I've been thinking a lot about my history online lately. It's now been just over 16 years since I first got a computer and subsequently a modem, allowing me access to that mysterious thing we simply called the internet back then. This was shortly before the advent of the web and the first browser, Mosaic. Actually, a bit of research informs me that Mosaic was released on April 22, 1993, and I purchased my first computer in January of that year, and was online by March.

There was a slightly earlier browser apparently, called Erwise, but it was written for Unix and therefore not for the general public. Mosaic was the first browser to display images inline with text. Prior to that the internet was for using arcane things like FTP, Usenet and Gopher. FTP still exists, and there are still newsgroups, but I believe Gopher is long gone. Those were both simpler and more complex times all at once.

To say that the internet changed my life forever is an understatement. I live half a world away from the place of birth because of the internet, and I've formed several deeply meaningful relationships because of it. I've fallen in love with two women because of the internet, and I'm married to the second one. My best male friend would also be a stranger to me if it weren't for going online all those years ago.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I couldn't even begin to list all of the things that have happened to me in the last sixteen years online in this single post, nor would I want to. Much it wouldn't be believed anyway. People are still surprised when they ask my wife and I how we met and we tell them we met online. Not as surprised as they were ten years ago, but we still get raised eyebrows. If only they knew the full story.

The reason that all this is on my mind at the moment is that I've recently decided to put one aspect of my online life behind me. For virtually the entire time I've been on the net I've been involved in discussion groups of one sort and another. Indeed, I've spent enormous amounts of time involved with such, and I've been the owner of a couple of them, but I've decided it's time to move on. This blog takes up quite a bit of time, for one thing, and there are other, personal reasons for closing that chapter in my life.

Suffice it to say that people you get involved with online are often more devious than those you get involved with in 3D land. It's a sad but true fact. Many people use the cover of invisibility to pretend to be someone they are not, and others use it to do things they wouldn't dream of doing to another person face to face. For the longest time I refused to believe that was true. Sadly, I've learned otherwise over the last few years. Still, I've gained a wife and a best friend, so it's been good for me in the long run.

All things considered, the web is a wonderful place. There's a saying that came about when computers were first in common use, garbage in, garbage out, which was a play on the expression first in, first out, and it was later abbreviated to GIGO. It's original meaning was that the output of computers could only be as good as the data that was imputed, but it later came to be a comment on the nature of information available on, and interactions on the web.

It holds quite true in my experience. The trick is to spot the true quality of what's being imputed in the first place. Even for a street-wise old hand at discerning the true nature of others the web can be a minefield. It pays to be cautious and take everything with a grain of salt. Of course that's true for life in general, but even more so on the web. At least in my experience. A word to the wise.

Why do people believe that the most complex designs in the known universe evolved? Teams of our best scientists and their super computers cannot figure out how these wonders work, but we're sure they just happened to arise in a warm little pond somewhere. Somehow the mud created designs that outperform our best military systems. How do we know this to be true? Here is some example reasoning from PZ Myers' blog:

Biologists recognize that the basis of life is chemistry — that we are the product of some wonderfully interesting biochemical reactions. We do not believe in spontaneous generation, but we do know that the boundary between biology and chemistry is very, very fuzzy indeed, and that there was a transition in the history of life where chemical replicators gradually acquired sufficient complexity that they became the basis for life. Again, this is the product of evidence and experiment: we see molecular indicators of the common origin of all life, and that we see even in our own cells the hallmarks of a history with a much simpler origin.

Evidence and experiment? Molecular indicators of the common origin of all life? Such claims are, of course, false. It is not controversial that origin of life research has always been motivated by evolutionary thinking. The impetus for thinking that biology's incredible gizmos come from muddy water comes from evolution, not science. Indeed, the scientific evidence has always been a problem for origin of life research. Even the National Academy of Sciences has admitted that:

Constructing a plausible hypothesis of life’s origins will require that many questions be answered. Scientists who study the origin of life do not yet know which sets of chemicals could have begun replicating themselves.

But Myers' rewrite of both science and history is not uncommon. This is the sort of anti intellectualism to which evolutionary thinking leads. Myers continues:

The evolution of whales is also a matter of fact and evidence. We have the fossils; we can see a pattern of change across geological time, from those hooved terrestrial quadrupeds to flippered ambush predators adapted to living in the shallows to four-flippered, paddle-tailed swimmers to obligate water-dwellers with flukes and no hind limbs, with many stages in between. It is a beautiful and strongly-supported example of macroevolutionary change. So yes, we believe it — you'd have to be blind to ignore the testimony of the rocks.

Blind? How about logical? Myers here confidently proclaims the fact of evolution based on affirming the consequent. But this fallacy is only the beginning. The pattern Myers celebrates is so often contradicted in the rocks that this evolutionary illogic is also guilty of confirmation bias. Beyond these two fallacies, there is the problem there really wasn't a consequent to affirm in the first place. Not surprisingly, since the evidence is so often at variance with the pattern Myers finds so persuasive, evolution has long since dropped such a prediction. Increasing complexity, decreasing complexity, rapid appearance, trees, bushes, diversity explosions, stasis for eons—evolution predicts them all.

This is it folks. This is the kind of evidence and reasoning evolutionary thinking brings to the table. To be sure, earth's history is packed with an incredible menagerie of life forms. For those interested in real facts, that is a real fact. But how they got there is a different question. They may have just evolved there, courtesy of the wind, rain, and natural forces. There are of course mammoth scientific problems with that idea. But it could be true. What we do know about that idea, however, is that it is not a scientific fact. Rather it is an unlikely hypothesis that, amazingly, evolutionists insist must be true. Religion drives science and it matters.