9.19.2026
9.18.2026
AI Hoax?
I spent 1986 to 2000 working in IT, doing everything from software development and network administration to QA software testing. While I taught myself my first programming languages in high school well before taking formal classes, I don't do much coding these days beyond the occasional HTML and CSS tweak on my blog. The snippet above was actually written by AI—something I asked it to build to streamline a repetitive Excel task.
Sometime in the early 1980s, I made a computer Bulletin Board System (BBS) written in interpreted BASIC with 6502 assembly language subroutines on a Commodore 64. Running on a single phone line with a 1200 baud modem, it offered forums, messages, limited email, and live chat with the SysOp. It didn't enjoy the longevity of other systems at the time, but it was a fun, highly educational programming endeavor.
Because the system ran my own fallible code, a user could easily hit a bug that dumped the software back to the BASIC prompt, leaving the system down until I manually restarted it. To fix this, I wrote an assembly routine that ran on a background interrupt, like a watchdog. It monitored the BBS, automatically rebooting it if it crashed, and also logged the offending code so I could patch it later. In a way, I had created a self-healing loop that kept the system alive despite human error. However, it still required me to address the glitch.
Now imagine Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI) in AI. At machine speed, when an AI routine encounters a barrier in a programmed goal, it won't crash or halt—it will treat the obstacle like a chess board state and test all potential moves in microseconds.
Leveraging combinatorial code generation, the AI instantly spawns and tests hundreds of candidate subroutines in microseconds—it discards failing branches and deploys a workaround on the fly. This achieves an autonomous error recovery far beyond my ancient 6502 routine: instead of merely restarting the program after a failure, an RSI system dynamically rewrites its own underlying architecture so the barrier is bypassed before the system even registers a slowdown.
Why do we keep sprinting toward this ominous AI finish line when even the engineers building it are warning us about the edge of the cliff? It boils down to a classic, high-stakes game theory nightmare known as the Multipolar Trap. No AI lab, tech giant, or nation operates in a vacuum. The moment one player hits pause to play it safe, rival powers simply hit the accelerator. In the brutal arena of global tech dominance, slowing down or stopping isn't viewed as responsible stewardship—it's seen as handing the keys to the future to competitors who might not care about guardrails.
In the immortal words of Socrates: "I drank what?"
9.16.2026
9.15.2026
The Earth Isn't 6,000 Years Old
No.
The Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old, and the evidence is overwhelming. This isn't based on one scientist, one experiment, or some academic consensus that people are expected to accept on faith. It's supported by radiometric dating, geology, paleontology, astronomy, ice cores, and numerous other independent lines of evidence.
Different methods. Different disciplines. The same conclusion.
Our planet is ancient and the rocks don't care about Genesis mythology.
Radioactive elements decay at predictable rates. By measuring radioactive isotopes in rocks and minerals, scientists can determine when geological processes occurred.
The geological record tells the same story. Sedimentary layers, fossils, volcanic formations, mountain ranges, and ancient ocean deposits document a planet shaped by immense spans of time.
We aren't guessing, we're measuring.
The stars create an even bigger problem. The Andromeda Galaxy (M31) is approximately 2.5 million light-years away. Its light has taken roughly 2.5 million years to reach us. Assuming the Milky Way and Andromeda are both roughly 100,000 light-years across, simple geometry lets us estimate Andromeda's distance using its 190 arcminute angular span on the sky. Converting 190 arcminutes to degrees gives 3.17 degrees. Using the small-angle formula, we divide the physical size by the angle to get a calculated distance of roughly 1.81 million light-years. This estimate falls short of the true distance—about 2.5 million light-years—primarily because Andromeda is actually significantly larger than the Milky Way, spanning over 150,000 light-years across, which pushes it farther away to occupy that same patch of our celestial sphere.
So if the universe is only 6,000 years old, how did that light get here?
Magic!
The usual answer is that God created the light already in transit. In other words, God supposedly created a universe containing evidence of events that never actually happened.
The rocks are misleading us.
The fossils are misleading us.
The light is misleading us.
The radioactive isotopes are misleading us.
This is not a scientific explanation. It's an unfalsifiable attempt to protect a predetermined conclusion.
And if a hypothesis can explain absolutely anything, it ultimately explains nothing.
People are free to interpret Genesis symbolically, theologically, or literally. They're also free to believe in God. But the moment someone claims that the Earth is 6,000 years old, they're making an empirical claim—and empirical claims are tested against evidence.
The evidence is clear.
The Earth is ancient. Life has been evolving for billions of years. Dinosaurs existed for more than 160 million years. Humans arrived extraordinarily late in the story. And no amount of biblical literalism changes any of that. What I find particularly frustrating is that young-Earth creationism makes the universe smaller. The actual history of our planet is magnificent. Continents have moved. Oceans have opened and disappeared. Mountains have risen and eroded. Entire ecosystems have evolved and vanished. Species have flourished and gone extinct. After billions of years of this, one species evolved the ability to investigate its own origins.
That's us.
Why would anyone want to replace that extraordinary history with a few thousand years and a collection of increasingly desperate explanations?
It's a strange double standard: the creation is offered as objective evidence for a God, but if your honest examination leads to naturalistic conclusions, the issue shifts from an intellectual disagreement to a spiritual failing.
9.14.2026
Just Birding!
Ruby-throated Hummingbird
Green Heron
Great Blue Heron
Cooper's Hawk
Red-tailed Hawk
Belted Kingfisher
Red-headed Woodpecker
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Downy Woodpecker
Hairy Woodpecker
Northern Flicker
Eastern Wood-Pewee
Eastern Phoebe
Great Crested Flycatcher
Blue-headed Vireo
Red-eyed Vireo
Blue Jay
American Crow
Black-capped Chickadee
Tufted Titmouse
White-breasted Nuthatch
Red-breasted Nuthatch
Blue-gray Gnatcatcher
Northern House Wren
European Starling
Gray Catbird
Gray-cheeked Thrush
Swainson's Thrush
Wood Thrush
American Robin
House Sparrow
House Finch
American Goldfinch
Song Sparrow
Ovenbird
Northern Waterthrush
Golden-winged Warbler
Black-and-white Warbler
Tennessee Warbler
Nashville Warbler
Common Yellowthroat
American Redstart
Northern Parula
Magnolia Warbler
Bay-breasted Warbler
Blackburnian Warbler
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Black-throated Blue Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler
Canada Warbler
Wilson's Warbler
Northern Cardinal
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Indigo Bunting







































































