Category Archives: Current Events

YEC and Nuclear Decay Rates

Posted on by

YEC’s tell me God changes the laws of physics in various ways and at numerous times. This seems to be a basic tenet of YEC belief.

This is demonstrated by a statement in RATE 2 as follows:


The quote was taken from the RATE2 statement. Here is the URL for RATE2: https://www.icr.org/rate2

The author suggest that YEC must question whether the laws of physics are constant. Basic laws of physics include speed of light, gravitational constant, and rate of nuclear decay. But there are also others. Strong forece, weak force, electromagnetic force, gravitational force all depend on basic laws of physics. When these change so does chemistry and biochemistry. And life.

Where did I find this? Virginia Peterson pointed this out on her comment to a post in Answers to Answers in Genesis. https://www.facebook.com/groups/answers2aig and her comment took place around July 19, 2026 in a post by Jeff Reichman.

This summer I had a discussion with YEC Chris Coatney about what do YEC advocates believe. Chris Coatney insisted God changes the laws of physics for special purposes and has done so capriciously from time to time in response to human behavior.

Chris specifically mentioned the laws of nature changing instantaneously at the fall of man, and again at the flood. And possibly more times.

These changes are allegedly a massive supernatural event that affects the entire universe, not just the earth. These ideas align with the statement in the image above taken from RATE2.

Virginia Peterson didnt identify which specific RATE2 document containing the quote. I will have to search for that in the RATE documents. The reader is invited to do so as well.

Why did this come up?

There is an AiG article by Andrew Snelling:

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/review-dinosaur-blood-age-of-the-earth/dinosaur-blood-review-3/

And Jeff Reichman made a post with his take on it. And that led to a discussion where Virginia Peterson shared the RATE statements.

Also Riley Barton had written about it.
https://theevidenceisplain.blogspot.com/2026/07/the-carbon-14-paradox-why-we-trust.html

I have been following radiometric dating arguments from ICR since I was a college student. I had basically just started ignoring YEC because I decided it was a scam. Why? The image shown above which admits to old earth unless the laws of physics are vary over time.

Getting YECs to admit they believe laws of nature are variable is like pulling teeth. If they do believe it then I don’t believe them. I just don’t like being lied to. They say they care about truth. well, then they need to tell some.

What about Dino Bone Dating?

Andrew Snelling wrote articles in 2026 about this, claiming dinosaur bones have be carbon 14 dated to be recent.

Snelling references Vance Nelson and Brian Thomas in a 2015 article as follows:

Thomas, Brian, and Vance Nelson, “Radiocarbon in Dinosaur and Other Fossils,” Creation Research Society Quarterly 51 (Spring 2015): 299–311.

Here is a result of their research. Typical measurement, 3rd from the bottom, a horn of a Triceratops, dated at 40,000 BC. Does not support a 6000 year old earth.

One of my goals is to more fully understand how bones become fossilized so that carbon dating applies to their fossils.

I am frustrated that nothing is mentioned about the strata the bones were found in because if the strata is far older than the bones then this indicates an anomaly.

What minerals are in fossils?

To make fossils the following minerals can be involved.

Common minerals that replace or crystallize within ancient organic remains include:

Silica (SiO₂): Often found in petrified wood and agate. Replaces organic tissues in exquisite detail.

Calcite / Aragonite (CaCO₃): The primary building block for many marine fossils, such as ancient shells and coral.

Pyrite (FeS₂): Also known as “fool’s gold,” it can replace soft tissues and shell structures, resulting in brilliant, metallic golden fossils.

Phosphate (Apatite): Frequently replaces shark teeth and bone, giving the specimens a jet-black coloration.

Hematite / Goethite (Iron minerals): These produce rich red, brown, and orange colorations within the fossil matrix.

Sorry, I don’t have any reason to think C14 dating works on any of the fossils made of these materials.

What about anthracite (coal?). It is all carbon.

Some counter comments about Andrew Snelling.


Jeff Reichman writes, “Dr. Snelling’s entire argument hinges on a fundamental logical contradiction: he treats the presence of carbon-14 as an objective “clock” to date fossils, while simultaneously arguing that the dating system used to interpret that carbon-14 is a deceptive, “uniformitarian” construct.”

“Snelling posits that finding C-14 in dinosaur bones proves they are “only thousands of years old.” To arrive at this conclusion, he must rely on the stability of the radioactive decay constant. He needs this constant to be an immutable law of nature so that the presence of C-14 implies a specific, limited age. Yet, in the same breath, he attacks the “uniformitarian practitioners” who established that very constant, labeling their calibration curves as “biased, overinflated, and thus useless.” Snelling is caught in a trap of his own making: if the methodology and the framework established by mainstream science are truly “useless,” then by what authority does he declare the existence of C-14 to be evidence of any age? He is “borrowing” the authority of the physics he claims to reject to provide his own conclusion with a veneer of scientific legitimacy.”

“Snelling claims that the results of 30,000 to 40,000 years produced by laboratories are “inflated” and “inaccurate” due to magnetic field decay and the global Flood. By creating these ad hoc explanations to “correct” the data down to his preferred 4,500 years, he effectively admits that the machine’s output is not an objective measurement of time, but a blank slate upon which he can project his own desired history. If the clock must be adjusted by thousands of years to align with a theology, then the clock is not measuring time, it is being manipulated”

“Snelling’s argument collapses into a logical vacuum. He asserts that:

— The raw detection of C-14 is “significant” and “valid evidence.”

— The dating interpretation of that same C-14 by the scientific community is “dishonest” and “erroneous.”

This is the peak of his logical inconsistency. He demands that we trust the fact of the detection while rejecting the method of the measurement. If Snelling is right, and the dating community’s assumptions about the past are “erroneous,” then he has no grounds to claim that the detection of C-14 is “significant.” A measurement from a system that is “useless” (his own words) for obtaining true ages is, by definition, useless for his argument as well. By rejecting the framework that gives the data its meaning, Snelling renders his own “evidence” scientifically vacuous. He is not using science to date a fossil; he is using an instrument as a prop to confirm a bias, then breaking the instrument the moment it fails to provide the exact answer he requires.”

Reichman next mentions something I had noticed about YEC Chris Coatney.

“Ultimately, articles like Dr. Snelling’s are far from a pursuit of truth; they are an exercise in rhetorical misdirection designed to bypass the rigor of the scientific method. By simultaneously claiming that the radiocarbon dating framework is a “biased” and “useless” uniformitarian invention while using that same framework’s physical constants to interpret trace carbon-14 as “evidence” of a young earth, Snelling engages in a profound logical fallacy. These arguments are inherently misleading because they function as a closed-loop system: they treat the machine’s sensitivity floor as a legitimate age when it supports their worldview, but dismiss the entire system as fraudulent the moment it produces a date that contradicts their theology. By rejecting the integrity of the very tools they rely upon to generate their data, such authors are not performing science; they are performing a performative dismissal of deep time, substituting an internally inconsistent “borrowed authority” for the objective search for truth.”












Return of the God Hypothesis

Posted on by

An interesting review I saw on amazon.com

“A comprehensive and lucid argument for theism as the best explanation for the scientific evidence. Stephen Meyer has a true gift for conveying complex concepts clearly.” — Dr. Robert Kaita, former Principal Research Physicist, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

“A meticulously researched, lavishly illustrated, and thoroughly argued case against the new atheism. Even if your mind is made up—especially if it is—Meyer’s refreshing take on the origins of the Universe is a joy to read. You may not come away convinced, but you’ll be richer for the journey.” — Dr. Brian Keating, Chancellor’s Distinguished Professor of Physics, University of California, San Diego, and author of Losing the Nobel Prize.

“Scientist and philosopher Meyer has discussed intelligent design previously but has not gone as far as he does here in terms of making the case for God. He does so citing new evidence from cosmology, physics, and biology, especially as it applies to DNA research. Meyer knows how to take readers’ hands and lead them through the history before showing how new discoveries can be used to undermine the cases made by anti-design theorists such as Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and even Bill Nye the Science Guy. Agree or disagree, there’s lots to ponder here.” — Booklist

“Meyer’s book is a masterclass, lucidly exploring every alternative from multiple points of view, while persuasively showing that the God Hypothesis is the best explanation of our finely-tuned, information-rich universe. It does irreparable damage to atheist rhetoric.” — John C. Walton, PhD, DSc, Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Research Professor of Chemistry, University of St. Andrews

“No one in my experience can explicate such complex material with the grace and clarity that seem so effortless to Stephen Meyer. With meticulous rational analysis of the latest discoveries in cosmology, physics, and biology, Meyer confirms a truth ideologues find too frightening to consider. Their ad hominem attacks on his brilliant work, confirm its importance.” — Dean Koontz, New York Times #1 bestselling author

“Reviewing all relevant evidence from cosmology to molecular biology, Meyer builds an irrefutable ‘case for God.’ The logic throughout is compelling and the book almost impossible to put down. A masterpiece. Easily the best, most lucid, comprehensive defense of the ‘God hypothesis’ in print. A unique tour de force. ” — Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D., former Senior Research Fellow, Biochemistry, University of Otago, Author, Nature’s Destiny

“More than 400 pages of straightforward, engrossing prose, close reasoning, intellectual history, and cosmology, all in the interest of asking the most important questions about existence itself. An astonishing achievement.” — Peter Robinson, Murdoch Distinguished Policy Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and former White House speechwriter

“With this book, Stephen Meyer earns a place in the pantheon of distinguished, non-reductive natural philosophers of the last 120 years, from the great French savant Pierre Duhem, through A.N. Whitehead, to Michael Polanyi…A profound, judicious book of great value bringing to bear advanced, scientific expertise and philosophical, integrative wisdom.” — Dr. Michael D. Aeschliman, emeritus professor Boston University, author The Restoration of Man: C.S. Lewis and the Continuing Case Against Scientism.

“Meyer masterfully summarizes the current evidence from cosmology, physics and biology showing that the more we learn about the universe and nature, the more relevant the ‘God hypothesis’ becomes.”  — Dr. Anthony Futerman, Joseph Meyerhoff Professor of Biochemistry, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel

“This book makes it clear that far from being an unscientific claim, intelligent design is valid science.” — Brian Josephson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge, Fellow of the Royal Society Nobel Laureate in Physics

“When you don’t understand living systems, ignorance permits discounting a Creator.  But when the scientific details are thrust upon you, you’re forced to ask: How on Earth did that happen? Thus, the God hypothesis returns.  Stephen Meyer convincingly drives the point home: How could it be this way?  Only God!” — James M. Tour, Ph.D., T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry and Professor of Nano-Engineering, Rice University.

“Stephen Meyer is a genuine renaissance person.  His work tears down many purported barriers between science, philosophy, and religion.  An important book of both breadth and depth.” — Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III, Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry, Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, University of Georgia

“Dr. Meyer does a superb job in accurately describing the physics and cosmology that show the universe had a beginning. He also convincingly shows that quantum mechanics will not eliminate a cosmological singularity.” — Dr. Frank Tipler, Professor of Physics, Tulane University; Co-Author, The Anthropic-Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press)

“A truly superb analysis of the relevant evidence.Stephen Meyer convincingly demonstrates that the God hypothesis is not just an adequate explanation for the origin of our fine-tuned universe and biosphere: it is the best explanation.” — David J Galloway, MD DSc FRCS FRCP, Honorary Professor of Surgery at College of Medical, Veterinary & Life Sciences University of Glasgow; Former President, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow.

“A pleasure to read, [Meyer’s] inviting voice brings light to bear on complicated and profoundly influential subjects. With this abundantly rich book, Meyer completes a compelling trilogy which refutes the prevailing materialism of the intelligentsia.”  — Terry Scrambay, journalist and reviewer for New Oxford Review

“I commend Meyer’s book to those who believe science and religion are in conflict, and indeed to anyone seeking answers to the ultimate questions.” — The Claremont Review of Books

What Historians Do

Posted on by

I got this from John Fea’s book Was America Founded as a Christian Nation. It applies to what I am doing in my own historical research. After listening to him I started changing my approach to my research. of course this was also affected by Elizabeth Shown Mills, Evidence Explained: Citing History Sources from Artifacts to Cyberspace. Because of Mills I had already started doing genealogy completely differently than other genealogists I know. I had started to think like a lawyer in terms of legal proof. But I also started to think like a scientist by demanding an explanation for why events took place. What were the underlying causes of events? This soon became more fascinating than the facts of genealogy. I find myself wanting to write a history book about the lives and migration paths of my ancestors.

Then I picked up Fea’s book and this reinforced my realization that I was woefully underprepared to understand my own past! I had not taken enough history courses in college to know how historians do anything. Well, Fea helps with that a bit. Let me share some of his ideas, below.

Fea is quoting Historians Thomas Andrews and Flannery Burke. He says there are 5 C’s of Histororical Thinking.




1. CHANGE.

Historians must see change over time. While some things stay the same over the course of
generations, many things change. The historian’s task is to chronicle these changes. As historian
John Tosh puts it, “There may be a gulf between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ but that gulf is actually
composed of processes of growth, decay and change which it is the business of the historian to
uncover.”

2. CONTEXT

Historians must interpret the past in context. They examine the documents of the past in
light of the time and the place in which they were written. Words ripped from their cultural and
chronological context provide useful material for the compilers of quotation books, but they are
useless to the historian. The words of the founders, for example, must always be interpreted from
the perspective of the eighteenth-century world in which they were uttered or written. There is a
wide chasm that separates the past from the present. Context helps us to realize that more often
than not people in the past do not think and behave the same way that we do.

3. CAUSALITY

Historians are always interested in causality. I remember a few years ago when the talk
radio host Rush Limbaugh announced that “history is real simple. You know what history is? It’s
what happened. Now if you want to get into why what happened, that’s probably valid too, but
why what happened shouldn’t have much of anything to do with what happened.”8 Limbaugh
could not have been more wrong about what historians do. They are not only interested in facts,
but always ask why a particular event in the past happened the way it did.

4. CONTINGENCY

Historians are concerned with contingency. This is the notion that “every historical outcome
depends upon a number of prior conditions.”9 Contingency celebrates the ability of humans to
shape their own destiny. Every historical moment is contingent upon another historical moment,
which in turn is contingent upon yet another moment. Historians are thus concerned about the
big picture—how events are influenced by other events.

5. COMPLEX (History is complex.)

Finally, historians realize that the past is complex. It often resists our efforts to simplify it or
to cut it up into easily digestible pieces. Most students of history are exposed to the past through
textbooks that offer rather straightforward narratives of how a particular era unfolded. While
often necessary for overviews and syntheses of the past, textbooks often fail to reveal that the
past can be messy, complicated, and not easily summarized in a neatly constructed paragraph or
two. Once again, the debate over whether America is a Christian nation is instructive here. On
one hand, the opponents of Christian America draw the conclusion that just because the
Constitution does not mention God then it must hold true that the framers did not believe that
religion was important to the success of the Republic. On the other hand, defenders of Christian
America conclude that if the founders were people of Christian faith, then they must have set out
to establish a uniquely Christian nation. Logicians call these assertions “non sequiturs.”
Historians would argue that those who draw such conclusions lack an appreciation for the complexity of the past.

6. CONSTRUCTION.

OK, that leads to Fea’s CONSTRUCTION

The task of historians is to use these five Cs to reconstruct the past and make their findings
available to the public. Historians make the dead live. They bring the past to an audience in the
present. If we think about the vocation of the historian in this way, then we must distinguish
between “history” and “the past.” The past is the past—a record of events that occurred in
bygone eras. But history is a discipline—the art of reconstructing the past.

References provided by John Fea:

1). Thomas Andrews and Flannery Burke, “What Does It Mean to Think Historically?” AHA Perspectives 45: 1 (January
2007). Accessed at http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2007/0701/0701tea2.cfm.
2) John Tosh, The Pursuit of History, 4th ed. (New York: Longman, 2006),
3) Gary Nash, History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past (New York: Vintage, 2000).
4) Andrews and Burke, “What Does It Mean to Think Historically?”

OK, that’s enough for now. I have to actually apply these 5 or 6 “C’s”, and re-visit the topic later after some experiences in tracing my family’s past.


Shadow Banning

Posted on by

This came from a recent discussion about blog sites not being able to be posted on facebook and seen in the facebook browser.

Susan Lambeau, Looking at the facebook post in a browser if you click on the picture it launches a new browser window (the default browser of your system) and goes to https://phys.org/news/2023-12-theory-einstein-gravity-quantum-mechanics.html which is the URL of the article at phys.org. But using the facebook app what happens is you cannot get to phys.org. Instead Facebook generates a new web page that looks like the page at the above URL and send you to there, but inside the facebook app.

The implication here is facebook can censor the content. If they don’t want someone reporting on adverse side effects, for example, they can ban that.
Legally they can do that because they own the content on their website. They do not own the content on outside websites.

Even if you put the URL “https://phys.org/news/2023-12-theory-einstein-gravity-quantum-mechanics.html” on your facebook post people using the app will not be able to see the URL. They filter it out and re-write the display that is rendered.

This is important. Why? Well, for example, there is a recent scientific paper published in Canada about contamination level of DNA fragments in Pfizer covid vaccines. Facebook will not allow discussion of the paper. You cannot post the paper. You cannot post a link to a website talking about the paper either. They just remove your post. Sometimes they warn you not to try doing it again. The information is suppressed. This is one of the reasons people blog – to avoid censorship.

One of the side effects I recently noticed was it is not possible to get to a certain blog on medium.com where there are book reviews of books on science. The owner puts the link on her facebook group but facebook app users cannot get to the site to give feedback to the reviewer.

Really old people who still have computers and know what a browser is are slightly better off. But the new gen-alpha audience is totally locked into phones. Even my 40 year old daughter in law does not know what a browser is. And her kids have never seen a computer.

I think there is a word for this. I have heard it called “shadow banning”. The idea is to prevent unauthorized information from being viral. Or being capable of being viral.

So if a research scientist or an MD wants to say something that is “forbidden” she may be subject to shadow banning. Was there much of that happening during the lockdowns? You tell me!

When I travel I usually do not access facebook from a computer, but use a phone. I miss being able to copy a URL to paste into a note for later retrieval.
for example, the book review site. I had to ask the owner to message me the URL.

I hope this helps explain some of my concern. I want an open world wide web, not one that is controlled by a coalition of big tech that chokes off information.

Thanks!

On Cosmic Origins

Posted on by

LINK TO THIS POST: https://randomraindrops.com/2023/11/30/on-cosmic-origins/

Image of LINK TO THIS POST

On cosmic origins, Sy Garte says on page 52 of his book The Works Of His Hands,

“The third possible solution, one that is not commonly considered to be within the realm of science, is that God created the universe in a way that allowed stars, planets, and us to exist. While scientists typically reject any supernatural explanations, it must be said that the God hypothesis is not any more removed from testing or scientific confirmation than the multiverse. Therefore, a rational thinker is free to choose between two equally plausible and equally non-provable ideas. I now choose God.”



Let me pull out the two conclusions.

1. THE GOD HYPOTHESIS IS NOT ANY MORE REMOVED FROM TESTING OR SCIENTIFIC CONFIRMATION THAN THE MULTIVERSE.

2. THEREFORE A RATIONAL THINKER IS FREE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO EQUALLY NON_PROVABLE IDEAS. I NOW CHOOSE GOD.

Lets look at how Sy leads up to the third possible solution and his conclusions. Lets see what he says about the other two logical possible solutions.

Sy Garte On Cosmic Origins
Starting on page 49 of his kindle book The Works of His Hands Sy says the following about “Fine Tuning in Cosmology”



“What I learned about chaos and complexity helped remove my faith in materialism, rationalism, and the other philosophical reasons I started out with for not believing in God. But I also learned something that was more radical—something that actually made me think of a Creator God as a rational idea, or at least as rational as any alternative. This lesson did not make me a theist (that is still to come), but it did suggest a positive reason to believe rather than merely taking away reasons not to believe. That lesson was the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants.
Most physical laws include arbitrary constants that cannot be derived from theory but can only be measured experimentally—they simply are what they are. I will discuss the unsolvable mystery of the physical constants as an example of a hard limit on what we can discover through science in chapter 8. But for a small subset of these constants, the mystery has even greater significance. These are the cosmological constants—the constants related to how the universe was initially formed.
There are anywhere from six to about twenty of these numbers (depending on different interpretations), and it turns out that their values are highly fortuitous. If they were at all different (in some cases by extremely small differences), our kind of universe couldn’t exist, and neither could we.
According to modern physics, there are four forces that underlie all the physical laws of the universe. Two nuclear forces, the strong force and the weak force, govern interactions between particles within the atomic nuclei. At the other end of the scale of object size, interactions between large bodies such as stars, planets, and galaxies are dependent on the third force, gravity. Finally, magnetic and electrical forces between atoms and subatomic particles are different aspects of the fourth, the electromagnetic force.“



Ok, so far so good. I think we need to come back to this “unsolvable mystery of the physical constants”

The great goal of modern physics has been to find a unified theory that can integrate all these forces with each other and show how each force is related by some logical mathematical formulation to all the others. Some progress has been made. The weak force and the electromagnetic force have been shown to be interrelated; at a very early stage in the history of the universe (within the first billionth of a second of the start of the big bang), these two forces were actually one.
The relative strengths of the four forces are determined by specific equations that include some of the cosmological constants. Martin Rees, the distinguished British astronomer, writes in his book Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe that these four physical constants (and two others) need to be exactly the values they are, or the universe would be radically different than it is. Changes in any of these constants would make stars, planets, and life impossible.
The fraction of the mass of two hydrogen atoms that is released as energy when they fuse to produce helium is 0.007 (0.7%). That is the source of the heat produced in the sun and in a hydrogen bomb. It is the amount of mass (m) that is converted to energy (E) in the famous Einstein formula E = mc2, and it is a direct measure of the strong nuclear force. If the strong force had a value of 0.006 or less, the universe would consist only of hydrogen—not very conducive to the complexities of life. If the value were greater than 0.008, all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang, and there could be no stars, no solar heat—again, no life.
As Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow put it in their book The Grand Design, “Our universe and its laws appear to have a design that both is tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration.”2

There are three possible solutions to the mystery of fine-tuning of the physical constants. One is that there is in fact a good theoretical explanation for these constants, and it will turn out that they had to be exactly what they are. This explanation would most likely be derived from the long-sought “theory of everything,” which will connect gravity to quantum physics and answer all questions. However, the theory of everything has so far been elusive. The latest disappointing results from CERN, the largest particle physics laboratory in the world, cast further doubt on these expectations.3
Another possibility is that there are or have been an infinite number of universes. We happen to be in this one because this is the only one out of billions or trillions, each with different constants and characteristics, that we could be in. The multiverse theory is favored by many physicists, but it has the problem of being unprovable, since information cannot travel between universes.

Lets re-iterate the three possible solutions.

1. THEORY OF EVERYTHING (that connects gravity to quantum physics and explains everything)
2. INFINITE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES (unprovable)
3. GOD (unprovable)

WYSIWYG Book Layout

Posted on by

Factors of choosing an authoring tool. What you see is what you get. WYSIWYG.

So, if you use 3 columns of text you have the opportunity to design left-right pages so graphics can be centered or be offset towards the spine or towards the outer edges.

When starting a chapter I try to use the left page as a full page photo, the chapter title and half page of text are on the right side and that is page 1 of the chapter. Afterwards each facing page spread has a left-right character.

I want my editor tool to show this. I want the text to flow around the photos and images.

I have a thing about “creating”. I do not just write long pieces of text. I want pictures, graphics, artwork, maps, diagrams, tables, and more. It must produce a PDF. I want to see what the PDF looks like in near real time. I do not want to hire a layout person for $000’s to create the final product for me.
That would be like a blind man hiring a sculptor. I am doing sculpting, not authoring.

Cancel Your Own Self Westerner.

Posted on by

Chief Ish-Tak-Ha-Ba. Remember that name!!! It means “Sleepy Eyes”. And the high school in Sleepy Eye Minnesota carries the name “Indians” in honor of their namesake, who died in 1859 and whose remains are buried under a large granite monument in town. Four years ago his great-great-great-great granddaughter donated his pipe to the Sleepy Eye historical society in a ceremony that drew press attention.

Meanwhile, at Mahnomen, Minnesota public schools, the schools logo looks like a dreamcatcher with the word “Indians” across the top. They consider it is done with a sense of pride. The majority of the population is Indian and they like it – it gives them a sense of pride.

BTW, I am part Cherokee. So I like this idea. Lets celebrate some native American heritage.

Let us not forget the Warroad, Minnesota Warriors, who have a special logo designed by native american students that shows an indian warrior’s face with two feathers. I say “bravo” for them. Its about time!

So its ok to use these logos if the people whose culture is represented actually want them. The politically correct just dont want them used if the people dont happen to have a background in the heritage. In that case its considered offensive.

But in Washington State, the mascot “Vikings” now has to be changed because the “offended” dont feel included in Viking heritage. I KNEW IT! I KNEW VIKINGS would be considered politically incorrect. And it is! But in this case you cant have innocuous because someone ISNT represented by the mascot.

The PC are offended if you name something they think is about them, and the PC are offended if you DONT name something that is about them. Soon, absolutely all speech in America will be censored by some minority that is offended. So the Seattle Pina Colada Blenders will be banned because the non-drinkers feel offended that their culture is both not included and too included to be allowed.

America has gone nuts, and free speech is getting shredded by the lunatic left.

I’m also Irish, and I shudder to think the non-Irishmen wont be allowed to celebrate anything Irish because either the Irish didnt give permission or the non-Irish feel left out. It a way for the PC to extinguish recognition of Irish culture. Its coming.

Language of God Excerpt #3

Posted on by

While reading Language of God something important caught my eye and I wrote about it at the time.

This is cross posted here: https://randomraindrops.com/2023/10/21/naturalism-of-the-gaps/

Francis Collins writes,

Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual worldview finds another way of finding truth. scientists who deny this would be well advised to observe the limits of their own tools, as nicely represented in a parable old by astronomer Arthur Eddington.

He [Eddington] described a man who set about to study deep-sea life using a net that had a mesh size of three inches. After catching many wild and wonderful creatures from the depths, the man concluded there are no deep-sea fish that are smaller than three inches in length! If we are using the scientific net to catch our particular version of truth, we should not be surprised that it does not catch the evidence of spirit.

Reference: Language of God, p 229 https://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744

Collins is quoting this fellow:

Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington OM FRS[2] (28 December 1882 – 22 November 1944) was an English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician. He was also a philosopher of science and a populariser of science. The Eddington limit, the natural limit to the luminosity of stars, or the radiation generated by accretion onto a compact object, is named in his honour.


My remarks:

Eddington points out an epistemological mistake that is then used to draw an ontological conclusion that is not warranted. This is exactly what believers in philosophical naturalism (PN) commit when they tell us “science says there is no god.” PN believers are actually asserting that the natural world comprises all of reality and therefore theists must give up theism because the supernatural is impossible. This, BTW, is scientism.

I label this as Naturalism of the Gaps. I coined the phrase as a satire and later realized it is a serious position that invokes questions about human knowledge. I recently mentioned Naturalism of the Gaps to Jonathon Blocker. That afternoon I also read the remarks by Collins. It seems many physicists and philosophers have pondered these questions. I only noticed it because of the virulent and boisterous criticism of theists by science students who are looking for their daily student dose of confirmation bias.

Language of God Excerpt #2

Posted on by

The poverty of an objectivistic account is made only too clear when we consider the mystery of music. From a scientific point of view it is nothing but vibrations in the air, impinging on the eardrums and stimulating neural currents in the brain.

How does it come about that this banal sequence of temporal activity has the power to speak to our hearts of an eternal beauty? The whole range of subjective experience, from perceiving a patch of pink, to being enthralled by the performance of a Mass in B Minor, and on to the mystic’s encounter with the ineffable reality of the One, all these truly human experiences are at the center of our encounter with reality, and they are not to be dismissed as epiphenomenal froth on the surface of a universe whose true nature is impersonal and lifeless.

REFERENCE:
J. Polkinghorne, Belief in God in an age of Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 18 – 19.

Science is not the only way of knowing. The spiritual world view provides another way of finding truth.

REFERENCE:
Francis Collins, Language of God, p. 229.

Mining Industry: Where The Fat Lies.

Posted on by

Think about the activists who want to save the earth by reducing carbon based fuels versus the activists who will spend years litigating to stop ecological damage due to mineral harvesting. Then there are other factors at work such as waste processing capacity. Some of the green social activist forces are diametrically opposed to each other. Is Green vs Green perhaps similar to Jarndyce v Jarndyce? Will the turmoil last decades or perhaps centuries? How does this affect the economics of transportation and energy, and the distribution of wealth between the haves and the have-nots? To me it really is not obvious.

What I think is this can only be modeled by a system of differential equations. In university in my senior year I took a graduate level course involving systems simulation. I have also done simulations of material transport in cell biology. Consequently I believe a simulation model of economic factors in battery production may be the only way to accurately predict the future of the EV in society.

But, I don’t know anybody who does system simulation or system engineering. My colleagues in school, and one or two professors are the only ones I ever met who think this way.

Everyone else just has an opinion based on a tiny silo of data. So, if I dismiss your opinion on the EV industry please don’t take it personally. I merely fail to see you as credible until you can show me your models. Write the software, obtain the results, publish a paper for review, and then you have a starting place for discussion.

Is your pronoun XY?

Posted on by

#DarwinCancelled? 😉

A post I saw today from a dentist says,

I am a practicing Dentist, but also a biology major. I do believe there are just two biological sexes: XX and XY. That is not a theory it is a fact. Gender issues are social constructs to normalize behavior. Darwin would have said: survival of the species selects for the strong biological sexes.