Posts Tagged ‘creation science’

FORTY Strains of Coronavirus Are Circulating

Two Coronavirus strains are circulating, one is deadly (link)

Please give no credence on that website to the evolution myths spread by the so called mainstream scientists, which are 100 percent not people who have common sense where it counts most, common sense on spiritual things, like morality and the origin of life. Like now, Newscientist on their website is claiming yet another way evolution happened, or may have happened. By the way, it is evil to impossible for any well researched physicist in cosmology, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to deny there is a Creator, as they know that for a thing on the quantum level to have certain state, it must be observed, an intelligent being that is must make a measurement. So, the universe could not have simply acquired a certain set of conditions with an observer, or in the beginning, the Creator.

I think due to the multitude of coronavirus strains it is difficult for anyone to know if a person died from some other cause other than the coronavirus but merely had some harmless or non-severe-symptom-causing strain of it. So, death tolls cannot be relied on, especially in countries with massive populations like China and India. A way to know however is by analyzing a change in the average number of deaths per month and year, that would clarify a new death-causing agent/factor at work, and so, the world will have to wait a year or two for the tabulations.

Evolutionist Fantasies – Logical Fallacies Made by Evolutionists

June 19, 2011 4 comments

Post link:

Yesterday, on Coast to Coast AM, “Ian Punnett was joined by psychology professor Douglas Kenrick for a discussion on how the primitive, animalistic underside of human nature, with its sexual fantasies and homicidal tendencies, has actually given rise to the most positive features of our race.” I listened to this show and found it interesting that this professor said that those who were exclusively homosexual were “a puzzle” to evolutionists, because it didn’t help to spread their genes. He made a one or two other nonsensical statements like this, which evolutionists often repeat, which is that “genes want to spread” / “copy themselves”. They do this so often without explaining further what they mean, that such insane-talk can be taken literally. Evolutionists literally believe that animals “desire to spread their genes”, as if that that is what they are thinking when they are “in heat” or trying to mate, and are literally “looking for a mate with good genes” or “the best genes”. It’s absolutely stupid to say such things. Animals obviously are not intelligent to think such things, and how much less would genes have thoughts and desires? And back to the homosexuality “puzzle” which he seemed to imply must have some usefulness; says who? Why would it have usefulness in evolution? Why can’t something be a non-useful trait in evolution? Douglas said himself that exclusive homosexuality is an irrational choice, and yet he insisted that it must have some usefulness that couldn’t be seen (a clear contradiction). Is he biased? Is he double-minded because he is pandering to the homosexuals “community” and the liberals that determine his pay or whether he gets paid or not? Why doesn’t he just say, “It’s an aberration that repeatedly gets eliminated like evolution, like a harmful genetic mutation”. He also said that, “It’s not like homosexuality is a choice”, which was evidence of his bias. Who says it’s not a choice and where is the evidence? There are homosexuals who have said that it is a choice. There are also former homosexuals. Sexual attraction is also something that develops over time; people’s tastes change. And who would argue that babies are born being sexually attracted to anything? Are babies also born in the act of theft? This claim that babies can be born gay and is why they are gay or bisexual seems to be tied in to the illogical belief and excuse that God made sinners. For example, it’s common for ignorant and confused people to blame God for themselves being corrupt, asking, “Why did God make people sinful?” or “Why did God make me gay?” That’s as nonsensical as asking, “Why did God ecreat me in the act of stealing a car?”; no one is created in the act of stealing, lying, murdering, having sexual thoughts or committing adultery, married to anyone, or born a “Jew” (“Jew” and “Jewish” are racial words which are often incorrectly used in place of “Judaism”) or Christian. And a side note: The “Free Will” Christians who often make these claims of God making them the way they are (in the act of doing something including lusting to do certain evil things) are contradicting their claim that they have a completely free will which God isn’t allowed to and doesn’t “mess with”.

Also, does evolution also have desires and want to perpetuate itself? Yet so called “scientists” like Professor Douglas and others who believe in evolution, especially evolution-scientists, keep making the clear logical fallacy of giving emotions to dna and genes, and another fallacy, which is giving animals (and they consider humans to also be animals) false motives. It’s also bizarre that they give animals and their “genes” and dna the same motives, as if the dna and genes that exist in the animal they are in have separate minds of their own and are not apart of one being (creature). Even if they are speaking figuratively, it is a bad form of teaching to repeatedly do this (as bad as the nonsensical cliches “science tells us” and “science says”) and not explain what you mean, and to keep doing that leads to the ones you saying it to, believing such fallacies and to their own hurt, leading them to Hell because of believing such stupid and illogical things. It may be that certain evolution-scientists used this stupid talk to make it easier for kids and “stupid people” to understand, and got into the bad habit of repeatedly explaining things this way, and/or that certain ones with bad intent, noticed that by saying “dna is programmed to replicate”, which some evolutionists will admit, gives the correct implication that it was intelligently programmed (because mindless things like evolution and so called “nature” do not program things, and obviously dna didn’t create or program itself), and in their hatred of God and the Bible, didn’t and don’t want anyone to know or believe the truth, which is that we were created by God and that the laws of universe, including our biology, were made by him.

Categories: creation science, creationism, evolution propaganda, Evolutionist Education, evolutionist morality, Intelligent Design vs Darwinian Evolution Theory Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hi-Tech Eye Design in a Lowly Mollusk

by Brian Thomas, M.S.

Human eyes are well-designed to see objects using light transmitted through air, but not through water, because light travels at a different speed through the two media. However, intertidal-dwelling marine mollusks called chitons can see equally well in both environments. How did they acquire this unusual ability?

Chitons scour intertidal rocks for algae meals. Eight integrated shell-plates cover their backs, and a muscular foot allows them to cling with surprising strength to the rocks they traverse. A recent study explored their unique dual-mode eye design. How do they see in both air and water without switching out eye lenses, and is this an “adaptation,” as suggested in a summary in ScienceNOW?1

Researchers publishing in Current Biology tested chiton eye lenses and discovered they were the first ever known to be made of the hard mineral aragonite.2 Chiton shells are also made primarily of aragonite, but the use of this material in an eye lens turns out to be an elegant solution to the problem of forming quality images in either air or water.

“The mineral bends the incoming rays in two directions and creates a double image,” according to ScienceNOW.1 The researchers suspect that the chiton capitalizes on the two angles, or “refractive indices,” of transmitted light to form an image in either environment. The study authors wrote, “We propose that one of the two refractive indices of the birefringent chiton lens places a focused image on the retina in air, whereas the other does so in water.”2 The use of aragonite for a lens material could potentially be copied by optical engineers for many applications.

“The adaptation makes sense, as chitons live in intertidal zones and spend time above and below the water line,” ScienceNOW reported.1 But who is to say that the chiton eye was the result of random “adaptation” and not intentional design?

Chiton eye specifications include the thickness, size, and placement of aragonite lenses on the chiton’s shell—coordinated with internal light-detecting soft tissues like membranes and specified proteins. All these are needed just to detect a raw light signal. Therefore, these eyes have such incredibly ingenious engineering that the burden of proof lies with the one who insists that chiton eye specifications are natural “adaptations” rather than intelligently specified designs. – More here

Richard Dawkins: A Narcissist Who Requires Christians to Have “Credentials”

April 25, 2010 4 comments

Post link: or

Some stalker-atheists today who’s pride couldn’t take to-the-point criticism decided to pull the very type of tactics I told them they always use, and added some arguments in their harassment that I don’t remember having written arguments against before, but here they are.

Today, an atheist asked me what my professional credentials were for calling him mentally ill (a psychopath and narcissist. Though this person didn’t say I needed them, nor can I say that he implied it either, other anti-theists have implied that such credentials are needed. I gave him my arguments, but here I’ve made it easier to read for everyone, and I’ve given more arguments (refutations/rebuttals), and I’ll include arguments against the “peer review” nonsense tactic which anti-Christians love to use against creationists and Christians:

Sometimes, an anti-theist or a so called agnostic will try and escape examining evidence for God from a Christian, or that the Bible is true from a Christian, or that the universe was created from a creationist, by saying something like, “You’re not a scientist”; “What are your professional credentials (as in degrees from prestigious universities, most likely the top 100 or top 100 in what you got your degree in)”; “You don’t have any credentials”; “You work wasn’t peer reviewed (by real scientists)”; “You need the agreement of liberal scientists for the thing you say is true”.

And for those of you who think I’m making that up, you can find such comments on Yahoo Answers I’m sure, where floods of atheists and agnostics use such arguments against theists and creationists in the Religion and Spirituality section (but I advise you not to participate as the moderators of Y.A. deliberately allow atheists and agnostics to drive theists out by trolling). Here is one example I found in at about 9 AM, April 26 (I bolded the user names and dates of their posts, and the most relevant parts to my article to keep your focus on the main subject here):

Sun May 15, 2005 4:21 am
Lance Kennedy:

I was talking of the Dr. Richard Lindzen who was discussed in Scientific American and described as one of America’s most respected climate scientists.  Since the editor of Scientific American is an advocate of the human caused global warming theories, I doubt he would allow such a description go to a man in the pay of energy concerns. […]

If we allow our estimate to include all Ph.D. scientists (not just climate specialists) you might be interested to know that the past president of the USAAS began asking scientists to sign a request for President Bush to reject Kyoto on the grounds that the science was so uncertain.  Last time I looked, over 18,000 had signed. […]

If we allow our estimate to include all Ph.D. scientists (not just climate specialists) you might be interested to know that the past president of the USAAS began asking scientists to sign a request for President Bush to reject Kyoto on the grounds that the science was so uncertain. Last time I looked, over 18,000 had signed.”

Sun May 15, 2005 6:19 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:

I was talking of the Dr. Richard Lindzen who was discussed in Scientific American and described as one of America’s most respected climate scientists.”

Linkage please.   The SciAm articles I can find that mention him call him “credentialed” and “prominent” and “vocal”.  That is not the same as “most respected”.

If we allow our estimate to include all Ph.D. scientists (not just climate specialists) you might be interested to know that the past president of the USAAS began asking scientists to sign a request for President Bush to reject Kyoto on the grounds that the science was so uncertain. Last time I looked, over 18,000 had signed.”

Linkage?  I can’t even find the “USAAS”.  The Seitz petition (that would be “past president of NAS”, NOT “USAAS” includes everything from bachelors up, not just PhDs.

“Of the 15,000 signers of the petition, … about 2,100 were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists and meteorologists, “and of those the greatest number are physicists.”

That’s from the physicist that helped write the article associated with the petition.. which is the infamous Soon/Baliumas crud.

Sun May 15, 2005 8:59 pm
Lance Kennedy:

Sorry.  Should have been AAAS (not USAAS)  I’m not an American and don’t know any better.

You are correct in that non climate scientists are not to be taken as seriously. I just mentioned it to show that global warming skepticism is common.

Sun May 15, 2005 10:06 pm

No, it’s NAS, and I’m not American either.  :)

“You are correct in that non climate scientists are not to be taken as seriously. I just mentioned it to show that global warming skepticism is common.”

So is creationism.  :shrug:  Last time I checked, argument from popularity was a logical fallacy.

Mon May 16, 2005 1:04 am
Lance Kennedy:

The difference global warming skepticism has to creationism is that creationists are not professional biologists (or any other kind of scientist, with very few exceptions).  Global warming skepticism is alive and well in the climate science community and in the wider scientific community.  While popularity is not ‘proof’ of anything, lack of scientific consensus should be enough to make anyone pause and think.

And a little background about those two:

skepticforum Profile data for Lance Kennedy:
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:20 pm
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

skepticforum Profile data for Graculus:
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Ontario

Incredibly, I found this by searching for +”creationists are not professional” on Google, the incredible part being that I found this phrase combined with the “credentialed” reference, taken from Scientific American magazine, which is a liberal atheist magazine.

Other related examples:

“… there is no such thing as a christian scientist” – homestarr2, 2009, about 124 days ago (8 months), Yahoo Answers

Question: “Christians, why do monkeys have the same blood type as us? The only process we could have blood types is through genetics, which is passed through evolution. There’s no such thing as a Christian scientist.” – Taylor (apparently a banned member), April 5, 2010, Yahoo Answers

The winning answer by way, by one vote, was “Because God created both them and us. Evolution as a religion has far more holes than Christianity.” – atomzer0

There is no such thing as a Christian scientist. Thats a contradiction of terms. Science is not based on “observation,” it based on hypothesis, and theories. Which would classify it as a “superstition.”

Science: experimentation, The observation[…] – “These have the power to shut heaven” (a theist who likes quoting the Bible, but won’t call himself a Christian, and who was banned from the site he made that comment on, and for other ridiculous comments like that Galileo wasn’t a Christian and that Isaac Newton wasn’t a scientist), Sodahead

And on a “Creationists Exposed” rant at, I discovered on 4/26/2010/12:00 PM, that Richard Dawkins made an absurd (and unprofessional) excuse as to why he would not to reply to a question concerning the evolutionary process, and here it is in this quote:

On September 16, 1997, Keziah Video Productions, in the persons of Gillian Brown and Geoffrey Smith, came to my house in Oxford to film an interview with me. I had agreed to see them, on the misapprehension (as it later turned out) that they were from a respectable Australian broadcasting company. I had no idea they were a creationist front and I would not have granted them an interview had I known this, because of my policy as mentioned above.

The interview began. I have considerable experience of television work, and I was initially surprised at the amateurishness of their filming technique, but I carried on without voicing my surprise. As the interview proceeded, I became increasingly puzzled at the tone of the questions. Puzzlement gave way to suspicion that Keziah was, in fact, a creationist front which had gained admittance to my house under false pretences.

The suspicion increased sharply when I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask. A real biologist finds it an easy question to answer (the answer is that natural selection increases the information content of the genome all the time – that is precisely what natural selection means), but, from an evolutionary point of view, it is not an interesting way to put it. It would only be phrased that way by somebody who doubts that evolution happened.

Now I was faced with a dilemma. I was almost certain that these people had gained admittance to my house under false pretences – in other words, I had been set up. On the other hand, I am a naturally courteous person, especially in my own house, and these were guests from overseas. What should I do? I paused for a long time, trying to decide whether to throw them out, and, I have to admit, struggling not to lose my temper. Finally, I decided that I would ask them to leave, but I would do it in a polite way, explaining to them why. I then asked them to stop the tape, which they did. […]

On this website in which this excuse is quoted, it says below it,

“[…] they [the alleged creationists] are not engaged in scientific research, and thus cannot hope to succeed on the scientific level, they resort to ad hominem attacks on the genuine scientists who have exposed their myths.

[Me: But calling people “creationists” and equating with “people who waste time” and equating them to flat-earthers over a harmless question and deciding to kick them out of your house for it and calling them unprofessional a isn’t anything close to an “ad hominem” attack? What a hypocrite.]

What are the effects?

What effects will the dissemination of this particularly egregious example of that tactic have in the real world? What effect would it have, for example, on Richard Dawkins’ professional reputation among his scientific peers? We would suspect practically none, because no professional biologist, nor any other competent scientist, would be hoodwinked for a moment into thinking that Prof Dawkins had been baffled by such a crudely easy question.”

On a side note, note this ratbag’s pretentious word “egregious” in the context of this “that question was just too crudely simple for Master Dawkins, no professional scientists would believe Master Dawkins was fooled” (a sign of a narcissist). And what is “crudely easy“? That doesn’t even make sense. And how was calling alleged creationsts unprofessional for no logical reason other than asking a question that was too low for the his royal highness King William Dawkins the III, Imperial Lord of the Scientists, who may not be bothered with so called “not complex enough” questions? Just imagine if Dawkins had said, “You dare ask me such a simple question! You must be creationists you unprofessional fools!” And speaking of “unprofessional”, what kind of name for a website is “ratbags”? Ridiculous. Narcissists should be put away in mental institutions.

Basically, anti-theists and liberals are saying,

“You must have professional credentials and have your claims in favor of God, the Bible or Intelligent Design peer reviewed and judged by us to for them to be acceptable to us true scientists and for us to decree to the world that they are either right or worth giving their attention to.”

My counter-arguments:

1) Says who? Who made anti-Christians God? Is this a universal commandment from God? Obviously not. If that point isn’t obvious to an adult who can easily use a search engine to do research, or easily go to a bookstore or library to research, than it says a lot about their mental health.

2) Of course, “professional credentials” to an anti-Christian isn’t something you can truly get from another Christian, not a fundamentalist one, especially not one who believes, oh how stupid: that the first things and elements weren’t mindlessly created, but designed, being that they have a design and that there is no such thing as literal “randomness” or “chaos”. It’s similar to when some anti-Christians, when they say, “scientists” or “biologists” say those words and pretend or claim that only non-Christians or non-theists or liberals can be scientists. So when an anti-Christian says, “You must have professional credentials to be correct” and “You must have your work peer reviewed for it to be right”, what they mean is, “You must have professional credentials from anti-Christians or liberals, to be correct” and “You must have your work peer reviewed and approved as as right by anti-Christians or liberals, to be correct.”

3) Did the first humans need professional credentials and peer review of their claims or beliefs? Imagine how little progress would have been made if the first human and humans refrained from believing what they did or making any claims because they had no “professionals” to approve award their beliefs and claims or “peer reviewers” to decree, “Thou mayest believest what you do and claim what you doest because I’m a professional and peer reviewer, Ramen.” Imagine, a Christian decides to imitate the scientific experiment Gideon did to verify whether or not he was talking to God (yes: the Bible does teach science), and concludes God exists, but some atheist comes up to him and says, “Do you have professional credentials to believe what you do or tell me God exists? Was your so called science experiment peer reviewed? I’ll show you what real science is you primitive Christian!” Imagine again, how little progress we would have made if we had to obey the anti-Christian commandments to not believe or claim anything unless it’s approved of by them, and only professionals among the anti-Christian crowd. We’d all be standing out in the rain waiting to eat till some atheist came around to give everyone professional credentials and to peer review their idea to use a tree for shelter or eat a berry for food, and since that would never happen, the human race would have gone extinct, while our unprofessional animal peers continued to devolve into little weak animals, till viruses, harsh weather, starvation and old age finished them all off.

4) It’s really pretentious I think for these haters to say, “peer reviewed” rather than speaking plainly and saying instead, “you work must be judged by and approved of by us”. Instead they use a fancy phrase “peer reviewed” to make sound like they are scientists themselves, and wise.

5) Hypocritical: How convenient that Christians must submit all their claims, scientific or not, for “peer review” to anti-Christians, when these so called “peers” often won’t even bother to look at the claim carefully at the hint that it has something to do with showing evidence for Christianity. It’s like a bully pretending to be honest, by saying to the ones he bullies, “Unless I approve of your beliefs you’re wrong, now give me your work and tell you if you’re wrong or not.” As if  the bully isn’t going to be biased and waste more time.

6) Hypocritical circular reasoning: How convenient that these anti-Christians don’t believe that they need to have their beliefs “peer reviewed” by Christians or that no Christian is a scientist, juz bcuz “Christians believe in God”, and of course God doesn’t exist, juz bcuz the atheist or liberal said so. If anti-Christians really cared about the truth, they wouldn’t hide behind the credentials and peer review lines.

7) It’s circular reasoning to claim that only claims and beliefs by people with professional credentials given by liberals, in what they claim or believe and who’ve had their claims and beliefs peer reviewed by liberals, may make those claims and believe what they do, because, how could the first humans become professionals, let alone “professional peer reviewers” if there was no professionals to begin with? There would be no “professionals” of any kind if there needed to be a human one already in existence. So according to anti-Christians and anti-theist logic, there’s an infinite amount of Professional, University-Degreed, Peer Reviewer Liberal gods whom each got their professional credentials from a previous professional, university-degreed, liberal god. Obviously, you don’t need another human to become wise and trustworthy, you can learn from God, and learn on  your own, with God’s supervision. You don’t need a liberal holding your hand and telling you, “That’s wrong, that’s right” every step of the way.

How convenient and dishonest to dismiss the truth, research and to fob off responsibility to look into the truth yourself, by simply saying to a person, “You need professional credentials”, “You work needs to be peer reviewed”.

There’s nothing evil with learning “on your own”, meaning learning without someone standing somewhere nearby dictating things to you or telling you when you’ve done right or wrong, nothing sinful about it. People learn on their own all the time, out of necessity and to surpass others. There’s even a name for people who gain a large amount of knowledge and understanding of a subject: autodidact.

“an autodidact is someone who is self-taught. It comes from the Greek autodidaktos and entered the English language in 1748.

Many of our most prolific inventors and scientist, men like Thomas Alvin Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Samuel Morse, Wilbur and Orville Wright, etc were autodidactists. Today most lifelong learners are autodidactists because they are self-directed learners who master many subjects without the benefits of a formal classroom and instructor. My wife, the schoolteacher, loves to tell people that I’m the exemplary autodidactist. I quit school to enlist in the United States Air Force at seventeen where I mastered the art of jet engine mechanic. My excuse was that the only classes that interest me were math, science and shop classes and I was already doing 12th grade work when I was in the 7thgrade. I later received my GED and took some junior college courses. In later years I enrolled in some online college courses but never sought a degree. Over the years I mastered many things as a self directed learner, believe-it-or-not; I actually taught myself electronics and had a successful radio and TV repair business when I was sixteen years old. My only reason for telling you all this personal stuff is to show you that anyone can become an autodactist if they have the desire to learn as a self-directed learner.

Back in those pre World Wide Web days when I undertook the task of educating myself, I was limited to books that I borrowed from the library or purchased from a local bookstore or from some book catalog. Today the self-directed learner has the knowledge of the whole world available at his or her fingertips.” – Jerry Walch, Staff Writer,

Here is a large list of famous autodidactics: Autodidactic Hall of Fame: Self-educated People Who’ve Made a Difference.

So, once again, it’s clear:

if atheists, anti-theists and anti-Christians had their way, if they were in charge of the entire world, if we “imagined no religion”, “imagined no God”, or imagined no Christians, so to speak, in other words God rid of belief in God and stop practicing any religion, there would be no more “science” or human system of any kind, let alone any humans left at all, because eventually, we’d all die out from serevely illogical reasoning.

It’s ironic, but not surprising to me, how the circular anti-Christian argument that, “You must have professional credentials and must have your work peer reviewed by professionals for your claims and beliefs to be worthy of attention and legitimate” requires the existence of God to have made the first professional in order to break the circular reasoning of that argument.

The first teacher, was God, and he continues to teach with the universe he made, and especially with his word.

Related articles:

Circular Reasoning

Begging the Question

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Guilt by Association Fallacy

Fallacy: Circular Reasoning

What Is Circular Reasoning? (a PDF)

Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology

Cat Brains are 83 Times Faster than a Modern Super Computer

April 19, 2010 2 comments

University of Michigan computer that learns

and recognizes uses cat brain as model

by Rosemary Black

4/19/2010/2:16 PM

You knew cats had nine lives, but did you know they’re also smarter than sophisticated supercomputers?

Since computers are slower than a cat’s brain, a new computer project involving the University of Michigan will use a feline brain as a model, reports.

University of Michigan computer engineer Wei Lu, who already has built a “memristor,” a machine that can remember past voltages it was subjected to, now is working toward developing a revolutionary computer capable of learning and recognizing.

“We are building a computer in the same way that nature builds a brain,” Lu told the Web site. “The idea is to use a completely different paradigm compared to conventional computers. The cat brain sets a realistic goal because it is much simpler than a human brain but still extremely difficult to replicate in complexity and efficiency.”

Most sophisticated computers may be able to perform some jobs with the equivalent of a cat’s brain functionality, but instead of being a 10-pound mouse catcher, these are huge machines with more than 140,000 central processing units and their own dedicated power supply.

Despite all the bells and whistles, the computer, Lu wrote in his paper (online in Nano Letters) still performs 83 times more slowly than a cat’s brain. And that’s really the cat’s meow. – Source

It’s amazing how even after 6,400 years of devolving and being subjected to countless toxins in the environment, that God’s creatures are still highly functional and very intelligent. Truly, God’s creatures are far from “simple” or “primitive” despite what many God-hating Darwinists say when babbling about evolution.

More amazing facts about cats:

Related Stories:

‘Brain’ in a dish flies flight simulator
11/4/2004/1:56 P.M. EST/1856 GMT

A Florida scientist has developed a “brain” in a glass dish that is capable of flying a virtual fighter plane and could enhance medical understanding of neural disorders such as epilepsy.

The “living computer” was grown from 25,000 neurons extracted from a rat’s brain and arranged over a grid of 60 electrodes in a Petri dish.

The brain cells then started to reconnect themselves, forming microscopic interconnections, said Thomas DeMarse, professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Florida.

“It’s essentially a dish with 60 electrodes arranged in a dish at the bottom,” explained DeMarse, who designed the study.

“Over that we put the living cortical neurons from rats, which rapidly begin to reconnect themselves, forming a living neural network — a brain.”

Although such living networks could one day be used to fly unmanned aircraft, DeMarse said the study was of more immediate relevance as an experimental aid to understanding how the human brain performs and learns computational tasks at a cellular level.

“We’re interested in studying how brains compute,” said DeMarse. – More here.

Mouse brain simulated on computer
4/27/2007/23:59 GMT/00:59 UK

US researchers have simulated half a virtual mouse brain on a supercomputer.

The scientists ran a “cortical simulator” that was as big and as complex as half of a mouse brain on the BlueGene L supercomputer.

In other smaller simulations the researchers say they have seen characteristics of thought patterns observed in real mouse brains.

Now the team is tuning the simulation to make it run faster and to make it more like a real mouse brain.

Life signs

Brain tissue presents a huge problem for simulation because of its complexity and the sheer number of potential interactions between the elements involved.

The three researchers, James Frye, Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan, and Dharmendra S Modha, laid out how they went about it in a very short research note entitled “Towards Real-Time, Mouse-Scale Cortical Simulations”.

Half a real mouse brain is thought to have about eight million neurons each one of which can have up to 8,000 synapses, or connections, with other nerve fibres.

Modelling such a system, the trio wrote, puts “tremendous constraints on computation, communication and memory capacity of any computing platform”.

The team, from the IBM Almaden Research Lab and the University of Nevada, ran the simulation on a BlueGene L supercomputer that had 4,096 processors, each one of which used 256MB of memory.

Using this machine the researchers created half a virtual mouse brain that had 8,000,000 neurons that had up to 6,300 synapses.

The vast complexity of the simulation meant that it was only run for 10 seconds at a speed ten times slower than real life – the equivalent of one second in a real mouse brain. – More here.

Digital Rat Brain Spontaneously Develops Organized Neuron Patterns
Researchers hope the breakthrough could lead to a fully virtual human brain within ten years
by Stuart Fox

Blue Brain This image is a 3-D model of what the connections in Blue Brain would look like if they were flesh and blood neurons, not computer code. Blue Brain Project, via The Wall Street Journal

Four years ago, a team of researchers at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland switched on Blue Brain, a computer designed to mimic a functioning slice of a rat’s brain. At first, the virtual neurons fired only when prodded by a simulated electrical current. But recently, that has changed.

Apparently, the simulated neurons have begun spontaneously coordinating, and organizing themselves into a more complex pattern that resembles a wave. According to the scientists, this is the beginning of the self-organizing neurological patterns that eventually, in more complex mammal brains, become personality.

The computer simulation utilizes an IBM supercomputer capable of performing 22.8 trillion operations in a second. And that’s just barely enough to simulate one part of a rat’s brain. Each individual neuron requires the computing power of a high-end desktop computer, and the small area of the brain that Blue Brain simulates contains 10,000 neurons. – More here.

Tiny Insect Brains Solve Big Problems
Insects have scientists re-thinking an age-old question: Are bigger brains better?
by Emily Sohn
11/16/ 2009/12:00 PM ET

Smaller brains do not necessarily mean less intelligence, as some insects have proven.

Insects may have tiny brains, but they can perform some seriously impressive feats of mental gymnastics.

According to a growing number of studies, some insects can count, categorize objects, even recognize human faces — all with brains the size of pinheads.

Despite many attempts to link the volume of an animal’s brain with the depth of its intelligence, scientists now propose that it’s the complexity of connections between brain cells that matters most. Studying those connections — a more manageable task in a little brain than in a big one — could help researchers understand how bigger brains, including those of humans, work.

Figuring out how a relatively small number of cells work together to process complex concepts could also lead to “smarter” computers that do some of the same tasks.

“The question is: If these insects can do these things with such little brains, what does anything need a big brain for?” said Lars Chittka of Queen Mary University of London, who presented his arguments along with colleague Jeremy Niven in the journal Current Biology. “Bigger isn’t necessarily better, and in some cases it could be quite the opposite.”

Because we are intelligent animals with big brains, people have long assumed that big brains are smarter brains. Yet, scientists have found scant evidence to support that view, Chittka said. Studies that have made those connections are fraught with problems. “If you try many measurements,” he said, “Eventually you will find one that shows a correlation.”

There’s a lot of evidence, on the other hand, that overall size is irrelevant when it comes to brain power. Among humans, individuals with larger noggins don’t have higher IQs. Whales, with brains that weigh up to 20 pounds and have more than 200 billion neurons, are no smarter than people, with our measly 3-pound brains that have just 85 billion neurons.

Instead of contributing intelligence, big brains might just help support bigger bodies, which have larger muscles to coordinate and more sensory information coming in. Like computers, Chittka said, size might add storage capacity but necessarily speed or usefulness. At the same time, it takes a lot of energy to support a big brain.

On a smaller scale, scientists are finally moving past the idea that locusts, ants, bees and other insects are simple machines that respond to events in predictable ways, said Sarah Farris, an evolutionary neurobiologist at West Virginia University in Morgantown. Study after study now shows that insects can, in fact, change their behavior depending on the circumstances.

Honeybees, which have been the focus of Chittka’s work, have tiny brains with fewer than a million neurons. Yet, the insects can classify shapes as symmetrical or asymmetrical. They can pick objects based on concepts like “same” or “different.” They can also learn to stop flying after a prescribed number of landmarks rather than after a certain distance.

Ants and bees have notoriously complex social systems. Along with other insects, they can move in a surprising number of ways to communicate or get around.

Bees, for example, can sting, scout for food, guard the hive and fan their wings for ventilation, along with more than 50 other behaviors. The insect’s behavioral repertoire, in fact, surpasses that of some vertebrates.”

“They are fantastically smart,” Chittka said. – More here.

There are four things which are little upon the earth, but they are exceeding wise:

The ants are a people not strong, yet they stack meat in the summer;

The hyrax are not powerful, yet make they their houses in the rocks;

The locusts have no king, yet all them go they forth by bands;

The spider takes hold with her hands, and is in kings’ palaces.

There are three things which go beautifully, yes, four are beautiful in walking:

A lion which is the most valiant among beasts, who doesn’t turn away out of fear from anyone; a greyhound; a he goat also; and a king, whom there is no rising against. – Proverbs 30:24-31 (my translation)

This post can be reached at

Michio Kaku: The Blind Physicist Who Elected Himself Spokesperson for All Scientists

May 16, 2009 2 comments

“when you ask where physical law comes from, then you run into big problems” – Michio Kaku, December 18, 2002

“when someone asks us where string theory came from, at that point we just throw up our hands, we don’t know” – Michio Kaku, December 18, 2002

You don’t speak for all scientists Mich, and it was hateful for you to claim that creation scientist Christians say that they don’t know where the physical laws of the universe came from. Disorder doesn’t lead to order, and as you yourself said, on December 18, 2002, the chance of life coming about on its own is near to zero, which is a lie, since life can only come about from order, not disorder, so it is not near to zero, it is zero.

Update 4/15/2011:

Other Information on Michio’s Character

I found more info about Michio’s character some days ago, but because my laptop doesn’t have enough memory to handle what I do to it, I’ve delayed posting this info for a long while. But this is what I found on Mainstream Scientist Peter Woit’s blog:

A commenter points out that on [Michio’s] MySpace site [Michio] has posted a copy of a forthcoming article by him that is supposed to appear in New Scientist. It is about the controversy over string theory, but doesn’t at all deal with the criticisms of the theory contained in my book and Smolin’s. It does contain a thoroughly dishonest paragraph about me, misrepresenting my position at Columbia (Kaku is well aware than I am a faculty member and teach graduate courses here, as well as administering the department computer system), and describing me as a “former particle physicist” (he’s well aware I have recently written a book on the subject of particle physics and continue to conduct research on the subject; then again, many people consider him to be a “former particle physicist”). He ascribes my criticism of string theory to jealousy over having been turned down for tenured positions at prestigious universities in favor of string theorists, and misquotes something I wrote about string theory:

String theory has only a “poetic relationship” to reality.

I never have said or written anything like this.

More here

Related article: What Does Michio Kaku Believe?

Yet Another Bigot Atheist Who Thinks His Mere Claims With Boasting and Mocking Is Scientific Proof

December 17, 2008 Leave a comment

Here is one of many false reviews (with my replies) on against a creationist book (the amazon CEO and his company moderators are fine with false and slanderous attacks against Christians) on  the book Of Pandas and People

(5 Stars [Which moron Tony and other atheist morons like himself gave the book in order to trick people into reading their review) 64 of 190 people found the following review helpful: Truth is finally revealed!, September 26, 2005 By Tony P. Konig "K-Tone"

"That silly fossil record has all the scientists fooled."

1. Not the creationist scientists.

2. Why did you stereotype all scientists as not being creationists? Do you know what lying is? Do you know what evidence is? Because evidence are not insults. Did you notice that the authors of this book were biologists, scientists, unlike you, moron? So then if scientists are the ones who are always right, according to your mind, why then are you slandering them? Contradict yourself much? Hence you reveal what a biased person you are. Would you believe evolutionist scientists then, gullible one who believes whatever matches his feelings? Testing 1 2 3, testing:

textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." – John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton

"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation." – Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D., Biologist AND paleontologist AND textbook author AND FORMER Evolutionist)

Still there with your fairytale "only evolutionists are scientists" belief?

3. What is your evidence the fossil record conforms to Darwinian theory? Oh, let me guess, you believed the little quotes and pictures in your 3rd grade biology class, and after having heard the propaganda lines like, "the fossil record proves evolution" repeated to you over and over, decided that it just must be true. No wait, you saw a cartoon, no wait, you watched a movie on the Discovery Channel in 3D! And you know when it’s 3D it just must be true! No wait you saw a "paleontologist" with an Indiana Jones hat on whining about how the fossil record is "tantalizingly" incomplete (and that supports evolution how moron?) Dummy says what? "But ‘tantalizing is a big word, sir, and people who use big words, especially who say they are paleontologists and go to a important-sounding university, must be right." Why then moron don’t you believe the scientist from Princeton, who admits secular biology books are filled with assumptions? Say what? "Well, cuz I didn’t see him in a neat 3D cartoon animation on the Discovery Channel, and not with a Indiana Jones hat on either, I loves those hats, it’s my favorite hat." Ok scoffer, but moving on to the rest of your "scientific" analysis:

4. Did you bother to read about and look at the evidence (which dummies like yourself hide by babbling dumb ignorance and never bothering to listen carefully but rather obsess on your feelings, awww, your feelings, how scientific). Hint super dummy: Answers In Genesis or Forbidden Archeology. Read super moron, read. And look at the pictures too, we know you like pictures. Don’t you just demonstrate how good you are are listening with your rant, but not replying to what’s in the book, but making dumb insults in ignorance? No, so read moron, read, read things other than your own reviews, based on your dumb assumptions in rehashed years old defeated "proof".

"Don’t they get it? God is messing with our heads."

Moron, don’t blame God for your mistakes made due to you following your heart rather than being careful in what you believe. Don’t blame God, you moron, when you make mistakes due to you assuming things, and believing what merely seems right, than what is right. But it is true, that he controls your heart, and does not want all to be saved, hence why you, a moron, may be a moron forever:

"[God] has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn" – John 12:40

And he also uses Satan to accomplish this:

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. – 2 Corinthians 4:4

"He wants to challenge us to really have faith by putting something so believable in front of your eyes that it can not be denied…"

Like this super moron?:

Awwww: was a supernaturally made image of Jesus upon his resurrection, as recorded by the archaeologically proven (not proven to morons like you who suffer from mental-laziness, delusions of grandeur, and skepticemia however) Bible? How about this Mr. Fossil Record Proves My Scientific Feelings True:

I like how that fossilized tree trunk is sticking like a middle finger up at you right up through those millions of years old strata layers. Oh but wait let me guess, "It’s just an illusion! Satan put it there!" : )

On and where’s the roots? I wonder why they are gone… hint hint, hit hard by the flood waters you. Oh and by the way, those TRUNKS (not that one wasn’t sufficient evidence to refute scoffers like yourself) are in Germany and there are a forest of them in Yellowstone too.

Can you tell us how these fossils fit in to your oh so obvious logical progression of fossils?:

Oh you didn’t know about those? G I wonder why. Not. Moron what made you think all scientists are honest and that CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS JUST HAPPENED TO BE THE DISHONEST ONES, YOU MORON? CAN EXPLAIN THAT BIAS YOU IDIOT? Don’t ya know creation scientists are in the habit of sabotaging fellow creation scientists to get grant money and to get teaching positions in universities like evolutionist scientists are known for doing by many morons (but apparently not by ignorant morons like yourself). Can you really blame your being fooled on their propaganda and them hiding the truth so that they can become famous and make money and not have to hear about that oh so "unfun" Bible? Can you really blame them for you not taking a few seconds to ponder if evolutionist scientists were perfect or not, and why they might not be? CLAIMING TO BE A SCIENTIST AND PRACTICING "SCIENCE" OR EVEN DOING SO MOST OF YOUR LIFE WILL NOT MAKE YOU A MORAL PERSON IDIOT, ANYONE CAN DO SCIENCE AND DENY THE RESULTS. BIG MASSIVE DUH. I MEAN YOU’RE ONLY ACCUSING MILLIONS OF CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS AND CHRISTIANS PRACTICING SCIENCE OF DOING THE SAME, SO HOW DID THAT SLIP PAST YOU IDIOT? FULL OF BITTER HATE MUCH?

"and then contradicting it with the book he gave mankind."

Oh yes you moron, don’t you know the Bible you don’t read, let alone carefully, says, "Animals evolved." DON’T YOU KNOW?

"The point God is making is that science should be denied"


HYPOTHESIS: DOES GOD HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THINGS SUPERNATURALLY AND AM I TALKING TO GOD?: Gideon said to God, "If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised"

FIRST TEST: "’look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said.’ And that is what happened. Gideon rose early the next day; he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dew—a bowlful of water.

REPEAT THE TEST: "Then Gideon said to God, ‘Do not be angry with me. Let me make just one more request. Allow me one more test with the fleece. This time make the fleece dry and the ground covered with dew." That night God did so. Only the fleece was dry; all the ground was covered with dew.

So what were you saying ignorant psuedoscientist false wise man, scoffer?

"regardless of how much sense it makes"

Speaking for the world again, which is hardly all atheists, and contains 60+ million Calvinists who know you’re wrong?

"because our fate depends on it."

Yeah, you really needed to add that part, that just made so much to include in your rant.

"Faith trumps logic for most people in the world."

Your’re so right, and that must then include you moron, and the rest of the world who believes in evolution, which doesn’t include Calvinists, the minority. Thank you, moron, for contradicting yourself again. Let’s have another example of that baseless faith (hint hint… faith doesn’t mean "illogical" definition-impaired moron) that you fully admit the world often has in place of logic:

So what was that your moron evolutionist friends said, jokingly, in mockery of Christians, about Satan tampering with fossils? DUR?

"That’s the way humans are supposed to be."

Insano who thinks he’s God, suffering from delusions of granduer, says what? Clearly you’re no scientist, no wise man. You are an unoriginal moron though.

"I mean, we’re not Vulcans, thank God."

Yes, we’re not the emotionless moron make-believe aliens made up by an atheist moron. What’s your point unfunny time-wasting dork?

"If you let logic trump faith;"

Dummy, get a dictionary, and look up "logic" and "faith". They aren’t mutually exclusive words. Stop assuming what the Bible teaches, actually carefully read or listen to what you argue against next time, don’t assuming then you won’t be arguing against against your nonsensical imagination.

"if you decide to believe in the illusion that God created to test your faith,"

What illusion? Fantasize much?

"you will fail the test and roast in the fires of hell forever."

No moron, it’s hating God and not repenting of it, which will have you suffering forever in Hell, in total darkness, with a worm constantly eating away at your burning rotting body, while you tearfully scream in agony, forever in shame for having followed your feelings over the obvious truth.

"It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’ Everyone will be salted with fire." – Jesus, who, unlike you, has, for thousands of years been saving lives, and improving them, and making peace where there was Hell. Who’s word, unlike yours, is a best seller, and has been for decades. So who are you, to speak against him, and arrogantly like you do? Get a life scoffer.

"Put your faith in the Big Prankster."

Oh the  moron with his backwards mind, calls God "Satan", and makes light of Satan on top of it. No moron, God is The Truth, who made a clearly beautiful universe, clearly full of order, adhering to "laws" and even gave us moral laws, good ones, which you did not come up with. So what was that about "illusions" and "pranks", blind moron? I don’t see randomness or chaos anywhere except in the thoughts of morons like you, who’s logic is no logic at all, but the baseless faith you accuse Christians of having, you dumb moronic hypocrite. Stop projecting, stop trying to drag everyone down to your dumb level. Stop being jealous that God chose to allow others to see the obvious, and that you have no way to refute it but with nutty insults.

"He’s just messing with you."

Unfunny third grade brat who’s shaming himself in front of adults says what?

"He created the fossil record at the same time he created all the living beings on this planet."

Huh? Hey everyone let’s go to and to learn some real science instead of dumb third grader poo-poo jokes. Progress is great!

"This is a test of faith."

Will you stop rambling already dummy? Oy my, look, more stupidity below:

"Doesn’t it comfort you that God would play such a joke on mankind?"

Hey, do you know when to quit an unfunny joke, and when endless repition is useless? How about if I call you moron 6000 times more in a row, then will you get the point you Show-off-of-his-stupid-feelings?

"He gave us the intelligence to figure out the logical progression of life from clues he planted intentionally to fool us,"

Hey dummy, are you still ranting nutsense? Yeah, don’t we all know that what are "clues ["OF EVOLUTION" YOU WEASEL WORDING IDIOT] are clues of evolution to everyone else, including the 60+ million creationists and Calvinists like me? Why do you morons always speak like that for everyone on the planet, including tens of millions who DISAGREE WITH YOU? WHY? DUH? COULD SOMEONE BE A MASSIVELY DELUDED ARROGANT IDIOT? I THINK SO. How about instead of repeating your dumb opinions, you instead study carefully? Is that too hard for your lazy mind to do? Too much pain to think huh? Yes, it is easier to type uncreative unoriginal dumb opinions over and over, but progress is much better, learning the truth is much better, don’t you think?

"then he gave us a book whose wisdom challenges the logical progression he laid"

Still making a fool of yourself? Can you show us this "logical progression", at least one picture of life starting by chance and then evolving into a man? Come on even one transitional fossil out of the billions that supposedly once existed over the billions of years that they supposedly did? Dur? Oh you’re going to show me a picture form who? National Geographic? Aren’t those the same morons that were duped by the archeoraptor "transitional fossil"? Aren’t those the ones who pretended that deformed flatfish becoming more deformed was, LOL, EVOLUTION, and that it couldn’t be explained by Intelligent Design believers (oh yes it’s just so hard to explain why a planet God cursed with death and evil morons like yourself keep getting more deformed, damn, that’s just so hard, dur). So why then why, would you show me anything from them, you idiot, or any other idiots who were duped like them, which includes you?

Another free tip for you: repeating "high words" and phrases doesn’t make you right or intelligent moron, and if it did, you’d be one of the dumbest of all in comparison to creationists and Calvinists. Another free hint: Saying that you’re right doesn’t make you right idiot, so no matter how many times you claim to be logical (and you’ve shown yourself to be a moron instead) it won’t make you logical. But do tell us about this book which trumps anything you’ve ever done in your worthless life… Hello? Still there?

"out and told us to believe in it, or else."

No dummy, he didn’t say that. But thanks for making it ever more clear what an assuming moron you are:

"You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by Yahweh?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of Yahweh does not take place or come true, that is a message Yahweh has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." – Deuteronomy 18:21-22 ("Ooopie" you? Go punch yourself in the face now? That’s only the fifth book in the Bible, out of about 66, written about 4000 years ago. Was that too late of a hint for you, oh scientific genius and wise man of the obvious? DUR? DOH?)

"Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves." – John 14:11, Yeshuah, the man born of a virgin, as prophecied (can you prophecy air head?), who is far more famous than you for being both wise and good, unlike you.

"Now he’s waiting to see whether he can float us on a cloud"

No arrogant dummy: "all things are possible with God." – Mark 10:27,

"or roast us on a spit for all eternity based on our decision.

These thoughts are what help me to sleep peacefully at night."

Where does say"roast us on a spit" in the Bible, moron scoffer? Tell us mocker. But since you are making fun of your Creator, and using a lie to do it, can you imagine what he will do to you on the day of judgment? Dur? An can you figure out yet why he would punish a severely evil man like you, for all eternity? Can you figure it out slanderer and mocker of Jesus (Jesus who suffered an eternity of pain and allowed himself to be shamefully executed for evil men like you)? Can you figure it out you who insulted all the Christians, including Christian kids, who suffered to do right, even when being punished unjustly by evil ignorance-loving scoffers like you, even to death? Can you figure it out you who insulted all the Christian kids who have been tortured to death in evil ways by men like you, and the babies who were murdered because their parents were Christians? Dur? Can you figure it out you who WON’T REPENT and MOCKS GOD ON TOP OF IT? DUR? DOH? You’re a dumb scoffer.

"Penalties are prepared for mockers, and beatings for the backs of fools." – Proverbs 19:29

"the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." – Revelation 14:11

"How long will you simple ones love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge? If you had responded to my rebuke, I would have poured out my heart to you and made my thoughts known to you. But since you rejected me when I called and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand, since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster; I will mock when calamity overtakes you, when calamity overtakes you like a storm, when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind, when distress and trouble overwhelm you. Then they will call to me but I will not answer; they will look for me but will not find me. Since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear Yahweh, since they would not accept my advice and spurned my rebuke, they will eat the fruit of their ways and be filled with the fruit of their schemes. For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them; but whoever listens to me will live in safety and be at ease, without fear of harm." – Proverbs 1:22

"He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble." – Proverbs 3:34

Will those thoughts also help you to sleep at night too? Keep heaping up your sins stupid, you’ll only be punishing yourself in the end.

Tony is, in his own words: "an enthusiast of Buddhism, I am inclined to agree that I would have liked to heard more from the Dalai Lama himself". Yes, but his actions or should I say inactions, Tony the gullible-violence lover, are more important that his words. That video was made in part by those foul-mouthed atheists speaking on the video – now if you don’t believe your own kind, then who will you believe?

The people you support reflect your personality. I support Jesus; who do you support world?