You may well have noticed by this point that I haven’t posted in a while. You weren’t warned of this hiatus because it was entirely unplanned – I had originally expected that no-matter what I planned I would wind up posting a few times a week right through exam season. Exams are over now, all 27 hours of them, and I find myself having not posted in a good week and a half. I’m going to retroactively claim this as a good idea, as it certainly was quite helpful.
Now that I’m back I intend to do some minor housekeeping. I’ve rewritten my old about page, consigning my cringe-worthy original to history. I also fully intend to take a step back and see if there aren’t better ways of getting my point across than what at times turn into stream-of-consciousness paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttals. In other words, I’m going to try to do a bit more planning and proof-reading of my posts. The 18-month anniversary of this blog passed during the hiatus, so this is a good a time as any to start making the good writings. We shall see if it actually works or not.
However, the most important change I want to make right now is to get back to actually posting stuff. With that in mind I have another ‘publish’ button to push, right after I do a once-over of what I’ve written…
Throughout history, human beings have had the tendency to reject their Creator, and replace Him in their lives with gods of their own making. From the Greek and Roman pantheons, to the Egyptian sun-god, people would rather worship a god that they create than the God who created them. Such false gods always have the following characteristics. (1) They are attributed one or more characteristics or powers that belong only to the Living God, especially a power over some aspect of nature. (2) They are given allegiance, worship, or reverence above God in at least some way. (3) They are created either physically or conceptually by man. (4) They are not the Living God, the Creator of all things. Continue reading →
I haven’t done anything on yesterday’s DpSU – while it’s certainly wrong, it would take more time for me to go over why exactly that is than I presently have available. Today’s DpSU – The Ingenious Way That Bacteria Resist Aging – presents no such problem. It also counts as biology revision, which is a minor plus.
Here’s the situation: Binary fission in a bacterial cell produces two identical cells. The old, worn out machinery of the original cell is divvied up between the daughter cells. But this presents the problem of ageing – do bacterial cells age?
An additional problem with this is that observations conflict. Some people have reported yes, others no. The study that this DpSU is based on works out a way to explain this by arguing that the older material is biased in going to one cell or the other. That is, one daughter gets a better inheritance than the other. The press release ends like so:
“There must be an active transport system within the bacterial cell that puts the non-genetic damage into one of the daughter cells,” said Chao. “We think evolution drove this asymmetry. If bacteria were symmetrical, there would be no aging. But because you have this asymmetry, one daughter by having more damage has aged, while the other daughter gets a rejuvenated start with less damage.”
On the little slideshow on the main page of the ICR’s website an advertisement for the “50th anniversary edition” of Henry Morris and John Whitcomb’s The Genesis Flood, the book that started off the modern Young Earth Creationist movement. Continue reading →