New Covenant

Truly cool

Astronomers capture first images of new planets, per CNN,

Why evolution can't win (v. 3)

From the Thumb,

The title gets the principal objection of any creationist out of the way: yes, this population of Podarcis sicula is still made up of lizards, but they're a different kind of lizard now. Evolution works. (emphasis in original)

So, the thinking must go, if we see the evolution of one kind of lizard into a different kind of lizard (in only 30 years), then imagine what can occur over the course of millions of years? Unwarranted extrapolation at work, once again.

The reference, from the Thumb, is to a National Geographic article titled, Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island. From the article,

Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows.

Yet, if the changes seen normally take millions of years to occur, shouldn't one be skeptical of either the evolution documented or the claim that it normally takes millions of years? And, if the changes were the same as one would expect over millions of years, aren't we now in a position to perform experiments in much the same manner as animal breeders? Indeed, the next step we should take, from these different kind of lizards, is to attempt to force speciation. Regardless, there would seem to be a lot of questions that need answering.

Or, maybe not.

Also reference Reasons to Believe's Science News Flash podcast for April 25, which covered this article. Dr. Fuz Rana notes that the evolved lizard is genetically identical to the original lizard. He argues that the changes seen are micro-evolutionary in nature (with a special footnote regarding the emergence of a new valve in the evolved lizard).

Why evolution can't win (v. 2)

Attempt to expel Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed from movie theaters because it used two lines from John Lennon's song Imagine.

Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too

Imagine.

Cool Space Gallery Site

A cool space gallery site from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, CA.

Quick-Book-Review: State of Fear, by Michael Crichton

After writing essays and giving speeches on the reasons he disagrees with the "consensus" that human-induced global warming is a direct threat to our planet, Michael Crichton, evidently, decided to write the techno-thriller State of Fear (2004).

In State of Fear he essentially presents the same arguments he's made in his speeches, albeit in the context of a fictional story. The book follows the exploits of a lawyer, government security agent, and company, as they criss-cross the globe on the trail of eco-terrorists intent on causing massive catastrophes, all to further their cause (that being the universal acknowledgment of human-induced global warming of the doomsday variety). Unlike some of his other thrillers, Crichton notes that all references to real people, institutions, charts, and data, are documented (through his use of footnotes). Besides including a bibliography (for a work of fiction), he also includes a section titled Author's Message, as well as two appendices.

In the Author's Message, he clarifies his position on the topic of global warming, basically stating that we know very little about the complex process of climate change, that there is a variety of data on the subject, and that we do not have the knowledge or the ability to effectively manage the environment. Some have criticized Crichton for writing, in State of Fear, nothing more than a long op-ed piece. Yet, it's his book, so why shouldn't he write about what he wants?

In the first appendix, Crichton provides prose on why he considers politicized science to be dangerous. He gives an interesting history lesson on how a previous scientific theory predicting impending crisis, and was accepted as valid by the authorities of the time. The theory? Eugenics.

I found State of Fear to be an exciting page-turner of an adventure. There were a few slow points, mid-way through the book, as well as a few personality caricatures I thought to be too extreme. Note: There was also a fair bit of unnecessary sex, and quite a bit of R-rated language.

Recommendation:  I'd recommend reading the book if, for no other reason, than to get a glimpse of the data that is typically not found in the general media. Save your money though, and look for it at a used bookstore or at your local library bookstore (I picked up the hardback for $1.00 at our library bookstore).

Why evolution can't win (v. 1)

Ben Stein's movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, has been in theaters for about two weeks. For those still unaware, the producers of the movie essentially posit that those within the halls of academia not only prevent the inclusion of Intelligent Design proponents, but will actively seek, and have sought, to destroy the careers of those who dare question natural process evolutionary theory.

So, how do some of the most vociferous proponents of natural process evolutionary theory approach Ben Stein's efforts? Well, if you visit The Thumb, you will find a total of 61 posts (as of this writing) tagged under the category of "Expelled".* Skim through the posts and you'll find them laced with the notions that the producers of Expelled are liars, dishonest, disingenuous, etc.

Hear. Speak. See.

Okay, so let's ignore the obvious display of paranoia in which they overreact to an idea which they consider equivalent to that of believing in a flat-earth. Instead, let's ask: Why are they so intent on convincing you to NOT see the movie? What are they so afraid of?

Tell you what, why not do the typical American thing? When some group - any group - is so intent on getting you to not do something, then how about you go out AND DO IT?

Yeah, go see the movie.

* see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, blah, blah, blah.

On fossil fuel dependence, new technology, and predicting the future

Technological Innovation is an interesting phenomenon (not to mention that it is mind-driven, and intelligence-based). It's through such innovation that we have been able to progress from crossing the country in a covered wagon, to using a jet airliner. Yet, what of our dependence on fossil fuels, and the implications of such dependence? Current alternatives render electricity as a viable power source, yet current technology limits the means with which we can provide ample electrical power.

Consider, if you will, a future in which powerful batteries are small, very long lasting, and essentially universal in application. Would such a technological environment spell the demise of the domination of fossil fuel technology?

Enter three very interesting posts at ScienceDaily. In Sweet Nanotech Batteries: Nanotechnology Could Solve Lithium Battery Charging Problems, we read,

Nanotechnology could improve the life of the lithium batteries used in portable devices, including laptop computers, mp3 players, and mobile phones. Research to be published in the Inderscience publication International Journal of Nanomanufacturing demonstrates that carbon nanotubes can prevent such batteries from losing their charge capacity over time.

And in New Nanowire Battery Holds 10 Times The Charge Of Existing Ones,

Stanford researchers have found a way to use silicon nanowires to reinvent the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that power laptops, iPods, video cameras, cell phones, and countless other devices.

...The greatly expanded storage capacity could make Li-ion batteries attractive to electric car manufacturers. Cui suggested that they could also be used in homes or offices to store electricity generated by rooftop solar panels.

Finally, in Newly Discovered Fundamental State Of Matter, A Superinsulator, Has Been Created,

Scientists could eventually form superinsulators that would encapsulate superconducting wires, creating an optimally efficient electrical pathway with almost no energy lost as heat. A miniature version of these superinsulated superconducting wires could find their way into more efficient electrical circuits.

Imagine, powerful, small batteries, capable of holding large charges for long periods of time. Will there be a time when one buys a laptop computer never expecting to have to recharge the battery? Will there be a time when one makes their monthly stop at the local "filling" station to  exchange a standard battery pack for their electric powered vehicle?

Would people, in such a time, view the internal combustion engine as quaintly as we now view the covered wagon?

"Mindless-Process" Design: on being students without a teacher (v. 3)

Natural Process Evolution (aka Neo-Darwinism, Naturalism, etc.) rests on the Blind Watchmaker argument in which mindless processes, via the natural realm, are responsible for the diversity of life on planet earth (indeed, responsible for the very cosmos we exist in).

We are told that we, as humans, have evolved to the point where we have minds that think, that reason, that design and, that engineer. Yet, if this is the case, how is it that we now seem to take our mind-driven cues, as shown below, from the alleged products of a completely mindless process? Common sense, from our evolved minds, should tell us that if we see a well designed and engineered product, then it is reasonable to conclude that it, in fact, came from a mind.

Therefore, I'd like to present a series of examples that we find in nature, of so-called MD (i.e., Mindless-process Design) and how, in doing so, we acknowledge the inescapable conclusion that there is design / engineering in what we behold:

Over at the Thumb, in a post titled, Eppur si muove!, we read,

The Harvard multimedia team that put together that pretty video of the Inner Life of the Cell has a whole collection of videos online (including Inner Life with a good narration.) Go watch the one titled F1-F0 ATPase; it's a beautiful example of a highly efficient molecular motor, and it's the kind of thing the creationists go ga-ga over. It's complex, and it does the same rotary motion that the bacterial flagellum does; it has a little turbine in the membrane, a stream of protons drives rotation of an axle, and the movement of that axle drives conformation changes in the surrounding protein that promote the synthesis of ATP. It's a molecular machine all right. Makes a fellow wonder if possibly it's "irreducible", doesn't it?

Well, it's not. It can be broken down further and it still retain that rotary motion. (emphasis added)

Let's ignore the fact that simply retaining its rotary motion does not equate to retaining its function. Instead, let's focus on the use of the words: "motor", "turbine", "axle", and "machine". You got that? Motor, turbine, axle, machine. Repeat after me - motor, turbine, axle, machine.

Now, let's apply the oxymoron of Mindless-process Design as the means by which we get a... motor, turbine, axle, machine.

Still... it's designed.

On the differences between boys and girls

From ScienceDaily, Boys' And Girls' Brains Are Different: Gender Differences In Language Appear Biological,

Although researchers have long agreed that girls have superior language abilities than boys, until now no one has clearly provided a biological basis that may account for their differences.

For the first time -- and in unambiguous findings -- researchers from Northwestern University and the University of Haifa show both that areas of the brain associated with language work harder in girls than in boys during language tasks, and that boys and girls rely on different parts of the brain when performing these tasks.

Is it possible that the biological differences, which not only establish the physical differences between boys and girls, are also responsible for cognitive processes (note: not cognitive levels)?

If so, then what other physiological differences might we discover?

Evolution happens, because we know it happens (v. 2)

From ScienceDaily, Evolution Of New Species Slows Down As Number Of Competitors Increases, (and note the irony),

The rate at which new species are formed in a group of closely related animals decreases as the total number of different species in that group goes up, according to new research.

The research team believes these findings suggest that new species appear less and less as the number of species in a region approaches the maximum number that it can support.

Wow. Just like one would expect to find in a complex system, optimally designed to work at an efficient level.

Further,

In order for new species to thrive, they need to evolve to occupy their own niche in the ecosystem, relying on certain foods and habitats for survival that are sufficiently different from those of other closely related species.

Competition between closely related species for food and habitat becomes more intense the more species there are, and researchers believe this could be the reason for the drop-off in the appearance of new species over time.

So, in order for new species to thrive, they need to evolve. Yet, doesn't the survival of an ecosystem depend on the complex interactions within its members? Since when does an ecosystem have time to spare to allow new species the opportunity to occupy their niche? And if they have time to spare, how much time do they have?

"Okay, guys? You've got 1 million years to get up to speed or else - it's curtains!"

You see, when evolution is the only game in town, then the only reasonable conclusion is to state that evolution speeds up when there are less species walking around, and slows down when there are more. And, since we're dealing with natural selection, environmental constraints, genetic mutations, and such, it's gotta boil down to the competition factor, right?

Yet, consider that nowhere do we see the actual evidence that evolution is the mechanism which accomplishes speciation, much less the means with which the mechanism speeds up and slows down. It's nothing more than imposing an idea on the data. So, when we see, after major extinction events, a quick recovery of new species, it must be due to a quickened evolutionary pace brought about by a rich, open environment (i.e., as caused by the major extinction event).

However, the exquisitely timed placement of the necessary species, so as to provide a complex ecosystem the proper functioning components, also points to the actions of guidance. Unless the evolutionists can demonstrate the physical qualities which mandate that evolution speed up during times of open environments, their claims are simply wishful thinking.

...

ref:  Rare Earth - Ward & Brownlee; Creator & the Cosmos - Ross; Origins of Life - Rana & Ross; The Privileged Planet - Richards & Gonzalez

Biblically Correct Science?

Nightline recently spotlighted BC Tours, a Young Earth Creationist outfit which takes schoolchildren on tours of secular museums, presenting the exhibits under what they claim to be as the Biblically correct version of science. From BC Tours website, their mission is stated as,

Communicating Biblical Truth in every area of life through tours of museums, zoos, and historical sites.

However, some of the Biblical Truth they promulgate is nothing more than Biblical interpretation (and, in my opinion, some lousy interpretation at that). From their website,

At a large, colorful panel along a wall, Carter reads aloud from a passage describing the disappearance of dinosaurs from the Earth about 65 million years ago. He and some of the older students exchange knowing smiles at the timeline, which contradicts their interpretation of the Bible suggesting a 6,000-year-old planet.

"Did man and dinosaurs live together?" Carter asks.

A timid yes comes from the students.

"How do we know that to be true?" Carter says.

There's a long pause.

"What day did God create dinosaurs on?" he continues.

"Six," says a chorus of voices.

"What day did God create man on?"

"Six."

"Did man and dinosaurs live together?"

"Yes," the students say.

Mission accomplished for Carter, who has been leading such tours since 1988.

Oh my. Let's ignore the fact that there are multiple creation accounts and descriptions in the Bible - which must all be addressed, and harmonized, if one is really interested in Biblical Truth. Let's ignore the fact that there is no mention of dinosaurs being created on day six, much less any mention of dinosaurs in the Bible. Let's also ignore the data.

From the Nightline episode,

They said the T-Rex was vegetarian because at the time of the Creation, there was no such thing as death, so a T-Rex could not have eaten meat. There was no death until Adam and Eve ate forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge, they continued, and God's revenge was to curse the world with death.

No death before the Fall? Well, let's now ignore Romans 5 or Psalm 104, not to mention the evidence which shows T-rex having all the designed characteristics of a meat eater.

Again, from Nightline,

Out on the museum floor, Jack and Carter stopped the group in front of a window display that contains samples of sandstone that have ripples created by water and fossils of ancient life. Bill Jack asked his group, "How do they date the fossil? By the layer in which they find it. They date the layer by the fossil and the fossil by the layer," he said. "That's circular reasoning."

In the next moment he stepped past and turned his back to a display on radiometric dating, the method by which scientists determine the age of rocks through the rate of decay of their natural radioactivity.

When later asked why he skipped the display, Jack said simply, "We can't cover everything."

Nice. Let's not only ignore the cross-checking process involved in fossil / layer dating, let's also just walk by one of the most reliable methods (radiometric dating) we use to determine age. Nah... can't cover everything.

Stacia Martin, who brought her 14-year-old son Shawn, said she had learned how to defend her faith in Jesus Christ.

"I learned that when you look at exhibits, don't take them at face value just because they're exciting looking or because they're interesting," she said.

Her son Shawn said he thinks the world is 10,000 years old, "Because the Bible says that."

No. The Bible doesn't really say that.

On the one hand, I applaud BC Tours for their efforts in attempting to promote a Christian Worldview. On the other hand, wouldn't it be nice if they could give tours which present the full Christian point of view, nuanced with a full look at the evidence?

ref:  A Matter of Days - Ross; Creation as Science - Ross; Origins of Life - Rana & Ross; Who Was Adam? - Rana & Ross; The Privileged Planet - Richards & Gonzalez

Science Saturday: filming the birth of a black hole

From ScienceDaily, World's First Movie Of Black Hole Birth,

The date of March 19, 2008 marked the brightest ever cosmic explosion observed from the Earth. The outburst known as GRB 080319B was probably the death of a massive star leading to the creation of a black hole. For the first time the birth of a black hole has been filmed. Cameras of the "Pi of the Sky" project recorded this remarkable event with a 4-minute sequence of 10-second-long images. In almost 20 seconds the object became so bright that it could be visible with the naked eye. Then it began fading and in 4 minutes it became 100 times fainter.

From the "Pi of the sky" website,

2008.03.19 "Pi of the Sky" telescope detected the brightest ever optical outburst from a distant universe. The explosion happened 7.5 billion light years from the Earth, halfway across the visible Universe. (emphasis added)

Wow! Picking up an optical outburst from another universe (distant or not).

Also, note that the optical outburst occurred in a universe measured to be "7.5 billion light years from the Earth." That means that the light, which made the image below, began its journey 7.5 billion years ago. Yet, if the universe is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old, as Young Earth Creationists claim, then we're left with a paradox. Did this event really happen? Is it simply the result of light patterns that God placed "in transit" 6 to 10 thousand years ago? If so, then why would He intentionally provide evidence for an event that never really happened?

- image courtesy of the Pi of the sky website (if the animation is not active, visit the website for the dynamic version).

Global warming skeptic? You're "almost like... those who believe the world is flat." - Al Gore

From 60 Minutes,

Confronted by Stahl with the fact some prominent people, including the nation’s vice president, are not convinced that global warming is man-made, Gore responds: "You're talking about Dick Cheney. I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat,” says Gore. "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off," he tells Stahl.

No, no, no, Al! It wasn't a movie lot in Arizona. Everyone knows it was a lot in Nevada! And the world isn't flat - it's slightly curved.

Click the image to watch the nonsense for yourself.

"Mindless-Process" Design: on being students without a teacher (v. 2)

Natural Process Evolution (aka Neo-Darwinism, Naturalism, etc.) rests on the Blind Watchmaker argument in which mindless processes, via the natural realm, are responsible for the diversity of life on planet earth (indeed, responsible for the very cosmos we exist in).

We are told that we, as humans, have evolved to the point where we have minds that think, that reason, that design, and that engineer. Yet, if this is the case, how is it that we now seem to take our mind-driven cues, as shown below, from the alleged products of a completely mindless process? Common sense, from our evolved minds, should tell us that if we see a well designed and engineered product, then it is reasonable to conclude that it, in fact, came from a mind.

Therefore, I'd like to present a series of examples that we find in nature, of so-called MD (i.e., Mindless-process Design) and how, in doing so, we acknowledge the inescapable conclusion that there is design / engineering in what we behold:

First, we have an example of the seemingly ubiquitous bar code. From Wikipedia,

"The first patent for a bar code type product (US Patent #2,612,994) was issued to inventors Joseph Woodland and Bernard Silver on October 7, 1952. Its implementation was made possible through the work of Raymond Alexander and Frank Stietz, two engineers with Sylvania (who were also granted a patent), as a result of their work on a system to identify railroad cars. It was not until 1966 that barcodes were put to commercial use and they were not commercially successful until the 1980s."

Note that the first patent for a bar code type product was issued to inventors, and that its implementation was made possible by two engineers. Yeah. Got that? Inventors... engineers? Persons. Persons with... minds.

From Dr. Fuz Rana at Today's New Reason to Believe, DNA Barcodes Used to Inventory Plant Biodiversity,

Barcodes have revolutionized the retail business. Now cashiers simply scan the items while computer technology does the rest. It has increased the speed and accuracy of the checkout process and provides the added benefit of giving the store managers a real-time inventory.

Scientists have come to realize that DNA can be used as a barcode to perform some of the same functions as barcodes printed onto food packaging. Biologists have been able to identify, catalog, and monitor animal species using relatively short, standardized segments of DNA within the genome that are unique to the species, or subspecies in some cases. And now new work extends the utility of DNA barcoding to plants.

...

One of the challenges of DNA barcoding centers on identifying a region within the genome that can distinguish a wide range of taxa. Researchers have recently discovered that the matK gene found in plastid DNA fulfills this requirement. This gene displays the so-called barcoding gap by simultaneously varying little within a species, but varying significantly between species...

...

The use of DNA as barcodes underscores the informational content of this biomolecule. DNA barcoding makes it clear that biochemical information is truly information.

Dr. Rana also discussed this topic, recently, on the weekly Creation Update program sponsored by Reasons to Believe.

The Last 2 percent (v. 7)

(Human - Chimpanzee) = 0.02

If humans share about 98 percent of our genetic makeup with chimps, then why are we so far apart in terms of behavior, agility, cognitive skills, etc.?

What is it that makes up The Last 2 percent?

Mark Steyn edition

From America Alone,

...in 2006 Spain's ruling Socialist Party introduced a bill in parliament legislating that apes be included in "the category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." The party's argument was that human Spaniards do, after all, share 98.4 percent of their genes with chimpanzees, 97.7 percent with gorillas, and 96.4 percent with orangutans. Unfortunately, the 2 percent Spaniards don't share apparently includes the urge to reproduce. For the new Europe instead of Gibbon's Decline and Fall, maybe someone should write Gibbons' Rise and Triumph.

Science Saturday: What goes up, must come down

Have you ever wondered whether or not people, who discharge firearms into the sky, have thought about the law of gravity? From southern California (emphasis added),

A Victorville man who pulled out a gun and opened fire during a party brawl Sunday was wounded by one of his own bullets and died later that day, sheriff's officials said Wednesday.

Anthony Salmeron, 18, who was struck in his chest, was pronounced dead at Victor Valley Community Hospital in Victorville, San Bernardino County sheriff's deputies said.

It began as a homicide investigation and turned into an accidental-death case after detectives discovered through an autopsy and witness interviews that Salmeron's gunshot wound was self-inflicted.

"They stated that he was displaying a handgun and firing several rounds into the air," said sheriff's spokeswoman Jodi Miller. "(Detectives) determined that he had accidentally shot himself."

Quite a difficult, if not obvious, science lesson.

Animal predators, as a good thing

From ScienceDaily, Predators Do More Than Kill Prey,

The direct effect predators have on their prey is to kill them. The evolutionary changes that can result from this direct effect include prey that are younger at maturity and that produce more offspring. But killing prey also has indirect effects -- rarely characterized or measured -- such as a decline in the number of surviving prey, resulting, in turn, in more food available to survivors. In a new study characterizing the complex ecological interactions that shape how organisms evolve, biologists present a novel way of quantifying the indirect effects of predators by showing that prey adapt to food availability as well as the presence of predators.

The notion that a predator animal killing and eating its prey is "bad" fails to take into account the complexity of interactions within an ecological system. Seen from a wider point of view, the killing of the prey is but a part of a larger, good system. A system which, by its definition, be fully functional at its inception. A system bearing the trademarks of design.

Consider the implications of another article, from ScienceDaily, titled Are Wolves The Pronghorn's Best Friend?,

As western states debate removing the gray wolf from protection under the Endangered Species Act, a new study by the Wildlife Conservation Society cautions that doing so may result in an unintended decline in another species: the pronghorn, a uniquely North American animal that resembles an African antelope.

...

The study, appearing in the latest issue of the journal Ecology, says that fewer wolves mean more coyotes, which can prey heavily on pronghorn fawns if the delicate balance between predators and their prey is altered. According to the study, healthy wolf packs keep coyote numbers in check, while rarely feeding on pronghorn fawns themselves. As a result, fawns have higher survival rates when wolves are present in an ecosystem.

...

"This study shows just how complex relationships between predators and their prey can be," said Berger. "It's an important reminder that we often don't understand ecosystems nearly as well as we think we do, and that our efforts to manipulate them can have unexpected consequences."

The implications of unintended consequences from misunderstanding complex ecosystems.

Within the Young Earth Creation mindset, it is unfortunate that animal predation is considered "bad" or "evil". Such analysis, when one looks at the evidence within nature alongside that within God's Word, seems inadequate. Consider,

The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God. When the sun rises, they steal away and lie down in their dens. Man goes out to his work and to his labor until the evening.

O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom have you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. Here is the sea, great and wide, which teems with creatures innumerable, living things both small and great. There go the ships, and Leviathan, which you formed to play in it.

These all look to you, to give them their food in due season. When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are filled with good things.

- Psalm 104:21-28 ESV (emphasis added)

The Last 2 percent (v. 6)

(Human - Chimpanzee) = 0.02

If humans share about 98 percent of our genetic makeup with chimps, then why are we so far apart in terms of behavior, agility, cognitive skills, etc.?

What is it that makes up The Last 2 percent?

Yet Another Genetic Difference between Humans and Chimpanzees

More and more, it appears that humans and chimps display key genetic differences where it counts. And these differences explain why humans visit the chimpanzee exhibit at the zoo, and not the other way around. For more information on these kinds of genetic comparisons between humans and chimps and how they fit into a biblical framework see an article I wrote for a recent issue of Connections or the book Who Was Adam?

From Whence Do We Come? Part 1 (of 2)  Part 2 (of 2)

Human evolutionary models, even the ones that appear to be the best-established, are highly speculative and, at best, have tenuous support from the fossil record. Time and time again a single fossil find overturns a "well-established" idea in human evolution. It's hard to know what other entrenched ideas will soon be abandoned as new hominid specimens are unearthed and studied. It's hard to accept human evolution as a "fact" given the actual level of uncertainty about the relationships among the hominids in the fossil record and the constant flux within the discipline.

So Easy a Caveman Could Do It? Part 2 (of 2)

...God created human beings to communicate personally with Him, as well as with each other, through language transmitted by sophisticated synaptic networks. Adam talked directly with God. And though his fall into sin destroyed spiritual communication and life, they were restored to human beings by God's atoning grace through Jesus Christ. A restored human spirit and the gift of language make interactive communication with the Holy Spirit so easy even we "moderns" can do it.

Good discussion at Stones Cry Out

There's a good discussion I'm having with a commenter by the name of Psi, over at Stones Cry Out, regarding a post I wrote in Mindless-process Design (as opposed to Intelligent Design).

Maybe some of you should check it out, and leave a comment of your own. Hint: LotharBot (and anyone else, for that matter).

An avalanche on Mars

Check out this photograph...

It's an image which shows clouds of dust and ice - the aftermath of an avalanche on Mars. From the JPL Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter website,

"A NASA spacecraft in orbit around Mars has taken the first ever image of active avalanches near the Red Planet's north pole. The image shows tan clouds billowing away from the foot of a towering slope, where ice and dust have just cascaded down."