The stones rebuke the bible's naysayers.

 How does archaeology confirm the role of Belshazzar of Babylon?

JW.org

FOR many years, Bible critics claimed that King Belshazzar, who is mentioned in the book of Daniel, never existed. (Dan. 5:1) They held that view because archaeologists could find no evidence that he had actually lived. However, that changed in 1854. Why?

In that year, a British consul named J. G. Taylor explored some ruins in the ancient city of Ur, in what is now southern Iraq. There, located in a large tower, the explorer found several clay cylinders. The cylinders, each about four inches (10 cm) long, are engraved with cuneiform writing. The writing on one of the cylinders includes a prayer for the long life of Babylonian King Nabonidus and his oldest son, Belshazzar. Even critics had to agree: This finding proves that Belshazzar did exist.

However, the Bible states not only that Belshazzar existed but also that he was a king. Again, critics were skeptical. For example, the 19th-century English scientist William Talbot wrote that some state that “Bel-sar-ussur [Belshazzar] was co-regent with Nabonidus his father. But of this there is not the slightest evidence.”

That controversy was settled, however, when the writings on other clay cylinders revealed that Belshazzar’s father, King Nabonidus, was away from the capital city for years at a time. What happened during his absence? “When Nabonidus went into exile,” states the Encyclopaedia Britannica, “he entrusted Belshazzar with the throne and the major part of his army.” So Belshazzar served, in effect, as a coruler in Babylon during that time. Thus, archaeologist and language scholar Alan Millard stated that it was appropriate for “the Book of Daniel to call Belshazzar ‘king.’”

Of course, for God’s servants, the principal evidence that the book of Daniel is trustworthy and inspired by God is found within the Bible itself.​—2 Tim. 3:16.

2Kings chapters 6 and 7 American Standard Version

 6.1 And the sons of the prophets said unto Elisha, Behold now, the place where we dwell before thee is too strait for us. 2Let us go, we pray thee, unto the Jordan, and take thence every man a beam, and let us make us a place there, where we may dwell. And he answered, Go ye. 3And one said, Be pleased, I pray thee, to go with thy servants. And he answered, I will go. 4So he went with them. And when they came to the Jordan, they cut down wood. 5But as one was felling a beam, the axe-head fell into the water; and he cried, and said, Alas, my master! for it was borrowed. 6And the man of God said, Where fell it? And he showed him the place. And he cut down a stick, and cast it in thither, and made the iron to swim. 7And he said, Take it up to thee. So he put out his hand, and took it.

8Now the king of Syria was warring against Israel; and he took counsel with his servants, saying, In such and such a place shall be my camp. 9And the man of God sent unto the king of Israel, saying, Beware that thou pass not such a place; for thither the Syrians are coming down. 10And the king of Israel sent to the place which the man of God told him and warned him of; and he saved himself there, not once nor twice.

11And the heart of the king of Syria was sore troubled for this thing; and he called his servants, and said unto them, Will ye not show me which of us is for the king of Israel? 12And one of his servants said, Nay, my lord, O king; but Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel, telleth the king of Israel the words that thou speakest in thy bedchamber. 13And he said, Go and see where he is, that I may send and fetch him. And it was told him, saying, Behold, he is in Dothan. 14Therefore sent he thither horses, and chariots, and a great host: and they came by night, and compassed the city about.

15And when the servant of the man of God was risen early, and gone forth, behold, a host with horses and chariots was round about the city. And his servant said unto him, Alas, my master! how shall we do? 16And he answered, Fear not; for they that are with us are more than they that are with them. 17And Elisha prayed, and said, JEHOVAH, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And JEHOVAH opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha. 18And when they came down to him, Elisha prayed unto JEHOVAH, and said, Smite this people, I pray thee, with blindness. And he smote them with blindness according to the word of Elisha. 19And Elisha said unto them, This is not the way, neither is this the city: follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom ye seek. And he led them to Samaria.

20And it came to pass, when they were come into Samaria, that Elisha said, JEHOVAH, open the eyes of these men, that they may see. And JEHOVAH opened their eyes, and they saw; and, behold, they were in the midst of Samaria. 21And the king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them, My father, shall I smite them? shall I smite them? 22And he answered, Thou shalt not smite them: wouldest thou smite those whom thou hast taken captive with thy sword and with thy bow? set bread and water before them, that they may eat and drink, and go to their master. 23And he prepared great provision for them; and when they had eaten and drunk, he sent them away, and they went to their master. And the bands of Syria came no more into the land of Israel.

24And it came to pass after this, that Benhadad king of Syria gathered all his host, and went up, and besieged Samaria. 25And there was a great famine in Samaria: and, behold, they besieged it, until an ass's head was sold for fourscore pieces of silver, and the fourth part of a kab of dove's dung for five pieces of silver. 26And as the king of Israel was passing by upon the wall, there cried a woman unto him, saying, Help, my lord, O king. 27And he said, If JEHOVAH do not help thee, whence shall I help thee? out of the threshing-floor, or out of the winepress? 28And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to-day, and we will eat my son to-morrow. 29So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him; and she hath hid her son. 30And it came to pass, when the king heard the words of the woman, that he rent his clothes (now he was passing by upon the wall); and the people looked, and, behold, he had sackcloth within upon his flesh. 31Then he said, God do so to me, and more also, if the head of Elisha the son of Shaphat shall stand on him this day.

32But Elisha was sitting in his house, and the elders were sitting with him; and the king'sent a man from before him: but ere the messenger came to him, he said to the elders, See ye how this son of a murderer hath sent to take away my head? look, when the messenger cometh, shut the door, and hold the door fast against him: is not the sound of his master's feet behind him? 33And while he was yet talking with them, behold, the messenger came down unto him: and he said, Behold, this evil is of JEHOVAH; why should I wait for JEHOVAH any longer?

7.1And Elisha said, Hear ye the word of JEHOVAH: thus saith JEHOVAH, To-morrow about this time shall a measure of fine flour be'sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, in the gate of Samaria. 2Then the captain on whose hand the king leaned answered the man of God, and said, Behold, if JEHOVAH should make windows in heaven, might this thing be? And he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof.

3Now there were four leprous men at the entrance of the gate: and they said one to another, Why sit we here until we die? 4If we say, We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there; and if we sit still here, we die also. Now therefore come, and let us fall unto the host of the Syrians: if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die. 5And they rose up in the twilight, to go unto the camp of the Syrians; and when they were come to the outermost part of the camp of the Syrians, behold, there was no man there. 6For the LORD had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, even the noise of a great host: and they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us. 7Wherefore they arose and fled in the twilight, and left their tents, and their horses, and their asses, even the camp as it was, and fled for their life. 8And when these lepers came to the outermost part of the camp, they went into one tent, and did eat and drink, and carried thence silver, and gold, and raiment, and went and hid it; and they came back, and entered into another tent, and carried thence also, and went and hid it.

9Then they said one to another, We do not well; this day is a day of good tidings, and we hold our peace: if we tarry till the morning light, punishment will overtake us; now therefore come, let us go and tell the king's household. 10So they came and called unto the porter of the city; and they told them, saying, We came to the camp of the Syrians, and, behold, there was no man there, neither voice of man, but the horses tied, and the asses tied, and the tents as they were. 11And he called the porters; and they told it to the king's household within. 12And the king arose in the night, and said unto his servants, I will now show you what the Syrians have done to us. They know that we are hungry; therefore are they gone out of the camp to hide themselves in the field, saying, When they come out of the city, we shall take them alive, and get into the city. 13And one of his servants answered and said, Let some take, I pray thee, five of the horses that remain, which are left in the city (behold, they are as all the multitude of Israel that are left in it; behold, they are as all the multitude of Israel that are consumed); and let us send and see. 14They took therefore two chariots with horses; and the king sent after the host of the Syrians, saying, Go and see.

15And they went after them unto the Jordan: and, lo, all the way was full of garments and vessels, which the Syrians had cast away in their haste. And the messengers returned, and told the king.

16And the people went out, and plundered the camp of the Syrians. So a measure of fine flour was'sold for a shekel, and two measures of barley for a shekel, according to the word of JEHOVAH. 17And the king appointed the captain on whose hand he leaned to have the charge of the gate: and the people trod upon him in the gate, and he died as the man of God had said, who spake when the king came down to him. 18And it came to pass, as the man of God had spoken to the king, saying, Two measures of barley for a shekel, and a measure of fine flour for a shekel, shall be to-morrow about this time in the gate of Samaria; 19and that captain answered the man of God, and said, Now, behold, if JEHOVAH should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be? and he said, Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof: 20it came to pass even so unto him; for the people trod upon him in the gate, and he died.

Leonid Brezhnev : a brief history.

 

You should listen to your gut?

 New Findings About Our Mysterious “Second Brain”

Denyse O Leary

It wasn’t long ago that researchers were hardly aware of the way the digestive system functions as a second brain. The big focus was neurons. But, along with neurons, both the central nervous system and the digestive system make extensive use of glial cells, whose function has not been as well understood.

Glial cells, which do not produce electrical impulses, were considered “electrophysiologically boring.” We now know that they support neurons in both physical and chemical ways. In the gut, they co-ordinate immune responses. From the Francis Crick Institute, we learn:

… the enteric nervous system is remarkably independent: Intestines could carry out many of their regular duties even if they somehow became disconnected from the central nervous system. And the number of specialized nervous system cells, namely neurons and glia, that live in a person’s gut is roughly equivalent to the number found in a cat’s brain.

MOHAMMAD M. AHMADZAI, LUISA SEGUELLA, BRIAN D. GULBRANSEN. CIRCUIT-SPECIFIC ENTERIC GLIA REGULATE INTESTINAL MOTOR NEUROCIRCUITS. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 2021; 118 (40): E2025938118 DOI: 10.1073/PNAS.2025938118 THE PAPER IS OPEN ACCESS.

Researcher Brian D. Gulbransen explains, “In computing language, the glia would be the logic gates. Or, for a more musical metaphor, the glia aren’t carrying the notes played on an electric guitar, they’re the pedals and amplifiers modulating the tone and volume of those notes.”

Understanding how much the digestive system functions, in part, as its own brain may help researchers develop better treatment for the gut disorders that afflict about 60 to 70 million people in the United States alone.

The Role Microbes Play

The vagus nerve is a stout cable of neurons that serves as an information highway between the base of the brain and the gut. Even though it is the longest nervous system connection in the body, messages take only milliseconds to travel between the brain and the gut.

The really surprising thing is that the trillions of microbes that inhabit a human digestive system play a role in all these communications, as University of British Columbia neuroscientist Heather Gerrie notes:

Many of these microbes live in the mucus layer that lines the intestines, placing them in direct contact with nerve and immune cells, which are the major information gathering systems of our bodies. This location also primes microbes to listen in as the brain signals stress, anxiety or even happiness along the vagus nerve.

But the microbes in our gut microbiome don’t just listen. These cells produce modulating signals that send information back up to the brain. In fact, 90% of the neurons in the vagus nerve are actually carrying information from the gut to the brain, not the other way around. This means the signals generated in the gut can massively influence the brain.

HEATHER GERRIE, “OUR SECOND BRAIN: MORE THAN A GUT FEELING,” UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA GRADUATE PROGRAM IN NEUROSCIENCE.

A Constant Battle

Another of the remarkable qualities of glial cells is that they can shift from one type to another, as needed, in the constant battle to keep pathogens and toxins at bay.

As Yasemin Saplakoglu points out at Wired,

… scientists now know that enteric glia are among the first responders to injury or inflammation in gut tissue. They help maintain the gut’s barrier to keep toxins out. They mediate the contractions of the gut that allow food to flow through the digestive tract. Glia regulate stem cells in the gut’s outer layer, and are critical for tissue regeneration. They chat with the microbiome, neurons, and immune-system cells, managing and coordinating their functions.

YASEMIN SAPLAKOGLU, “UNPICKING THE MYSTERY OF THE BODY’S ‘SECOND BRAIN,’” WIRED, JANUARY 14, 2024

This “chat” among neurons, glia, and microbes could be important for research into the digestive system in relation to mood disorders and anxiety and depression. People often assume that their stomachs are upset because they are emotionally upset. But the story of the millions of communications shunted back and forth in milliseconds could be more complicated than that.

As Jay Pasricha, M.D., director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Neurogastroenterology, says,“The enteric nervous system doesn’t seem capable of thought as we know it, but it communicates back and forth with our big brain — with profound results.”

Yet another highly improbable megastructure vs the cosmological conscensus?

 

Homo Habilis is the missing link?

 Fossil Friday: New Research Questions the Human Nature of Homo habilis

Gunter Bechly

Last year, I wrote an article (Bechly 2023) for Fossil Friday about the questionable status of the East African fossil hominin Homo habilis as a member of our genus rather than being just another ape-like australopithecine. This is a crucial issue for human origins, because Homo habilis is often proclaimed as the transitional form connecting our genus with australopithecines. As I elaborated in my article, this notion was challenged by several mainstream experts, and it was challenged from quite early on (e.g., Wood 1987). But this challenge is far from being a thing of the past. Two new articles relevant to the status of Homo habilis appeared last year in the 50th anniversary edition of the Journal of Human Evolution.

The first article was authored by Bruner & Beaudet (2023), who reviewed the evidence from three decades of research on the brain of Homo habilis. They found that “after more than 30 years, the fossil record associated with this taxon has not grown that much” and concluded that “in this sense, the disciplines working with fossils (and, in particular, with brain evolution) should take particular care to maintain a healthy professional situation, avoiding an excess of speculation and overstatement.” In other words, based on our current knowledge of the fossil record and the human brain, the scientists did not find compelling the claims of Tobias (1987) who had originally “suggested that the neuroanatomy of this species evidenced a clear change toward many cerebral traits associated with our genus.”

“Excessive Speculations”

It is also quite interesting that the lead author commented on his blog site (Bruner 2022):

This taxon [Homo habilis], much debated in the last 20 years, has not found a proper taxonomic validation yet, which suggests at least a lack of robust evidence, in this sense. … The attention of the mass media for science and research is prompting a compulsive marketing based on appearance and fast vending news, at the expense of content and quality. Paleontological fields are characterized by issues that can be hardly proven, charming topics, and harmless conclusions (in the sense that they have no direct consequences on people’s welfare). These three features make these fields more sensitive to contamination associated with personal, institutional, and economic interests, generating a conflict between scientific proficiency and public visibility. Excessive speculations, in this sense, can seriously harm the reputation of the discipline.

Bruner also commented on the quite disturbing impact of woke cancel culture on his submitted review of three decades of paleoneurology, which should also include two photos of the founders of the discipline, namely the distinguished scientists Phillip Tobias and Ralph Holloway:

After one year of preparation, three resubmissions, and the revision performed by four referees, the publication was suddenly suspended during the proofs’ correction stage, because it included these two images of “white senior males”, which apparently goes against the defense of human diversity (race, age, and sex). When the Editors were informed of this situation, they circumvented the problem, saying that an informal and unwritten norm of the journal prevents the possibility of publishing photographs of persons, except for obituaries. A strange norm, which apparently undervalues the fact that science is done, inevitably, by persons. … Our review ends by asking what we should keep from 30 years of paleoneurology. More than fossils and techniques, what really matters is, after all, competence, expertise, experience, and commitment. These four values, apparently positive for the sake of a healthy science, were also criticized during the proofs’ correction (most of all the term “commitment”, which had to be substituted in the final version of the manuscript), because they were claimed of having a negative connotation, supporting “meritocracy”.

Unfortunately, like the rest of Western society, modern science seems to be going more and more bananas.

A Jaw-Dropping Conclusion

Anyway, the second article was published by Antón & Middleton (2023), who re-evaluated the fossil record of early Homo, especially H. erectus, H. habilis, and H. rudolfensis. Their conclusion is jaw-dropping: “Chronologically and morphologically H. erectus is a member of early Homo, not a temporally more recent species necessarily evolved from either H. habilis or H. rudolfensis”. So much for the latter two taxa as missing links between ape-like australopithecines and real humans of the genus Homo. Homo erectus coexisted with Australopithecus and tools associated with “Homo” habilis may have been used by Homo erectus on Australopithecus habilis rather than being produced and used by the latter, which is suggested by the distribution of fossils and artifacts at the Olduvai gorge site in Tanzania (Bechly 2023). Habilis was likely not a handy man but the ape bush meat of real humans.

This is not just my humble opinion, but is also supported by a brand-new study by Davies et al. (2024) in Nature Communications on the dental morphology of Homo habilis. The authors found this “morphology in H. habilis is for the most part remarkably primitive, supporting the hypothesis that the H. habilis hypodigm has more in common with Australopithecus than later Homo.”

Not About Consensus

Thus, the most recent research confirms the previous and early critique that H. habilis should be classified as Australopithecus. So, the latter view cannot be dismissed as obsolete and outdated science, and it can also not be dismissed by a mere appeal to a scientific consensus. Science is not about consensus but about empirical evidence and rational arguments. A consensus is scientifically worthless when it is driven by worldview bias and peer pressure rather than by an unbiased inference to the best explanation. Here is what Jurassic Park author Michael Crichton famously said about this issue: “I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”

References

Antón SC & Middleton ER 2023. Making meaning from fragmentary fossils: Early Homo in the Early to early Middle Pleistocene. Journal of Human Evolution 179(S66): 103307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103307

Bechly G 2023. Fossil Friday: To Be or Not to be Homo. Evolution News June 23, 2023. https://evolutionnews.org/2023/06/fossil-friday-to-be-or-not-to-be-homo/

Bruner E 2022. Three decades of paleoneurology. paleoneurology November 28, 2022. https://paleoneurology.wordpress.com/2022/11/28/three-decades-of-paleoneurology/

Bruner E & Beaudet A 2023. The brain of Homo habilis: Three decades of paleoneurology. Journal of Human Evolution 174: 103281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103281

Davies TW, Gunz P, Spoor F, Alemseged Z, Gidna A, Hublin J-J, Kimbel WH, Kullmer O, Plummer WP, Zanolli C & Skinner MM 2024 Dental morphology in Homo habilis and its implications for the evolution of early Homo. Nature Communications 15: 286, 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-44375-9

Tobias P 1987. The Brain of Homo habilis: A New Level Of Organization in Cerebral Evolution. Journal of Human Evolution 16, 741–761. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2484(87)90022-4

Wood B 1987. Who is the ‘real’ Homo habilis? Nature 327, 187–188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/327187a0

On the undeniable design of the mammalian eye.

 

On the lure of master race delusions

 The Nazis and Their Transhumanist Delusion

Peter Biles

The other night, I watched three episodes of the new Netflix series All the Light We Cannot See, based on the book by Anthony Doerr. The movie follows the story of Marie, a blind girl who sends out radio messages in a small town on the French coast, and Werner, a German lad co-opted into the Nazi regime for his stunning abilities with radio transmitters. It is a beautiful and heart-rending interpretation of a beloved modern classic, so if you are able, do consider watching it for yourself.

One particular point in the show that caught my attention (without giving away any spoilers) was the moment young Werner is marched against his will into the National Political Institute for Education, an “elite” training ground for future Nazi “supermen.” Its banal and bureaucratic name may remind you of the “National Institute for Coordinated Experiments,” or “N.I.C.E.” from the sci-fi thriller That Hideous Strength by C. S. Lewis. 

Despite Werner’s assumptions that he was being taken to the school primarily for his intellectual abilities, he is thrust into a physically brutal athletic regime. One of the wardens barks Nietzsche quotes at them while they tumble over obstacles in the yard, declaring, in frighteningly stark evolutionary fashion, that the strong eat the weak, and that the boys must squelch any semblance of cowardice, emotion, or feebleness left within them. 

The Superman

When Werner first arrives at this awful school, he has to undergo an invasive examination to prove that he is “not Jewish.” Because he is an orphan, he can’t be admitted to the school until his genetic ancestry has been thoroughly vetted. 

If anyone is in doubt as to just how obsessed the Nazis were with race and the pseudoscience of racial hierarchies, this brief and disturbing scene will set the record straight. Nothing but German Aryan would do. The Nazis were keen on creating a superhuman race with unsurpassable physical, intellectual, and (ironically) moral qualities. The word “transhumanist” has not often been a word I’d think of to describe the Nazis, but a quote from the TV show reveals them to be, in essence, a group that was driven by the desire to transcend human limits. Regular humanity, with all its “weakness,” diversity, and faults, had to be done away with, replaced by a hegemonic race of genetic perfection. “The boy you were will soon be dead,” the examiner tells Werner. “Replaced by something more than human.” 

“More than human.” On the surface it sounds, like the institute in C. S. Lewis’s novel. It sounds like throwing off the shackles of our limits and fulfilling our idyllic destiny. With its sinister racism, though, “more than human” meant despising the worth and dignity of millions of people. 

Not Laid to Rest

While we may want to believe that such an atrocious mindset was laid to rest in the 20th century, never to return, strains of this thinking remain apparent. White supremacy, anti-Semitism, and radical medical practices like abortion, assisted suicide, and surrogacy all flirt with, or fully applaud, the idea that “some people are worth more than others.” Whether it involves a person’s skin color, cultural and religious heritage, or the vulnerability of the elderly, disabled, and unborn, there is a resurgence of anti-humanism. Strangely enough, such anti-humanism comes to us in the name of humanity, in the name of “compassion.” Transhumanism, with its emphasis on technological power, tends to regard the human body and its mortality as a problem to be overcome instead of a gift from God to be accepted.

All the Light We Cannot See shows what can happen when the delusions of transhumanism join forces with a terrible ideology. Human beings, precious simply for being human, are desecrated.

There is no free lunch re:information?

 

Wikipedia has become the borg?

 

The black heterodoxy is not a cause for celebration? Pros and Cons.

 

Peer reveiwing peer review?

 

Some more iconoclasm?

 

Molecular biology vs Darwin.

 

The opium wars: a brief history.

 

Sexual reproduction vs Darwin II

 

The arian Pope?

 Pope Liberius

New World Encyclopedia

Pope Liberius was the bishop of Rome from May 17, 352, to September 24, 366. He is noted for opposing Arianism during his early career, but later seems to have adopted a semi-Arian position, though under duress. His papacy was also notable in that, for a period, he and another pope, known to history as Antipope Felix II, were both recognized by the emperor as bishop of Rome.

During Liberius' early reign he was much involved in defending the strongly anti-Arian bishop Athanasius of Alexandria against Emperor Constantius II, who saw Athanasius as a divisive force in the empire. By 355 Liberius one of the few who still refused to condemn Athanasius, despite an imperial command to the contrary. The consequence was his banishment to Thrace and the appointment of Felix as his successor.

At the end of an exile of more than two years, the emperor recalled Liberius; but due to Felix' presence in the Holy See, a year passed before Liberius was sent to Rome. It was the emperor's intention that Liberius should govern the Roman church jointly with Felix, but after Liberius' arrival, Felix was forcibly expelled by the anti-Arian faction of the Roman people.

Background

Liberius reigned at one of the peaks of the Arian controversy, which had no means been permanently settled at the Council of Nicaea in 323. The vacillations of imperial politics witnessed several twists and turns as emperors changed their minds about the issue or were replaced by a new ruler who took a different view. The theological issue involved the question of whether Christ was merely of a "like" substance (homoiousios—the Arian position) with God the Father or of the same substance (homoousios—the orthodox view) with him. The most adamant and consistently outspoken opponent of Arianism was the powerful Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, who tolerated no comprise with the "heretics," regardless of what any emperor decreed.

At the death of Emperor Constans (January, 350), Constantius II became sole emperor. Believing that a large part of the population of his empire had been unnecessarily alienated by the persecution of Arianism and personally close to several semi-Arian bishops, he sought to unite Christendom by a less stringent creed.

Under Constantius' reign the troublesome Athanasius had been banished from Alexandria and was charged with various political and ecclesiastical offenses at Sardica, largely resulting from his hounding of the Arians and his refusal to accept even some of those who acknowledged the Nicaean formula but did not satisfy other criteria of "orthodoxy" as he saw it.

Liberius' papacy

Early on in his papacy, Liberius was drawn into the controversy over how much compromise with Arianism could be tolerated. Like his predecessor Julius, Liberius upheld the acquittal of Athanasius at Sardica, but, unlike Athanasius, would make the decisions of Nicæa the ultimate test of orthodoxy.

In 353, Liberius, in his first known act as pope, sent legates to the emperor in Gaul asking him to hold a council at Aquileia, Italy, to discuss Athanasius. Constantius, however, assembled a council of bishops at Arles where he had wintered, and where more of the churchmen were amenable to him. There, the pope's legates (of whom one was Vincent of Capua, who had been a papal legate at the Council of Nicæa) acquiesced to the emperor's wishes consented to renounce the cause of Athanasius. Liberius, on receiving the news, wrote to Bishop Hosius of Cordova of his deep grief at the spiritual fall of Vincent. The pope was so distraught as to admit that he himself desired to die, lest he should be seen as having agreed to a compromise with heresy.

During this time, a letter against Athanasius signed by many Eastern bishops had arrived at Rome, complaining that the Alexandrian bishop went too far in his zeal against Arianism. Athanasius, meanwhile, had already held a more localized council in his own defense, and a letter in his favor, signed by at least 75 Egyptian bishops, had arrived at Rome at the end of May, 353. Constantius publicly accused the pope of preventing peace and of suppressing the letter of the Easterns against Athanasius.

Liberius replied with a letter (Obsecro, tranqullissime imperator), in which he declared that he read the letter of the Easterns to a council at Rome (probably held in May, 353). However, as the pro-Athanasius letter was signed by a greater number of bishops, he argued that it was impossible to condemn Athanasius. He also admitted that he himself had never wished to be pope, but he had followed his predecessors in all things. Therefore, he could not make peace with the Easterns, for some of them refused to condemn Arius, and they were in communion with Bishop George of Alexandria, Athanasius' replacement, who accepted Arian priests who had long ago been excommunicated. The pope also complained of the proceedings of of the Council of Arles and begged for the assembling of another council.

Council of Milan

A council was in fact convened at Milan, and met there about the spring of 355. The future Saint Eusebius of Vercelli was persuaded to be present, and he insisted that all should begin by signing the Nicene decree. Certainty of the bishops loyal to Constantius II declined. Constantius reportedly ordered the bishops to accept his word for the guilt of Athanasius on political grounds and to condemn him for disrupting the peace of the Empire. Eusebius was banished, together with several others. Under these pressures the rest of the council duly followed the emperor's wishes.

Liberius then sent another letter to the emperor; and this time his envoys, the priest Eutropius and the deacon Hilary, were also exiled, the deacon also cruelly beaten. Auxentius, an Arian, was made bishop of Milan. The pope then wrote a letter, generally known as Quamuis sub imagine to the exiled bishops, addressing them as martyrs, and expressing his regret that he had not been the first to suffer so as to set an example to others.

For his part, Constantius was not satisfied by the condemnation of Athanasius by the Italian bishops who had lapsed at Milan under pressure. He "strove with burning desire," says the pagan writer Ammianus, "that [his] sentence [against Athanasius] should be confirmed by the higher authority of the bishop of the eternal city." Constantius sent to Rome his prefect of the bed-chamber, the eunuch Eusebius, with a letter and gifts. The pope's reply, according to the writings of Athanasius, was that he could not decide against the Alexandrian bishop, who had been acquitted by two general synods. Nor could he condemn those absent. Moreover, if the emperor desired peace, he must annul what he had decreed against Athanasius and have a council celebrated without emperor or counts or judges present, so that the Nicene faith might be preserved. The followers of Arius must be cast out and their heresy anathematized; the unorthodox must not sit in a synod.[1] The eunuch was reportedly enraged, but laid the gifts he intended for the pope before the tomb of Saint Peter.

Exile and Antipope Felix II

Constantius was then persuaded to send an official with letters to the prefect of Rome, Leontius, ordering that Liberius should be seized and brought to his court. In the trouble that followed, Athanasius reports that bishops and wealthy Christian ladies were obliged to hide, monks were not safe, foreigners were expelled, the gates and the port were watched.

Liberius was dragged before the emperor at Milan. He reportedly spoke boldly at first and refused to renounce Athanasius. The emperor gave the pope three days for consideration, and then banished him to Beroea in Thrace, sending him 500 gold pieces for his expenses, which the pope refused.

With Liberius deposed by the emperor, many churchmen and nobility at Rome accepted Archdeacon Felix as his successor, whose consecration by the Arian Bishop Acacius of Cæsarea had been arranged at the emperor's order in 355. The majority of the Roman clergy acknowledged the validity of his consecration but many of the laity resented the emperor's meddling in the affairs of the Roman church. Constantius paid his first visit to Rome on April 1, 357. There, he discovered that his pope held little authority outside of the nobility, and consequently Liberius was allowed to leave for Rome before the end of 357, where he was to rule jointly with Felix.

Liberius' lapse into semi-Arianism

It was widely reported that before returning, Liberius had signed the condemnation of Athanasius and perhaps some semi-Arian creed. Whether or not this was true, the Roman populace clearly welcomed him back and soon rose in violence against Felix driving him out of the city. He retired to Porto but did not relinquish the title of pope until his death.

Regarding Liberius capitulation, the Arian writer Philostorgius relates that Liberius was restored to the papacy only when he had consented to sign the second formula of Sirmium, which was drawn up after the summer of 357 by the semi-Arian bishops, Germinius, Ursacius, Valens. It rejected both the Nicaean term homoousios (same substance) and the Arian term homoiousios (like substance). The same story of the pope's fall into "heresy" is supported by three letters attributed to him in the so-called "Historical Fragments" of Saint Hilary of Poitiers, but the historian Sozomen tells us this was a fraud propagated by the Arian Eudoxius. A particularly compelling piece of evidence comes from Athanasius himself, writing at the end of 357. He admits: "Liberius, having been exiled, gave in after two years, and, in fear of the death with which he was threatened, signed." (Hist. Ar., xli) Finally, an undisputed letter of Hilary, in 360, addresses Constantius thus: "I know not whether it was with greater impiety that you exiled him than that you restored him" (Contra Const., II).

While denying the validity of the fragments of Hillary, Sozomen also relates his own story of Liberius' submission. In this version, Constantius, after his return from Rome, summoned Liberius to Sirmium (357). There, the semi-Arian leaders Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius, and Eleusius, convinced the pope to condemn the "Homoousion."

Later years

In 359 a major church council was held at Rimini, in which neither of the two reigning popes participated. Most of the bishops there were orthodox, but were persuaded or perhaps unwittingly accepted certain semi-Arian propositions. Liberius, now more at liberty than he had been previously, criticized these decisions, and when Constantius died at the end of 361, he publicly nullified the council's actions.

A last act that would haunt Liberius' memory is that, around 366, he received a deputation of the semi-Arians led by Eustathius and later held communion with them. His defenders claim that he was unaware that, although they accepted the Nicaean formula, many of them rejected the divinity of the Holy Ghost.

Legacy

The division of the Roman clergy did not end with Liberius' death, but continued when Damasus I was elected his successor. Although Damasus had once been Liberius' archdeacon, he served Antipope Felix even more closely and was supported by the nobility and clergy who had been Felix's partisans. Damasus' early papacy was marred by violent factional strife in which hundreds died. He also faced accusations of moral corruption, but was highly successful from the standpoint of Catholic orthodoxy, since a change in imperial policy led to Nicene Christianity being recognized as the official religion of the Roman Empire.

Liberius himself was perhaps the only early pope never declared a saint by his own Catholic tradition, although he was sanctified by the Eastern Orthodox Church for his early resistance to Arianism.

Yet more science based morality.

 In Prestigious Journal, Bioethicist Pushes Human Extinction

Wesley J Smith

The fear of suffering (or deprivation of personal desires) is causing untold moral harm in the West — from ever-expanding euthanasia laws to the march of increasingly radical reproductive technologies, to transitioning children with gender dysphoria with harmful puberty blockers and mastectomies on teenage girls, to transhumanistic advocacy that threatens to unleash new eugenics, etc.

For some, it even conjures a desire to see the human race go extinct to prevent the suffering of those who would otherwise be born in the future.

Yes, Serious Advocacy for Human Extinction

The human-extinction movement used to be pretty fringy but it may be gaining traction within bioethics and philosophy. For example, Peter Singer has questioned whether it is “justifiable” to continue our species. Now, a very long piece advocating the end of future humanity — and, incongruously, doing away with raising animals — was just published in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, which is not in the least “fringe.”

From “Confessions of an Antinatalist Philosopher”:

I would be pleased to see no one to have children, because that would be a rational thing to do. Reproduction carries risks to the possible future individuals. All lives are occasionally miserable, some lives are predominantly miserable, and individuals may think, justifiably, that their lives have no meaning. My reason suggests that it would be unwise and unkind to bring new people into existence and thereby expose them to these risks.

The piece is very long and arcane. Finnish bioethicist Matti Häyry parses several different philosophical approaches to human extinction — such as paradoxically combining it with transhumanist immortality (!) — of little interest outside of this corner of philosophy. And he insultingly calls people who have children “breeders.”

Out of the Blue

Then, Häyry brings up animal production and factory farming:

I am an anti-pronatalist, or strict antinatalist and I support stopping human reproduction and animal production, including but not limited to factory farming. I would be pleased to see no more suffering-prone beings created by people. Voluntary human extinction and factory animal extinction would follow from these and I would have no qualms about them. If Homo sapiens can find the kindness and the courage to break the cycle of sentience that currently holds the species in its grip, excellent. And even barring that, or if a palatably phased human demise takes its time, liberating factory animals from their suffering would be a welcome advance action. Copathy [sic, I think he means “compathy,” or shared feelings) would motivate these developments.

I certainly understand the argument against factory farms, but I rarely see utilitarian types reference the great benefit that inexpensive, nutritious food brings to people of limited means. But it seems to me these are two separate topics.

If human and food animal suffering must be eliminated, does Häyry also advocate making all sentient life on the planet extinct?

No, He Does Not

He writes:

I do not advocate involuntary human or wild animal extinction. I would not mourn the loss of any or all species as such, but I do not want to impose my own will upon a self-conscious collective that wants to live (humans) or groups of self-directing, possibly sentient, beings whose drive for survival is beyond my comprehension (nonhumans in the wild).

Wait a minute! Animals in the wild suffer far more than most humans and many domesticated animals — “red in tooth and claw,” and all that — so why not eliminate all organisms capable of feeling pain if the point is to end the evil of suffering? I guess we shouldn’t expect logic from nihilistic philosophers.

But I do think we should expect more from prestigious bioethics journals. Surely, there are more important actual healthcare concerns that should occupy the storied pages of the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics.

On making learning appealing.

 

Darwinism nuked?

 

Waiting for E.T's call?

 

Realism vs. Idealism?

 

Sexual reproduction vs. Darwin.

 

Common design not common serendipity?

 In Bats and Other Animals, Evidence of Common Design in a Magnetic Compass

Eric Casell

 recent article in Biology Letters, published by the Royal Society, provides some of the first evidence that mammals can navigate using a magnetic compass. The finding is significant because there has been little data previously to confirm that mammals navigate long distances using the earth’s geomagnetic field. Some bats migrate hundreds of miles. Being nocturnal, migratory bats must navigate without reliance on visual cues, which is why it has been a mystery how that is accomplished.

The Soprano Pipistrelle

One bat species, the soprano pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pygmaeus), migrates between northeast and southwest Europe. In this study researchers determined that the species calibrates their magnetic compass with the position of the sun at sunset.1 A compass based on the earth’s magnetic field is susceptible to various errors, including global drift over time and local anomalies. Therefore, a calibration mechanism improves its accuracy for traveling long distances.

The bats do not just detect the direction of the magnetic field, but also the vertical inclination. Detecting the sun’s position is also not a simple mechanism. Research has found that bats can determine its location through the polarization pattern of sunlight.2 That enables the animal to determine the sun’s position even on cloudy days. This mechanism also involves a complex algorithm because the polarization pattern vectors change as the sun moves through the sky during the day.

Similarity to Migratory Songbirds

The magnetic compass calibration demonstrated in bats is very similar to the behavior observed in some migratory songbirds, who have long been known to navigate using a magnetic compass. This was the case in an experiment with Savannah sparrows.3 The birds calibrate their magnetic compass by detecting the sun’s position using polarized light. What is different about the mechanism in the sparrows is that they calibrate their compass based on information decoded at both sunrise and sunset. This more complex method enables a more accurate calibration as the two measurements are averaged. A more accurate navigation path reduces the distance travelled, saving both time and energy for the animals.

Complex Programmed Behaviors 

This navigation behavior falls into the category of complex programmed behaviors as described in my book Animal Algorithms.4 Such behaviors, as in this case, involve both physical organs and behavior algorithms. Birds and bats are not conscious of these behaviors. Instead, they are programmed and involve neural networks and memory. There are physical organs that include mechanisms for detecting and encoding the magnetic field, and detection of the solar polarization pattern. An algorithm must perform the translation of the polarization pattern to the sun’s position, and an algorithm must compare the sensor data and calculate the required calibration. Finally, another algorithm must compute the corrected flight path based on the calibrated magnetic compass. 

The typical Darwinian explanation for common traits in species lacking a common ancestor is “convergent evolution.” Usually the specific mechanism invoked is developmental constraint. Paleontologist George McGhee explains, “The same forms have been produced by the repeated channeling of evolution along the same developmental trajectory…Natural selection has a limited repertoire of potential forms from which to choose, and convergent evolution is the result.”5

The Best Explanation

That explanation is inadequate for a number of reasons. The most obvious is that these behaviors do not involve forms that have developmental constraints. But the most significant problem in this instance is that these behaviors involve a number of complex physical and neural mechanisms and large numbers of genes. There is nothing deterministic that constrains all of these elements. A recent article here by Emily Reeves, “Convergent Evolution: An Argument that Comes at a Price,” explains other difficulties with the convergence explanation. The better explanation is common intelligent design. An intelligent agent, it seems, has chosen to design and optimize these complex mechanisms and applied them in unrelated animal species for purposes specific to those animals.

Notes

Schneider, et al., “Migratory bats are sensitive to magnetic inclination changes during the compass calibration period,” Biology Letters, 2023, 19: 20230181.

Lindecke, et al., “Experienced Migratory Bats Integrate the Sun’s Position at Dusk for Navigation at Night,” Current Biology, 29, 1369-1373, April 22, 2019.

Rachel Muheim, John B. Phillips, Susanne Akesson, “Polarized Light Cues Underlie Compass Calibration in Migratory Songbirds,” Science, Vol. 313, 11 August 2006, 837-839.

Eric Cassell, Animal Algorithms (Discovery Institute Press, Seattle, 2021).

George McGhee, Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011), 7.

Darwinian snake oil?

 Fooled by Darwinism: A Scholar’s Cautionary Tale

Evolution news

On a classic episode of ID the Future, Taking Leave of Darwin author Neil Thomas and host Jonathan Witt conclude their conversation about Thomas’s journey from Darwinian materialism to theistic humanism and a thorough skepticism of Darwinian theory. 

In Part 2, Thomas links the heroic posturing of modern atheists Richard Dawkins and Bertrand Russell with the heroic fatalism of poetry stretching back to the early Middle Ages, and further still, to the ancient Greeks. Thomas also draws a link between the animistic thinking of much ancient pagan thought and the magical powers attributed to the Darwinian mechanism. Thomas explains why he now views the latter as essentially “crypto-animism.” 

In their wide-ranging conversation, Thomas and Witt also touch on contradictions in Darwin’s treatment of natural selection, the tug-of-war between the paleontologists and the geneticists in the evolutionist community (and how their battle points to a conclusion neither side appears willing to consider), and insights offered up by figures as diverse as British philosopher Antony Flew and celebrated American novelist John Updike. 

Download the podcast or listen to it here

The rise and fall of the singularity.

 

Epicurus is finally victorious?

 Is Epicurus Smiling?

Paul Nelson

SciTechDaily reports on “The Amyloid Hypothesis: Rewriting Life’s Origin Story.” The original research paper mentioned in the news story is open access at the Journal of the American Chemical Society: “An Analysis of Nucleotide–Amyloid Interactions Reveals Selective Binding to Codon-Sized RNA.”

Here are the opening sentences of the research article, with my emphases:

Questions concerning the origin of life are often couched in terms of what sort of molecule arose first. The linear thinking in this approach to prebiotic chemistry, perhaps guided by a need to solve the chicken–egg paradox embedded firmly in the central dogma of molecular biology, is predestined to fall short of its goal. That is, the elaborate chemical networks that support life could not have originated from a few exceedingly complex molecules, but rather it is more likely that systems of simpler, more abundant molecules were involved.

Says Who?

Not Eugene Koonin. In 2007, he pointed out that any abiogenesis scenario requires a cosmological background theory against which any local event probabilities (e.g., the origin of life on Earth) must be evaluated. If we make the universe big enough and old enough, or avail ourselves of an infinite multiverse — i.e., purchase all the lottery tickets — then “a few exceedingly complex molecules” are ours for the asking. We win the lottery of the origin of life via a natural pathway. And Epicurus smiles in his Athenian tomb.

Here is how Koonin put it :

The plausibility of different models for the origin of life on earth directly depends on the adopted cosmological scenario. In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable. Therefore, under this cosmology, an entity as complex as a coupled translation-replication system should be considered a viable breakthrough stage for the onset of biological evolution.

Why Bother?

Of course, Saroj K. Rout and his co-authors want to raise the probabilities of the many undirected chemical pathways to the living state as high as they can. Hence, this paper on the possible interactions between amyloid and proto-nucleic acids.

But it’s unclear, if Koonin is correct, why they should bother. Who cares if a natural pathway from chemistry to “a few exceedingly complex molecules” can be elucidated?

Remember, the emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable. So just relax.

On our orbiting junkyard.

 

On archaeology and the historicity of the book of exodus.

 

The text of the new testament is lost? Pros and Cons.

 

Iconoclasm?

 

Origin of Life research vs. Darwinism.

 

The real world's origin of phyla vs. Darwin's origin of species.

 

The people Vs. Darwin II

 

Man's promises vs. JEHOVAH'S promises.

 

Towards a naturalistic ID?

 

On the black heterodoxy and tribalism.

 

The king of titans holds court(again).

 

On the argument from charm.

 Tour-Cronin Debate: Does Charisma Carry the Day?

Casey Luskin

Yesterday I began a discussion of the Harvard roundtable debate on the origin of life between James Tour and Lee Cronin. Before going further, I should disclose a couple of facts: I consider Jim Tour a friend, and I’m certainly partial to his arguments. But I know that Jim is very passionate. He wears his feelings on his sleeve, and with Jim, what you see is what you get. I don’t think Jim would deny any of this — in fact, I like that about him: he’s a very transparent individual. But sometimes his personality type means that if he feels that he’s on the right side of an important issue, some passion is going to come out. In a world paralyzed by apathy, fuzziness, and fog, I find this refreshing. But his approach brings a rhetorical risk: Jim’s opponents know that our apathetic and fuzzy world fears conflict, so sometimes people try to capitalize on Jim’s passion and misrepresent it as aggression in order to appeal to the “peace, peace…can’t we just have peace?” crowd. 

This dynamic was on full display during the Tour-Cronin roundtable. Sometimes Jim’s critics might have a point that he could reach more people if he toned things down a little. But there’s also a time when people need to be awakened to the fact that something is seriously wrong. If Tour is right, then the OOL community has been dramatically overstating their successes to the public, misleading them into thinking that answers are close at hand. If Tour is right then this point needs to be stated clearly, even if some of the offenders’ feathers get ruffled. 

So was Tour overly aggressive at the roundtable? Having watched and then re-watched the event, I don’t think that was at all the case. Professor Tour kept his cool, never shouted, never raised his voice to inappropriate levels, and, most importantly, was highly focused on the science. Tour was in fact very mild throughout the event and maintained a very cool disposition. 

Cronin’s Charisma Doesn’t Equate to Science

As for Lee Cronin, he has a likeable personality and a cool haircut, and this plays well before an audience of academics — especially those who are allergic to controversy and/or want peace with the establishment. I suspect a lot of Harvard folks fit into that category. Cronin was quick to attempt to address some of the seemingly devastating quotes that Tour had cited from him. 

For example, Cronin jovially compared his 2011 prediction that we’d create life in the lab “within the next two years” to other misguided prophecies that we should already have self-driving cars, and affably admitted that his prediction might have been “a little bit too quick.” Cronin directly addressed Tour’s quotation of a tweet where Cronin had called OOL research “a scam.” Cronin clarified what he meant: “I don’t think origin of life is a scam. That was a joke.” 

Fine. So Cronin admits he overstated how soon we’d recreate the origin of life, and we’re supposed to take his tweet as a joke. We should give people space and grace to clarify their positions and retract statements that they later realized were inaccurate. But don’t miss the hidden assumption in Cronin’s explanation of his inaccurate prediction: most everyone believes that someday we will have self-driving vehicles. So if predicting that we’ll someday “make life in the lab” is like predicting that someday we’ll “build self-driving cars,” then the two predictions falls into the same category of “reasonable things that will likely someday be accomplished.” The hidden assumptions in Cronin’s argument imply that someday we’ll solve the origin of life. 

But remember, Tour offered many reasonable and potent scientific challenges, so we have to ask: Did Cronin adequately address them? The answer is important, and it is this: No, he didn’t. Cronin did not even attempt to address Tour’s challenges. Instead, Cronin adopted a dual rhetorical angle — attack Tour and make the OOL sound reasonable.  

Cronin seemed intent upon using the roundtable not to provide a scientific explanation for the origin of life, but rather to convince people to believe that one day we’ll solve this problem. Amazingly, Cronin sought to inspire this confidence without ever coming remotely close to explaining the science of how it is going to happen. 

It was quite an impressive and bold rhetorical move. Simply put, Cronin didn’t come to explain how the OOL took place; he just came to convince you to believe that someday that problem can be solved. And Cronin’s good-humored personality certainly made the task much easier for him. But if you look past the charisma, it’s clear that Cronin presented virtually no science that suggests the origin of life is actually a solvable problem. 

Jim Tour as Foil

Cronin did not come to talk about the chemistry of how life originated. He came to sound reasonable, and even admitted up front that “I’m not coming here to today to say we’ve solved the problem.” Instead, he hoped that as an OOL theorist appearing in the flesh, he might be able to make the natural chemical origin of life sound reasonable. And he gave it a good try, repeatedly reassuring the audience — without any specifics — that we’re “making progress,” even “fantastic progress.” 

But when you want to look like the good guy, it helps to make someone else into the bad guy. That way, you look all the more reasonable and believable. Thus, Cronin forced Tour into the role of foil, the pessimistic, angry, aggressive, and unfair critic. As the self-identified scientific optimist, Cronin sought to make himself look like the reasonable party.

There was a problem, however. When he scripted out his opening statement, he was obviously banking on the plan that Tour would raise his voice, shout, get angry, and act in a generally aggressive and distasteful manner. Thus, in a very odd move, Cronin repeatedly referenced Tour’s “shouting,” or “rattling” people’s “eardrums,” saying Tour would “shout at me until … hoarse” or “shout at [people] relentlessly to say ‘everyone’s an idiot.’” But none of that happened — Tour may have been passionate but didn’t shout, didn’t rattle anyone’s eardrums, and he certainly didn’t call anyone an idiot. 

Another example: Cronin claimed that Tour called him a “bad chemist.” But this never happened either. Later during the roundtable Cronin claimed Tour was being “overcritical” — like something you might say to your spouse who keeps nagging you about something. I felt this was entirely unfair: Tour is raising reasonable questions and for this he is accused of being too critical? If so, then surely his challenges should be easy to answer. But Cronin had no answers. Instead, Tour focused on the science, and Cronin focused on Tour. Sound familiar? 

Déjà Vu: Repeating the Tour-Farina Debate Dynamic

Lee Cronin is far more pleasant than “Professor Dave,” and this roundtable was far mellower and more civil than the Tour-Farina-debate. Yet key aspects of the rhetorical dynamics were virtually identical:

In the May 2023 OOL debate between Tour and Dave Farina, Tour focused on the science, posing a series of scientific challenges to OOL. Farina explicitly refused to answer those challenges and questions, and instead spent a great deal of time talking about Tour personally — with a vicious series of ad hominem attacks. 

In this November 2023 OOL roundtable between Tour and Cronin, Tour focused on the science, posing a series of serious scientific challenges to OOL. Then, his opponent Cronin explicitly refused to answer Tour’s reasonable challenges and questions, and instead spent a great deal of time talking about Tour personally — not getting nasty but nonetheless attacking Tour by repeatedly trying to paint him as “shouting,” “angry,” “aggressive,” etc. 

Moreover, the outcome of this “roundtable” is almost identical to that of the Tour-Farina debate:

At the close of the Tour-Farina debate, Tour’s reasonable challenges were left completely unanswered, yet Tour’s character had been unfairly slandered. 

At the close Tour-Cronin roundtable, Tour’s reasonable challenges were left completely unanswered, and once again Tour’s character had been unfairly slandered, even if in a friendlier manner. 

Lee Cronin is a very personable individual. No doubt about that. But the critic of the origin of life, Jim Tour, had arguments and challenges that his opponent did not address and therefore apparently could not address. Once again, James Tour carried the day. No doubt about that, either.

JEHOVAH'S People in the twin cities: a brief history

 

Yet more plagiarizing of the original technologist.

 

Yet more on conditional immortality

 

Yet more echoes of the Cambrian explosion?

 Fossil Friday: Update on Cambrian Bryozoans

Gunter Bechly

A few weeks ago, I commented (Bechly 2023) on the abrupt origin of Bryozoa either during the Cambrian Explosion or in the Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event, both of which have been called big bangs of life by mainstream evolutionary biologists. I especially emphasized the back and forth concerning the interpretation of putative bryozoan fossil from the Cambrian period. I mentioned that a new study by Yang et al. (2023a) had recently challenged the bryozoan status of the genus Protomelission from Cambrian limestone in Australia, and instead identified it as a dasyclad green algae.

Now, a new study (Yang et al. 2023b) has been uploaded to the preprint archive bioRxiv. (The lead author only coincidentally shares the same name as that of the lead author of the earlier study.) This new study strongly rejects the determination as dasyclad green algae in favor of an identification as archaeocyath-like sponges, based on the analysis of multiple specimens that show the typical skeletal structures, aquiferous system, and ontogeny. Archaeocyaths, which are “broadly accepted as an extinct class of the phylum Porifera, were the earliest reef-building metazoans in the Phanerozoic” and “reached a biodiversity of over 300 genera and ca. 1500 species before the end of the Cambrian Age 4” (Yang et al. 2023b).

The authors emphasize that “the origin of the bryozoans remains a mystery” but explicitly confirm the reality of the Cambrian Explosion as “the most significant evolutionary event in Earth history in terms of setting up stem- and even crown-groups of almost all major metazoan phyla.” That’s bad news for the science deniers among the hardcore Darwinists and anti-ID activists, who recently have tended more and more simply to deny the Cambrian Explosion as a real event, and instead claim it to be just an artifact of an incomplete fossil record or even a straw man set up by evil creationists. The real experts disagree and fully corroborate the thrust of Stephen Meyer’s point in his book Darwin’s Doubt.

References

Bechly G 2023. Fossil Friday: Cambrian Bryozoa Come and Go. Evolution News November 24, 2023. https://evolutionnews.org/2023/11/fossil-friday-cambrian-bryozoa-come-and-go/

Meyer SC 2013. Darwin’s Doubt. HarperOne, New York (NY), viii+498 pp.

Yang J, Lan T, Zhang X-G & Smith MR 2023a. Protomelission is an early dasyclad alga and not a Cambrian bryozoan. Nature 615(7952), 468–471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05775-5

Yang A, Luo C, Han J, Zhuravlev AY, Reitner J, Sun H, Zeng H, Zhao F & Hu S 2023b. Not dasycladalean alga, but an Odyssey of the earliest Phanerozoic animal reef-builders. BioRxiv December 8, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.07.570709

Earth is not about to turn into venus?

 

Quantum mechanics demystified?

 

The rehabilitation of Newton?

 

Einstein Vs. Einstein?

 

Science enables an intellectually satisfying theism. II

 

The edge of special relativity?

 

The deep state is a thing?

 

Only the beginning?

 

The people vs. Darwin?

 

Atheism fails on its own terms? II

 

Hardware Vs. Software?