Random Gadfly

We assume that everybody wants to be with God. Some don’t… The problem is that ALL good things come from God. So they are removing themselves from EVERYTHING good. That is hell… #grownostr #Christianity #God

First Life Must Have Had a Minimally Reliable Replication System ­— A Conundrum for Materialists #apologetics #evolution #grownostr https://evolutionnews.org/2023/09/first-life-must-have-had-a-minimally-reliable-replication-system-a-conundrum-for-materialists/

The design complexity of the cell, points away from Darwinian evolution. #apologetics #evolution #science #plebchain https://youtu.be/pMzqA4XNxtw?si=VkA5siVaBZjiyQPS

WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL ABOUT A NEW PAPYRUS WITH SAYINGS OF JESUS? _______________ “If the proposed date is right, then 5575 would be … one of the earliest witnesses to any Christian document.” #Christianity #Jesus #history #apologetics #grownostr https://textandcanon.org/whats-the-big-deal-about-a-new-papyrus-with-sayings-of-jesus/

The Shop Rat! _______________ Check out my other nostr channel named “The Shop Rat”. In it, I write about and showcase my other love in life of making things of value. I will be covering all things related to the craftsman and their trade. Join me in the art of creation! The Shop Rat: @npub1sd3wwlvl6f58yzs4ss90x07e4dwd7yl6h3n0pygpz9vqjcxd99aq90vwne #grownostr #plebchain #nostr #woodworking #DIY

Good Sunday morning, nostr! Make me to know your ways, O Lord; teach me your paths. Lead me in your truth and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long. (verses 4–5) ~ Psalm 25 – David’s Prayer for Help, Guidance, and Forgiveness #God #Christianity #Jesus #coffeechain

C.S. LEWIS QUOTE _______________ “Nearly everyone I know who has embraced Christianity in adult life has been influenced by what seemed to him to be at least a probable argument for theism.” ~ C. S. Lewis _______________ #grownostr #Christianity #Bible #apologetics

JORDAN PETERSON’S UNDERSTANDING OFJESUS CHRIST _______________ “What you have in the figure of Christ is an actual person who actually lived, plus a myth, and, in some sense, Christ is the union of those two things. The problem is I probably believe that, but I’m amazed at my own belief and I don’t understand it.” “It’s too terrifying a reality to fully believe. I don’t even know what would happen to you if you fully believed it.” ~Jordan Peterson in an interview with Jonathan Pageau _______________ If you enjoy my posts, please like, boost or give me a follow! Zaps are always great too! #grownostr #Christianity #Bible #apologetics https://youtu.be/Lysz7RvfTVc

#God #evolution #science #grownostr #naturallaw

Just a friendly reminder! Fairytales come in all forms! #evolution #darwin #naturallaw #science #grownostr

THE COMPLEXITY THAT IS SEEN IN BIOLOGY IMPLIES A DESIGNER _______________ In a series of essays titled “The Deniable Darwin”, David Berlinski has an imaginary conversation with Jorge Luis Borges an Argentinian writer of short stories. In this conversation, Borges recounts the fantastic series of events in which all literary novels, in fact owe their existence and are descended from one ancestor novel “the Quixote”, the novel written by Miguel de Cervantes. Borges recalls to Berlinski over a cup of coffee, “As you know,” he continues, “the original handwritten text of “the Quixote” was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576.” The Cistercians were given the charge of making copies of the manuscript of “the Quixote”, but were not adept in the Spanish language and made many errors in their copying. Over the years, the singular errors made during the coping finally culminated in the first edition of Fernando Lor’s “Los Hombres d’Estado” in the year 1585. Then in 1654, still by singular coping errors Juan Luis Samorza’s novel “Por Favor” was created. The errors eventually lead to language changes from Spanish to French and then from French to English and throughout the years new novels that would become the literary masterpieces of the world were created. This chain of remarkable errors finally culminates in the novel “Ulysses”. Borges then proclaims, “Although every novel is derived directly from another novel, there is really only one novel, the “Quixote.” [1] Evolution’s growing issues _______________ As fantastic as this made-up discussion of the transformation of the novel Don Quixote into the novel Ulysses, it pales in comparison to the evolution that was created by Charles Darwin. One that implies that singular mutations can over time develop highly specialized structures in organisms and even new species. The mutations are completely random and when they are subjected to the harsh reality of their environment, they are tested by what evolution calls natural selection. The good mutations are passed down to future generations and the bad mutations ones, that are of no benefit or are detrimental to the organism, are killed off. This process was coined the ‘survival of the fittest’. At the time of Darwin, DNA, and the magnificently complicated structure of the cell were not yet discovered. Mutations were thought to be a simpler process that did not involve the encoded information contained in DNA. What evolutionists in Darwin’s day thought of as a single mutation would have contained thousands or millions of individual DNA mutations. An example would be the bud of a primeval leg forming on an organism. Then, the bud would have been thought as single mutation, but over a hundred years later it is known to be a vastly more complex situation. Mutations are disqualifying themselves as a driver of evolutionary change as time progresses, and more is known about DNA and the complexity of life. Evolutionary Paradoxes _______________ Evolution relies on random mutations and natural selection to be a viable theory for the diversity of life. However, there are issues with mutations causing changes in organisms. We can call these issues, evolutionary paradoxes. When the paradoxes are fully examined, they unveil the absurdity of evolutionary theory. Below are a few of the examples of evolutionary paradoxes. DNA — Protein Paradox: DNA is the information carrier for the construction of proteins that are in turn the building blocks of cells. Without DNA, the only way to build a protein would be the chance assembly from a primeval goo. So, for life to exist and to replicate in an environment you must have the blueprint of a protein’s assembly that is contained in DNA. However, DNA is itself made of proteins and assembled in cells. DNA and proteins rely on the other for their assembly. This establishes a “which came first, the chicken or the egg” situation. It is inconceivable that one component can assemble itself spontaneously enough to form the other. The creation of a protein is extremely complicated and further complicated by the proper folding of the protein. The protein folds are what allows it to function properly. According to Cyrus Levinthal, there are 10³⁰⁰ different ways that a protein can fold after a peptide chain is produced [2]. Only one of the folds is the correct one for the function of the protein. This is just one of numerous issues that either the protein or DNA would have to survive in order to spontaneously create. The Butterfly Paradox: As children, most of us become familiar with the life cycle of the butterfly. We learn that the butterfly starts out life as an egg laid by an adult. The egg hatches and a larval caterpillar is born. The caterpillar feeds and grows until it sheds its skin and starts the pupal stage of its life. In this stage the larva undergoes radical changes to its body. The legs, wings, and the body of an adult butterfly are formed and after a certain amount of time it emerges. Here is the paradox, the life cycle of the butterfly is only perpetuated by the adult mating and then laying its eggs. Consequently, the larva is not the same body configuration as the adult and cannot reproduce. It is separated from the reproductive phase of its life by a massive rearranging of its body in the pupal stage. How does this rearranging of major body parts happen in an evolutionary paradigm, where changes happen with individual random mutations in DNA? For the life cycle of the butterfly to exist in evolutionary terms the first larva of the species must make the transition to adult in one clean mutational jump. The pupal stage requires the DNA information to be clear and contain the many changes to form into an adult… to then reproduce. If this process was due to a series of singular random mutations, a vast amount would be detrimental to the larva and would kill it. How does this change happen via singular random mutations of DNA? This seems to be an all or nothing conundrum. The Male-Female Paradox: This is one of the greatest problems for the evolutionist, how did sexual reproduction evolve from single DNA mutations? This suffers from the same basic problem as the Butterfly Paradox. Mainly, a great leap in single mutational changes required to have the correct body types needed with the mechanism for successful procreation of the species at the end of the process. You could say this paradox even complicates the butterfly paradox further by adding another layer of complication to that issue. Evolutionists will say that organisms evolved into sexual reproduction as it is vastly more complicated than asexual reproduction. Basically, going from simple one celled organism that reproduces asexually and mutating into a more complicated multicell organism that reproduces sexually. So, how did that happen? To make the jump you must go from an asexual organism to a fully functioning male and female organism. Moreover, the process to procreate must work the first time or the species will not survive as either the male or female cannot asexually procreate on their own. This again is an all or nothing process that must happen successfully the first time via the process of random mutation and natural selection, otherwise the species dies out.
 In Darwin’s day, the paradoxes may have been easier to envision working out, but what we now know about DNA and cellular biology it vastly complicates the random mutations that are required. It is much like adding random errors to a computer’s operating system and expecting to get a revolutionary new computer at the end, it does not happen that way. Errors in turn cause more errors, much like the entropy in a thermodynamic system. To expect otherwise is frankly wishful thinking. Irreducible Complexity Points to Design _______________ Engineers know the importance of design. One needs to know how the individual parts of a machine interact together. Great care must be taken with the design, material selection, and manufacturing for even the simplest machine to operate well. If one part is not in the design that is crucial for the overall function, then the machine is junk. Would you fly in an airplane that does not have one of its engines? How about no fuel nozzles in the engine? Or missing just one of the compressor blades? The answer is most likely a resounding “No!” Because in each scenario the engine is not functional or won’t be in very short order. Life is very much the same as the aircraft engine. There are structures in organisms that must have all their parts intact or the structure ceases to function. This is known as irreducible complexity. The engine must have all its major parts intact or it does not function, it is irreducibly complex. There are many irreducibly complex structures in life a few of which are the circulatory system, the eye, blood clotting, or the ear. The bacterial flagellum is one of many irreducibly complex structures in biology. It is truly a remarkable organelle that provides propulsion for certain types of bacteria. The flagellum is a complex molecular motor made of proteins that runs on the flow of hydrogen ions. The flagellum has the same classical parts as an electrical motor such as the rotor, stator, and bushings, and can operate at thousands of rotations per minute. The motor then turns a whip like structure called the filament. This is what gives propulsion to the bacteria much like a propeller. It is a beautifully engineered nano-machine that is remarkably efficient. Its structure is much like the engine referenced above; it is irreducibly complex. If you remove any of the major components, the flagellum will not work and is useless. So, the question is how does this kind of complex machine evolve by singular DNA mutations? When the loss of a major component renders the flagellum useless and fodder for the evolutionary scrap yard via natural selection. A bacterium is at a disadvantage with a useless motor hanging off its backside for a million or so years waiting on the improbable molecular rotor to mutate into existence. Wouldn’t the useless appendage just disappear like the legs of the “primeval” whale that is hanging out on the water’s edge waiting for flippers? I’m just asking. One of the explanations for the evolution of the flagellum is given by the similarity in structure to the Type Three Secretion System (TTSS) in bacterium. They both share similar shape and proteins as each other. However, their functions are completely different, the TTSS is used to export proteins across the cell envelope not as a mode of propulsion. Just because there is a similarity of shape does not imply evolutionary lineage. Even if they were linked in evolution, there is very little attention given to the “nuts and bolts” of the coding changes needed in the DNA and the not so trivial statistical challenges of the creation of the winning design. Evolutionists must adhere to their own theory’s guidelines when discussing the complicated matters of “chance” design and those guidelines have only become more stringent with the discovery of DNA. The code for changing life is contained within the mutations made in DNA; and with that the chance miraculous coding for all the proteins and the design of the flagellum runs afoul. This mathematical challenge is not addressed in evolutionary theory. The explanation for the evolution of the TTSS into the flagellum is oversimplified into the rearrangement of the proteins thru the “right” mutations and natural selection and… voila! You have a sophisticated propulsion system. You don’t need to explain the real challenges. Engineers wish redesign was that easy because their job would be less stressful. If you don’t manage every single detail in a new product design, it will run off the rails fast. We should, expect life to be a little more complicated than man made items. Design implies a designer, and life has many designs that are improbable given the limitations of evolution. There are the singular mutation and natural selection limitations that are self-imposed in evolutionary theory. But there are the materialistic limitations that are arbitrarily placed on it as well. With random mutation and natural selection as the driving factor behind evolution, the metaphysical is vehemently avoided and along with it any mention of design. The concept of design in life is avoided as nonscientific. But why? There is clear evidence of design in every aspect of life. I don’t look at the airplane engine and say, “Look what natural selection and wind erosion has brought me!” That would be foolish and unscientific. It would be scientific of me to use the evidence that I observe from the engine and imply an intelligent designer that ushered that design from imagination to reality. The designs that we see in life are no different and harder to avoid implying a designer because of the exponential complexity over the engine. Science cannot be held hostage by dogma, a dogma that was birthed with Darwin and limits exploration of life only to the materialistic realm. That would have been sufficient for some in that era, but we now have the language of DNA and sophisticated instruments that have revealed the complex world of cellular biology. With those two things we can observe the blueprints of life along with the overwhelmingly complex design itself. In viewing this design, it implies that there is a Designer… some might call God. 
_______________ End Notes [1] David Berlinski June 1, 1994 Intelligent Design. “The Deniable Darwin.” Discovery Institute, 14 July 2020. [2] Levinthal, Cyrus (1969). “How to Fold Graciously”. Mossbauer Spectroscopy in Biological Systems: Proceedings of a Meeting Held at Allerton House, Monticello, Illinois: 22–24. #grownostr #apologetics #philosophy #God #science #naturallaw #evolution

Good morning nostr! Remember that most things in life are a distraction from what is truly important. They turn your attention away from God, family and each other. They turn you attention away from your miraculous creation and thus any purpose that God has granted you. Don't let yourself be distracted by what the world has in front of you. Look for the quiet and peaceful that is in your life. #God #grownostr #coffeechain

BISHOP BELLS DINOSAURS _______________ Carlisle Cathedral in the United Kingdom is the final resting place of Bishop Richard Bell. Bell who was laid to rest around the year 1496 AD was buried within the stone floor of the cathedral. Brass strips are inlaid in the floor as a border for his tomb. The strips have various contemporary animals skillfully engraved on them. The animals are easily identified as a bird , a pig, a dog, and even an eel. All of the animals would have easily been identified within the medieval period in which they were engraved. However, there are animals that are curiously out of place and resemble sauropod dinosaurs. The animals are of such detail that they can be identified as possibly vulcanodon and shunosaurus due to the spikes on its tail. _______________ #grownostr #plebchain #science #dinosaurs #evolution #creation #youngearth If you find value in my notes, please like, boost or follow! Zaps are always great too! https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1427375/dinosaur-carving-richard-bell-tomb-middle-ages-proves-evolution-wrong-bible-evg

Caravaggio, The Conversion of St. Paul, c. 1600-1601 #grownostr #plebchain #Christianity #paintings

THE ORIGIN OF LIFE FROM THE FOUNDER OF NASA’S GODDARD INSTITUTE _______________ “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation, but they are driven by the nature of their profession to seek explanations for the origin of life that lie within the boundaries of natural law.” ~ Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom (founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) _______________ #grownostr #plebchain #God #philosophy #quotes If you find value in my notes, please like, boost or follow! Zaps are always great too!

THE INCREDIBLE PRECISION OF INCA STONEWORK _______________ Name the modern stonework that rivals the precision and closeness of fit that ancient Inca walls have in places like Cuzco, Peru. Such closeness of fit where you cannot place a business card in-between the stones. The ancient Inca had more skill and technology than we think to be able to accomplish such mastery. Their level of craftsmanship is very hard to duplicate with todays machinery and I have not seen a modern example that rivals it. _______________ Crossposted on both my channels: The Shop Rat: npub1sd3wwlvl6f58yzs4ss90x07e4dwd7yl6h3n0pygpz9vqjcxd99aq90vwne Random Gadfly: npub1eeyruzdhp74qnmm7fp0968zf3xrygcd28h3jwdz88td0kz6sevrs7x8m52 #grownostr #archaeology #history #technology

TRICERATOPS HORN UNFOSSILIZED SOFT TISSUE _______________ A video showing the examination of soft tissue from a triceratops horn collected in Montana by Mark Armitage. The tissue in not fossilized and is still very flexible. Unfossilized tissue is not that uncommon among fossils and is being found more often. _______________ #grownostr #apologetics #science #dinosaurs #creation #youngearth #evolution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eStVzZP9zk&t=11s

THE ABSURD MAKE BELIEVE OF EVOLUTION _______________ So this is all it takes to establish an evolutionary link between chickens and dinosaurs? You glue feathers onto a velociraptor? This is make believe. It totally glosses over the multiple billions, trillions or more of genetic changes that have to happen in order to get a working chicken-dinosaur. All of the changes are by shear chance, as the is no Creator in evolution. But hey, glue them feathers on that dinosaur… It’s SCIENCE! _______________ If you find value in my notes and articles please like, boost or follow! Zaps are always appreciated! #grownostr #nostr #naturallaw #evolution #science

THE UNIVERSE CREATED FROM NOTHING IS ABSURD _______________ When looking back into our universe’s history just after the Big Bang, t = 10⁻⁴³ seconds is as far back as we can go and still be able to rely on physics and mathematics to describe the conditions of our universe. This is the point in time when the equations that are known to govern our universe begin to function; before this point there are no viable mathematical equations to model the universe. At this moment, our universe was infinitesimal, extremely hot, and all energy and matter where combined. Scientists have very little to say about the universe before this point including what caused the Big Bang. What initiated the Big Bang? This is the most important and fundamental question that can be asked; that is, what caused the universe and everything in it to exist? The answer to this will answer our most basic question, is there a God? This question has only two basic options for an answer. Either, the universe arose from nothing and therefore no God or it was created by something with sufficient power to create everything in our universe. The first option, whereas the universe arose from nothing is a fiercely debated topic. This is because the definition of nothing cannot be settled upon and physicists have many definitions of what that nothing would contain. Yes, it is that absurd. In this discussion, we will divide the meaning of nothing into two distinctions. First, the meaning of nothing that is truly nothing, no matter, space, time, energy, or laws of physics, absolutely nothing. This nothing would be a complete void that is beyond anything that we can conceive of in our existence. It is a state that physics can’t even begin to describe and is best described in terms of philosophy. This state of existence is the best explanation of the physical conditions that the universe expanded out from after the Big Bang. This is because the universe contains all matter, space, and time that we know of and when extrapolated back using the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem [1] the universe has a beginning and thus a point in which all matter, space, and time did not exist. Without those attributes, we are left with truly nothing before the big bang and the philosophical paradox of something arising out of absolute nothing. One of the first times the paradox of something coming from nothing was addressed by Parmenides of Elea and first written down in Aristotle’s Physics [2]: “τί δ᾽ ἄν μιν καὶ χρέος ὦρσεν ὕστερον ἢ πρόσθεν, τοῦ μηδενὸς ἀρξάμενον, φῦν; οὕτως ἢ πάμπαν πελέναι χρεών ἐστιν ἢ οὐχί.” Translation by John Burnet: “Yet why would it be created later rather than sooner, if it came from nothing; so, it must either be created altogether or not [created at all].” This literature sets up the philosophical principle of “ex nihilo nihil fit” or Latin for “nothing comes from nothing”. Very few scientists even attempt to argue that the universe sprang forth from absolute nothing. Even the Scottish skeptic, David Hume, wrote [3]: “But allow me to tell you that I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Usually, this problem of ex nihilo nihil fit is circumvented by inserting a causal agent into the absolute nothing. Second, is a definition of nothing that includes a something, like the laws of physics. This definition of nothing reveals the true philosophical problem of something (our universe) arising from truly nothing. It necessitates the need for a causal agent of some sort with sufficient power to bring forth the Big Bang. This is illustrated famously by what physicist Stephen Hawking wrote in his book with Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, Hawking states [4]: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” Hawking in this quote gives causal power to the Law of Gravity; this power is what would be traditionally ascribed to the classical ideal of God. The problem with this approach is that it makes the mistake of transferring the causal power of God for what would be an attribute of God that has no causal power in it apart from God. This amounts to their definition of God being too small. Any causal agent of the universe will have unfathomable attributes that are His alone and these attributes cannot be separated from the causal power of God. To illustrate this point, the Law of Gravity by itself cannot create anything, just like the law of thermodynamics cannot create the internal combustion engine; laws in of themselves cannot create anything they need causal power. It seems physicists trivialize the immense power that brought forth our universe by ascribing that power to a physical law. By giving causal power to any physical law sounds exceedingly close to what God would be like without the baggage of traditional religion for the scientist. This is a rhetorical sleight of hand to wiggle out of the concept of God and place the creation of the universe firmly into the materialist worldview. They are playing a shell game. A further problem with this approach of laws having causal power is that when the universe was before its singularity, where or when did the laws reside? There was nothing physical that would have the imprint of such physical laws upon it. If the laws could not have any base in the physical universe they would have to reside in a metaphysical mind of some sort. This mind would have to reside outside of our space-time and have the causal attributes to bring forth the whole universe. This still sounds exceedingly close to God. Whether you ascribe the causal power of the Big Bang to a physical law or to the classical ideal of God, the result is the same for both. To be able to create time, space, and all matter and energy; the cause must be timeless, beyond the constraints of space, and immensely powerful. This again sounds exceedingly close to God whether you call it a law or God, it doesn’t matter. Richard Lewontin, in his review of Carl Sagan’s last book, The Demon-haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, acknowledges the clash between scientific materialism and common sense. Speaking of scientists, he says [5]: “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” A Divine Foot in the door indeed… REFERENCES: [1] Borde, Arvind, et al. “Inflationary Spacetimes Are Incomplete in Past Directions.” Physical Review Letters, vol. 90, no. 15, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.90.151301. [2] Parmenides, Fragments 1–19, https://lexundria.com/parm_frag/1-19/b. [3] Hume, David, and Greig J Y T. “David Hume to John Stewart, February 1754.” The Letters of David Hume, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1932. [4] Hawking, Stephen, and Leonard Mlodinow. The Grand Design. Bantam Books, 2010. [5] Lewontin, R. Review of Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review of Books, 9 Jan. 1997, pp. 7. 
_______________ #grownostr #apologetics #philosophy #God #science #naturallaw

ANGKOR WAT STEGOSAUR _______________ Many cultures around the world have stories involving dragons and large serpents. This stone carving at Cambodia’s Angkor Wat temple, Ta Prohm bares a remarkable resemblance to a stegosaur. It was carved around 1200 AD. _______________ #grownostr #plebchain #dinosaurs #history #youngearth #cyptid If you find value in my notes and articles please like, boost or follow! Zaps are always appreciated!