompanied by an eight-session God’s Crime Scene DVD Set (and Participant’s Guide) to help individuals or small groups examine the evidence and make the case.

The post Why DNA is Best Explained by the Existence of God (Video) first appeared on Cold Case Christianity.